* Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

339 H. Why Is EPA Not ProposingRequesting Additional Comment on Whether to Add a Maximum pH Limit for Wet Scrubbers to Control Mercury Emissions? We requested comment in the July 3, 2001 proposed rule as to whether it is appropriate to establish a limit on maximum pH to control mercury. See 66 FR at 35142 43. We also requestedare requesting additional comment on an alternative option of requiring scrubber liquid oxidation meter to comply with minimum liquid oxidation potential limit. today on this issue given the results of a recent study indicating that increasing the pH of scrubber liquor can increase mercury emissions. 1. What Were the Major Comments on the Discussion in the July 3, 2001 Proposed Rule? One commenter supports placing limits on the maximum pH of wet scrubber liquids for mercury control, but did not provide any additional rationale on the technical validity of the limit. Other commenters oppose the imposition of a maximum pH limit. One commenter wants to see stronger evidence that pH has an impact, and suggests a reproposal is needed. Another suggests that EPA conduct source testing to confirm that pH has an impact. Others suggest that if EPA continues to believe that wet scrubber operating parameter limits are important for mercury control, then the wet scrubber mercury operating parameter limits should be determined on a case by case basis because the relationship between mercury control and wet scrubber pH is not well established and there are numerous other factors whichthat affect mercury control in wet scrubbers, especially for facilities that burn waste with various chemical compositions. We have considered the comments and believe that, at this time, there is not enough evidence to support the requirement for a maximum limit on the pH of wet scrubber liquid for the control of mercury. 2. What Is the Rationale for Considering a Maximum pH Limit to Control Mercury? The use of a low pH liquid scrubber solution has been suggested to be beneficial for mercury control because it helps prevent the re release of captured mercury. Ionic mercury ( Hg+ 2) is highly soluble in wet scrubber liquid; as opposed to Hgo, which has a very low solubility in a typical water/ alkali scrubber solution. Once absorbed, Hg+ 2 can be reduced to Hgo by reducing agentscompounds in the liquid scrubber solution such as SO 2 and H 2 SO 4 HSO 3. Hgo may then be revolatilized back into the stack gas. This is supported by numerous observations of Hgo * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

1 Siret and S. Eagleson, " A New Wet Scrubbing Technology for Control of Elemental ( Metallic) and Ionic Mercury Emissions," 1997 Incineration Conference, pp. 821 824, 1997.

2 G. T. Amrhein, G. Kudlac, D. Madden, " Full Scale Testing of Mercury Control for Wet FGD Systems," Presented at the 27th International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Fl, March 4 7, 2002.

3 C. S. Krivanek, " Mercury Control Technologies for MWCs: The Unanswered Questions," 1993 Air and Waste Management Sponsored Municipal Solid Waste Combustor Specialty Conference, 1993.

4 W. Linak, J. Ryan, B. Ghorishi, and J. Wendt, " Issues Related to Solution Chemistry in Mercury Sampling Impingers," Journal or Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 51, pp. 688 698, May 2001.

5 For example, McDermott Technology ( McDermott Technology, internet wet page at www. mtiresearch. com on " Mercury Emission Results," date unknown) report no impact, while DeVito and Rosenhoover ( M. DeVito and W. Rosenhoover, CONSOL Coal Inc., " Flue Gas Hg Measurements from Coal fired Boilers Equipped with Wet Scrubbers," date unknown) observe that mercury control efficiency appears to increase with increasing pH.

6 J. Chang and S. Ghorishi, " Simulation and Evaluation of Elemental Mercury Concentration Increase in Flue Gas Across a Wet Scrubber," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 37, No. 24, 2003, pp. 5763 5766.

340 at the wet scrubber outlet which are higher than Hgo at the scrubber inlet1,2,3. These studies suggest that the low scrubber liquid pH prevents captured mercury from revolatilizing from the scrubber liquid by: ( 1) limiting the capture of reducing agents such as SO 2; and ( 2) favoring the formation of stable mercury chlorine compounds such as HgCl 2 due to available Cl. In contrast, other studies postulate that a high scrubber liquid pH might actually be beneficial for the control of mercury, particularly elemental Hg4. Basic, high pH solutions have the increased ability to absorb chlorine gas. Dissolved chlorine gas is suggested to enhance the scrubber's ability to oxidize and capture Hgo ( specifically, dissolved chlorine gas dissociates in basic solutions to produce OCl ions which oxidize Hgo to soluble Hg+ 2). WhereasIn contrast, the presence of hydrogen chloride or sulfur as SO 2 or H 2 SO 43 in the scrubber solution reduces the liquid scrubber pH, reduces OCl, and reduces the Hgo oxidative potential of the scrubber liquid. Further, Although limited test data from full scale coal fired boiler evaluations indicate an inconsistent impact of scrubber liquid pH on mercury control. For example, McDermott Technology251 report no impact; while DeVito and Rosenhoover252 observe that mercury control efficiency appears to increase with increasing pH, 5 a recent study6 confirms that ionic mercury ( e. g., HgCl 2) that is initially captured in the scrubber can be reduced in the liquor to elemental Hg * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

341 ( i. e., Ho) and then revolatilized to the stack gas. The study concludes that the reduction of ionic mercury in the liquor is likely due to dissolved sulfur compounds and that decreasing the pH of the liquor will decrease the reduction process and subsequently decrease mercury emissions. This new work is additional evidence that a maximum pH limit might be appropriate, especially if sulfur is present in feeds. Other recent work indicates that there are numerous factors that influence the control of mercury in wet scrubbers. Mercury speciation in the flue gas is vitally important to the ability to control mercury in wet scrubbers. In hazardous waste combustor flue gases, mercury tends to be predominately in two forms: ( 1) elemental ( Hgo); and ( 2) ionic ( Hg+ 2, typically as HgCl 2). Speciation depends on numerous factors including the presence of chlorine or sulfur, both of which are reactive with mercury For example, increased levels of chlorine may increase the amount of HgCl 2 and reduce the amount of Hgo. This might suggest that a minimum chlorine feedrate limit is needed to ensure Hg scrubber efficiency is maintained, which is counter to the maximum chlorine feedrate limit used to control emissions of total chlorine and semivolatile and low volatile metals. Speciation is also affected by the flue gas temperature cooling profile, which can impact mercury reaction kinetics. For example, rapid cooling may limit the equilibrium formation of HgCl 2 ( i. e., super equilibrium levels of Hgo can survive from rapid cooling). This might suggest that a maximum flue gas cooling limit is needed, which is counter to that for controlling dioxin/ furan. Control of mercury in wet scrubbers is also affected by the scrubber liquid chemical composition. As discussed above, scrubber liquid composition has a dramatic impact on the control of mercury. Specifically, the generally negative presence of reducing compounds such as SO 2, NO x, and HCl; as well as positive presence of and HSO 3 can lead to increased mercury emission by reducing soluble HgCl 2 to insoluble Hgo which can be desorbed while oxidative compounds such as chlorine gas, and special oxidation additives such as NaClO 2, acidified KMnO 3, Na 2 S, and TMT ( tri mercapto triazine) would generally help control mercury emissions by inhibiting reduction of HgCl 2 to Hgo and/ or enhancing the capture of Hgo. Finally, control of mercury in wet scrubbers is affected by the scrubber liquid to gas ratio. Given the state of the science asrecent study discussed above, we conclude that there is not enough evidence to support the requirement for indicating that increasing the pH of scrubber liquor can increase mercury emissions, we request additional comment on whether it would be appropriate to establish a limit on the maximum pH of wet scrubber liquid for the control of mercury. Nonetheless, we note thatliquor to ensure compliance with the mercury emission standard. We also request comment on issues relative to establishing and complying with both a maximum limit on pH to control mercury emissions and a minimum limit on pH to control total chlorine. For example, you would establish the maximum and minimum pH limits under separate performance tests. You would establish the minimum pH limit during a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the total chlorine standard while you would establish the maximum pH limit during a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the mercury standard. In addition, we request comment on the anticipated range of pH levels between the maximum and minimum limits and whether the range could potentially be small enough to inhibit operations substantially. For example, if the pH required to achieve your desired scrubber control efficiency * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

7 As discussed below in the text, we propose to revise the current rules to delete the exemption for cement kilns from the bag leak detection system requirements.

8 Please note that § 63.1209( m)( 1)( iv) inadvertently indicates that the requirement to establish site specific operating limits applies to control devices other than ionizing wet scrubbers, baghouses, and electrostatic precipitators. We should have revised that paragraph to require site specific operating parameter limits for those control devices when we revised paragraph ( m)( 1) to delete the operating parameter limits for those devices. The delegated regulatory authority can use § 63.1209( g)( 2) to require you to establish site specific operating parameter limits for those control devices prior to the effective date of the final rule based on today's proposed rule.

342 for total chlorine ( i. e., the minimum pH limit) is just below the pH level required to achieve your desired control efficiency for mercury ( i. e., the maximum pH limit), you may have limited operating flexibility. Finally, we note that, in the interim until we determine whether to promulgate a maximum pH limit to control mercury emissions, site specific or other information may lead the delegated regulatory authority to conclude under § 63.1209( g)( 2) that a limit on the maximum pH of wet scrubber liquid may be warranted to ensure compliance with the mercury emission standard.. I. How Is EPA Proposing to Ensure Performance of Electrostatic Precipitators, Ionizing Wet Scrubbers, and Fabric Filters? If your combustor is equipped with a fabric filter, you would be required to use the bag leak detection system required under § 63.1206( c)( 7)( ii) to ensure performance of the fabric filter is maintained in lieu of operating parameter limits. 7 In addition, we propose to revise the bag leak requirements under § 63.1206( c)( 7)( ii) to require you to operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6 month period. If your combustor is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator or ionizing wet scrubber, we propose to give you the option of: ( 1) using a particulate matter continuous emissions detector for process monitoring to signal when you must take corrective measures to address maintenance or other factors causing relative or absolute mass particulate matter loadings to be higher than the levels achieved during the performance test; or ( 2) establishing site specific operating parameter limits. If you choose to use a continuous emissions detector, you must not exceed the alarm set point you establish based on the performance test more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6 month period. If you choose to establish site specific operating parameter limits, you must link each limit to the automatic waste feed cutoff system. 1. What Is the Background of this Issue? The current regulations require you to establish site specific operating parameter limits to ensure performance of electrostatic precipitators, ionizing wet scrubbers, and fabric filters. See § 63.1209( m)( 1)( iv). 8 Regulatory officials review and approve those operating parameter limits and may require additional or alternative limits under § 63.1209( g)( 2). * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

9 USEPA, " Response to Comments on July 2001 Proposed Rule," March 2004.

10 Periods of time when the combustor is operating but the bag leak detection system is malfunctioning must be considered exceedances of the set point.

343 In the July 3, 2001 proposed rule, we requested comment on how to establish prescriptive requirements to ensure performance of these control devices. See 66 FR at 35143 45. We requested comment on four approaches to ensure performance of electrostatic precipitators: ( 1) requiring an increasing kVA pattern across the electrostatic precipitator; ( 2) limiting kVA on only the back 1/ 3 of fields; ( 3) use of a CMS that measures relative particulate matter loadings; and ( 4) use of predictive emission monitoring systems. These approaches would also be applicable to ionizing wet scrubbers. We also requested comment on whether and how cell pressure drop should be used to ensure performance of fabric filters. We received comments in favor of and opposing most of these approaches. 9 Some stakeholders also recommend other approaches. One commenter favors use of specific power as an operating parameter for electrostatic precipitator performance. Specific power is the secondary power/ gas flow rate. Another commenter suggests continuing with establishing sitespecific operating parameter limits. 2. What Is the Rationale for Proposing to Revise the Compliance Requirements for Fabric Filters? After reviewing comments and further investigation, we conclude that controls in addition to a bag leak detection system are not needed to ensure performance of fabric filters. Use of pressure drop to ensure performance is problematic for reasons we discussed in the July 3, 2001 proposed rule. Moreover, the bag leak detection system provides a direct measure of small ( and greater) increases in particulate matter loading that enable you to take immediate corrective measures. We conclude, however, that the bag leak detection system requirements under § 63.1206( c)( 7)( ii) are not prescriptive enough to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the fabric filter. Current provisions require you to take immediate corrective measures when the bag leak detection system alarm sounds, indicating that particulate loadings exceed the set point. There is no limit on the duration of time, however, that the bag house may be operating under these conditions. To ensure that you take both corrective and proactive measures to minimize the frequency and duration of bag leak detection system alarms, you must operate and maintain the fabric filter to ensure that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6 month period. 10 We note that the Agency also proposed this requirement for boilers and process heaters that do not burn hazardous waste. See 68 FR at 1708 ( January 13, 2003). If you exceed the alarm set point more than 5 percent of the time during a 6 month period, you would be required to notify the delegated regulatory authority within 5 days. In the notification, you must describe the causes of the excessive exceedances and the revisions to the design, operation, or maintenance of the combustor or baghouse you are taking to minimize exceedances. This notification would alert the regulatory authority of the * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

11 Because controlling particulate matter also controls semivolatile and low volatile metals ( and dioxin/ furan if you use activated carbon injection), exceeding the particulate matter loadings achieved during the performance test is also evidence of failure to ensure compliance with the emission standards for those pollutants.

12 Because the proposed bag leak detection requirements are more stringent than the opacity standard, exempting cement kilns from the New Source Performance Standards for particulate matter and opacity under § 60.60 continues to be appropriate. See § § 63.1204( h) and 63.1204A1220( h).

13 USEPA, " Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance," September 1997.

344 excessive exceedances so that they may review and confirm the corrective measures you are undertaking. See proposed § 63.1206( c)( 7)( ii)( C). We also conclude that the current exemption from the bag leak detection system requirements for cement kilns should be eliminated. We did not require bag leak detection systems for cement kilns in the September 1999 Final Rule because cement kilns are subject to an opacity standard and must monitor opacity with a continuous monitor. As a practical matter, however, the opacity levels achieved during the comprehensive performance test will be lower, often substantially lower, than the opacity standard. Thus, absent effective operating parameter limits on the fabric filter based on performance test operations, we cannot ensure that performance is maintained at the level achieved during the performance test ( and that you remain in compliance with the particulate matter and other standards11). Consequently, we propose to require that cement kilns comply with the bag leak detection requirements ( as proposed to be revised) under § 63.1206( c)( 7)( ii). 12 We note that, although triboelctric detectors are generally used as bag leak detectors given their ability to detect very low loadings of particulate matter, cement kilns may use the transmissometers they currently use for opacity monitoring provided that the transmissometer is sensitive enough to detect subtle increases in particulate matter loading over normal ( not performance test) loadings. Finally, we request comment on whether it is practicable to establish the alarm set point for the back leak detection system based on the detector response achieved during the performance test rather than as recommended in the Agency's guidance document. 13 The guidance document recommends that you establish the alarm set point at a level that is twice the detector response achieved during bag cleaning. Although establishing the set point at this level would avoid frequent exceedances due to normal bag cleaning, we are concerned that it may not be low enough to detect gradual degradation in fabric filter performance that, for example, can be caused by pinholes in the bags. Moreover, establishing the set point at a detector response that is twice the response achieved during bag cleaning may not be low enough to require you to take corrective measures if particulate matter loadings increase above the levels achieved during the performance test, and thus at loadings that may indicate an exceedance of the particulate matter emission standard. To avoid alarms caused by bag cleaning cycles, the alarm set point * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

14 Periods of time when the combustor is operating but the bag leak detection system is malfunctioning must be considered exceedances of the set point.

345 would be established as the average detector response of the test run averages during the particulate matter performance test, and would be established as a 6 hour rolling average updated each hour with a one hour block average. This is the time that could be required to conduct three runs of a particulate matter performance test. The one hour block average would be the average of the detector responses over each 15 minute block. 3. What Is the Rationale for Proposing to Revise the Compliance Requirements for Electrostatic Precipitators and Ionizing Wet Scrubbers? We propose a two tiered approach to ensure performance of electrostatic precipitators and ionizing wet scrubbers: ( 1) use of a particulate matter continuous emissions detector for process monitoring to signal when you must take corrective measures to address maintenance or other factors causing relative or absolute mass particulate matter loadings to be higher than the levels achieved during the performance test; or ( 2) use of site specific operating parameter limits. You could choose to comply with either tier. a. How Would Tier I Work? Under Tier I, you would use a particulate matter continuous emissions detector for process monitoring to signal when you must take corrective measures to address maintenance or other factors causing relative or absolute mass particulate matter loadings to be higher than the levels achieved during the performance test. You would establish an alarm set point as the average detector response achieved during the particulate matter emissions performance test. The limit would be applied as a 6 hour rolling average updated each hour with a one hour block average to correspond to the time it could take to conduct three runs of a performance test. The one hour block average would be the average of the detector responses over each 15 minute block. If you exceed the alarm set point, you must immediately take the corrective measures you specify in your operation and maintenance plan to bring the response below the set point. To ensure that you take both corrective and proactive measures to minimize the frequency and duration of exceedances, you would be required to operate and maintain the electrostatic precipitator and ionizing wet scrubber to ensure that the alarm set point is not exceeded more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6 month period. 14 This is consistent with the proposed requirement to limit the period of time that a fabric filter may be operating under conditions of poor performance. If you exceed the alarm set point more than 5 percent of the time during a 6 month period, you would be required to notify the delegated regulatory. This notification would alert the regulatory authority of the excessive exceedances so that they may take corrective measures, such as requiring you to revise the operation and maintenance plan. You may use any detector as a particulate matter continuous monitor provided that the detector response correlates with relative or absolute particulate matter mass emissions and that * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

15 Please note that, for the purpose of process monitoring proposed here, you need not correlate the particulate matter detector to particulate matter emission concentrations.

346 it can detect small changes in particulate matter loadings. 15 You would include in the performance test plan a description of the particulate matter detector you select and information documenting that the detector response correlates with relative or absolute particulate matter loadings and that the detector can detect small changes in particulate matter loadings above the levels anticipated during the comprehensive performance test. For example, if you anticipate to achieve a particulate matter emission level of 0.010 gr/ dscf during the comprehensive performance test, your detector should be able to distinguish between particulate matter loadings of 0.010 gr/ dscf and 0.011 gr/ dscf. b. How Would Tier II Work? Under Tier II, you would comply with site specific operating parameter limits you establish under § 63.1209( m)( 1)( iv). As currently required, the operating limits would be linked to the automatic waste feed cutoff system. Exceedance of an operating limit would be a violation and is evidence of failure to ensure compliance with the particulate matter, semivolatile metal, and low volatile metal emission standards.

IV. Other Proposed Compliance Revisions A. What Is the Proposed Clarification to the Public Notice Requirement for Approved Test Plans? We are proposing in today's notice to add clarifying language to the Section 1207( e)( 2) public notification requirement for approved performance test and CMS performance evaluation test plans. The Agency believes that adequate public involvement is an essential element to the continuing and successful management of hazardous waste. Providing opportunities for timely and adequate public notice is necessary to fully inform nearby communities of a source's plans to initiate important waste management activities. In 1995, we expanded the RCRA public participation requirements for hazardous waste combustion sources to require that the State Director issue a public notice prior to a source conducting a RCRA trial burn emission test. See 60 FR 63417, 40 CFR 270.62( b)( 6) and 40 CFR 270.66( d)( 3). The purpose of this notification requirement was to inform the public of an upcoming trial burn should an individual be interested in reviewing the results of the test. When we promulgated the Phase I hazardous waste combustion NESHAP in 1999, we included a similar requirement in Subpart EEE for the same general purpose. Section 1207( e)( 2) of Subpart EEE requires that sources issue a public notice announcing the approval of site specific performance test plans and CMS performance evaluation test plans and provide the location where the plans will be made available to the public for review. We neglected, however, to include direction regarding how and when sources should notify the public, what the notification should contain, or where and for how long the test plans should be made available. As a result, we are proposing to add clarifying language to the Section 1207( e)( 2) public notification requirement. We are using the RCRA trial burn notification requirements as a foundation for the proposed clarifications. 1. How Should Sources Notify the Public? * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

347 The source must make a reasonable effort to provide adequate notification of the approval of their site specific performance test and CMS performance evaluation test plans. Because this notification is intended for informational purposes only, we are proposing that sources use their facility/ public mailing list. We expect that by the time a source receives approval of its Subpart EEE test plans, a facility/ public mailing list already would have been developed in response to the source's RCRA and CAA permitting activities. As such, we are proposing that sources use the facility/ public mailing list developed under 40 CFR § § 70.7( h)( 1), 71.11( d)( 3)( i)( E) and 124.10( c)( 1)( ix), for purposes of this notification. Sources may voluntarily choose to use other mechanisms in addition to a distribution to the facility/ public mailing list, if previous experience has shown that such additional mechanisms are necessary to reach all interested segments of the community. For example, sources may consider using press releases, advertisements, visible signs, and outreach to local community, professional, and interest groups in addition to the required distribution to the facility/ public mailing list. 2. When Should Sources Notify the Public of Approved Test Plans? The existing regulations require that sources issue a public notice after the Administrator has approved the site specific performance test and CMS performance evaluation test plans. It is important to remember that the purpose of this notification is similar to that required under RCRA for trial burn tests. See 60 FR 63417, 40 CFR 270.62( b)( 6) and 40 CFR 270.66( d)( 3). The notification is intended to provide information to the public regarding the upcoming performance test. It is not intended to solicit comment on the performance test plan. We considered proposing that the notification occur within 30 days of the source's receipt of test plan approval. However, we chose not to proceed with this option because we were concerned that the notification would not be as meaningful to the public if too much time elapses between the test plan approval notification and the actual initiation of the performance test. In order to provide the public with adequate notice of the upcoming test and a reasonable period of time to review the approved plans prior to the test, we are proposing that the source issue its notice after test plan approval, but no later than 60 days prior to conducting the test. We believe that this also will allow the source sufficient time to prepare its public notice and corresponds to the 40 CFR 63.1207( e)( 1)( i)( B) requirement for a source to notify the Administrator of its intention to initiate the test. 3. What Should the Notification Include? Similar to the public involvement requirements for RCRA trial burn tests, we are proposing that the notification contain the following information: ( 3) The name and telephone number of the source's contact person; ( 4) The name and telephone number of the regulatory agency's contact person; ( 5) The location where the approved performance test and CMS performance evaluation test plans and any necessary supporting documentation can be reviewed and copied; ( 6) The time period for which the test plans will be available for public review, and; ( 7) An expected time period for commencement and completion of the performance test and CMS performance evaluation test. 4. Where Should the Plans Be Made Available and for How Long? * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

16 It should be noted that the petition for waiver of a performance test applies to both the initial test and all subsequent tests. See 40 CFR Section 1207( e)( 3).

348 The site specific performance test and CMS performance evaluation test plans must be made available at an unrestricted location which is accessible to the public during reasonable hours and provides a means for the public to obtain copies of the plans if needed. To provide for adequate time for the public to review the test plans, we are proposing that the plans be made available for a total of 60 days, beginning on the date that the source issues its public notice. B. What Is the Proposed Clarification to the Public Notice Requirement for the Petition to Waive a Performance Test? Sources that petition the Administrator for an extension of time to conduct a performance test ( in other words, obtain a performance test waiver), are required under Section 1207( e)( 3)( iv) to notify the public of their petition. Although the regulatory language does provide some direction regarding how the source may notify the public ( e. g., using a public mailing list), it does not provide any direction regarding when this notice must be issued or what it must contain. As a result, we are proposing in today's notice to add clarifying language to the Section 1207( e)( 3)( iv) public notice requirement. 1. When Should Sources Notify the Public of a Petition to Waive a Performance Test? We are proposing that a source notify the public of a petition to waive a performance test at the same time that the source submits its petition to the Administrator. Although not explicitly stated in Section 1207( e)( 3)( iv), this was our original intent. In the July 3, 2001 preamble to the Subpart EEE proposed technical amendments, we provided a time line of the waiver petitioning process for an initial Comprehensive Performance Test. 16 In that time line, we indicated that the submittal of the petition and the public notification should occur at the same time. 2. What Should the Notification Include? The notification of a petition to waive a performance test is an informational notification. As such, we are proposing that it include the same level of information as that provided by a source for the notification of an approved test plan: ( 5) The name and telephone number of the source's contact person; ( 6) The name and telephone number of the regulatory agency's contact person; ( 7) The date the source submitted its site specific performance test plan and CMS performance evaluation test plans; and ( 8) The length of time requested for the waiver.

Part Four: Impacts of the Proposed Rule I. What Are the Air Impacts? Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble shows the emissions reductions achieved by the proposed rule for all existing hazardous waste combustor sources. For Phase I sources   incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns   the emission reductions represent the difference * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

17 We are, however, proposing to establish alternative risk based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112( d)( 4), which could be elected by the source in lieu of the MACT emission standards for total chlorine. The emission limits would be based on national exposure standards that ensure protection of public health with an ample margin of safety. See Part Two, Section XIII for additional details. If we were to adopt alternative risk based standards, then the national annual emissions reductions for total chlorine are overstated.

349 in emissions between sources controlled to the proposed standards and estimated emissions when complying with the interim MACT standards promulgated on February 13, 2002. For Phase II sources   industrial/ commercial/ institutional boilers and process heaters and hydrochloric acid production facilities   the reductions represent the difference in emissions between the proposed standards and the current baseline of control provided by 40 CFR part 266, subpart H. Nationwide baseline HAP emissions from hazardous waste combustors are estimated to be over approximately 13,000 tons per year at the current level of control. Today's proposed standards would reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants and particulate matter by over approximately 43,300 tons per year. Nationwide emissions of dioxin/ furans from all hazardous waste combustors will be reduced by 4.7 grams TEQ per year. Emissions of HAP metals from all hazardous waste combustors will be reduced by 23 tons per year, including one ton per year of mercury. We estimate that particulate matter itself, a surrogate for HAP metals will be reduced by 2over 1,200700 tons per year. Finally, emissions of hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas from all hazardous waste combustors will reduced by nearly 1,500 tons and over 1,700100 tons per year, respectfully. 17 A discussion of the emission estimates methodology and results is presented in " Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs" ( Chapter 3) in the docket for today's proposal.

Table 1: Nationwide Annual Emissions Reductions of HAPs and Other Pollutants from Phase I Sources CategoryPollutant Baseline Emissions ( tons per year) 1Estimated Emission Reductions ( tons per year) 1 IncineratorsDioxin/ furans 0.3 Mercury 0.93 Cadmium 0.50 Lead 3.30 Arsenic 1.627 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

350 Beryllium 0.31 Chromium HAP metals6.38.97 Antimony 1.18 Cobalt 0.42 Nickel 1.57 Selenium 0.28 Manganese 4.50 Hydrogen Chloride 1470 Chlorine Gas 107 Particulate mMatter 1070HCl/ Cl 2 296283Organic HAPs280Cement KilnsDioxin/ furans4.50HAP metals7.91.5Particulate matter86543HCl/ Cl 2 1,84562Organic HAPs5890Lightweight Aggregate KilnsDioxin/ furans2.11.9HAP metals2.50.02Particulate matter220HCl/ Cl 2 406268Organic HAPs3.201 Dioxin/ furan emissions reductions and reductions expressed as grams TEQ.

Table 2: Nationwide Annual Emissions of HAPs and Other Pollutants from Phase II Sources CategoryPollutantBaseline Emissions ( tons per year) 1Emission Reductions ( tons per year) 1Solid Fuel Fired BoilersDioxin/ furans0.90HAP metals13.96.8Particulate matter887437HCl/ Cl 2 1,9271727 1,172Organic HAPs6.30Liquid Fuel Fired BoilersDioxin/ furans1.10.2HAP metals27.714.5Particulate matter2,5011,247HCl/ Cl 2 3,289641Organic HAPs250Hydrochloric Acid Production FurnacesDioxin/ furans2.62.3HAP metals0.540Particulate matter400HCl/ Cl 2 149141Organic HAPs0.901 Dioxin/ furan emissions reductions and reductions expressed as grams TEQ.

II. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts? We estimate that water usage would increase by nearly 54.8 billion gallons per year if the * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

18 For purposes of this discussion, a source is defined as athe air pollution control system associated with the hazardous waste combustion unit( s) that operates with a single air pollution control system. A source may contain one or more than one combustion units, and a facility may operate one or more sources.

351 proposed MACT standards were adopted. In addition to the increased water usage, an additional 4.6 billion gallons per year of wastewater would be produced. We estimate the additional solid waste that would need to be treated as a result of the proposed standards to be 5210,000400 tons per year. The costs associated with these hazardous waste treatment/ disposal and water requirements are accounted for in the national annualized compliance cost estimates. A discussion of the methodology used to estimate impacts is presented in " Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs" ( Chapters 4 and 5) that is available in the docket.

III. What Are the Energy Impacts? We estimate an increase of approximately 16033 million kilowatt hours ( kWh) in national annual energy usage as a result of the proposed standards. The increase results from the electricity required to operate air pollution control devices installed to meet the proposed standards, such as baghouses and wet scrubbers.

IV. What are the Control Costs?

Note to Reader: As a result of recent changes to the particulate matter emission standard, efforts to update compliance cost, social cost, economic impacts, and monetized benefits are currently under way. The revised figures are not yet available and are expected to be slightly lower than those presented in Sections IV, VI, and VIII of this Part.

Control costs, as presented in this section, refer only to all engineering and related requirements associated with meeting the proposed MACT replacement standards. Control costs represent engineering and Operating & Maintenance ( O& M) engineering, operation, and maintenance costs associated with unit/ system upgrades necessary to meet the proposed replacement standards. These costs do not incorporate any market based adjustments. All costs presented in this section are annualized estimates We estimate there are a total of 276 sources18 that may be subject to requirements of the proposed rule. Liquid and solid fuel boilers represent approximately 43 percent of this total, followed by on site incinerators at 33 percent, and cement and lightweight aggregate kilns at 12 percent. Commercial incinerators and hydrochloric acid production furnaces make up the remaining 12 percent of the total. Total national engineering costs for the proposed standards are estimated to range from . The low end of this range reflects total upgrade * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

19 We are proposing using section § 112( d)( 4) of the Clean Air Act to establish riskbased standards for total chlorine for hazardous waste combustors ( except for hydrochloric acid production furnaces). The low end of this cost range assumes all facilities emit total chlorine levels below risk based levels of concern. Under this scenario, no total chlorine controls are assumed to necessary.

352 costs excluding controls to meet the total chlorine standard. 19 All Phase II sources combined represent about , reflecting aggregate costs with or without chlorine controlsdepending upon § 112( d)( 4) scenario. The average cost per source is expected to be highest for lightweight aggregate kilns and solid fuel boilers ( non process), ranging from . Average liquid fuel boiler costs range from $ 378,000 to $ 419,000 per system. Hydrochloric acid production furnaces were found to have average system costs of about $ 188$ 200,000 under both section 112( d)( 4) scenarios. On site incinerators, process heater boilers, and commercial incinerators were found to generally have the lowest average cost ranges. Average annualized engineering costs for on site incinerators are estimated to range from $ 32,000$ 16,300 to $ 153$ 139,000 per source, average per source costs for process heaters ranged from $ 149,000 to $ 174,000, and average annualizedwhile average annual per source engineering costs for commercial incinerators are estimated to range from $ 86$ 67,000 to $ 26047,000 per source. For all Phase I sources ( 140 sources; commercial incinerators, on site incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns), average annualized engineering costs are estimated to range from . The combined Phase II sources ( 136 sources; solid and liquid fuel fired boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces) had average annualized engineering costs ranging from $ 33241,000 to Across all source categoriessectors covered by today's proposal ( Phase I and Phase II sources), average annualized costs were found to range from $ 21609,000 to Engineering compliance ( control) costs arehave also been assessed on a per ton of waste burned basis. Captive energy recovery sources ( includes solid and liquid fuel fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces), 136 sources) burning a total of 1,001,500 tons of hazardous waste per year, are projected to experience the highest average per unit engineeringincremental costs, ranging from $ 456 to . Commercial energy recovery ( cement and lightweight aggregate kilns) sources are estimated to have averagesources ( cement kilns and LWAKs), burning approximately 1,093,800 tons per year, may see incremental control costs ranging from $ 9$ 7.50 to $ 11$ 8.50 per ton. Captive ( on site) and commercial incinerators burn an estimated 1,010,600 tons and 452,200 tons per year, respectively. These sources are projectedestimated to experience average per unitincremental engineering costs ranging from approximately $ 3 to $ 14, and $ 3 to $ 9 per ton, respectively. $ 1.50 to $ 12.70 per ton for captive and $ 2.20 to $ 8.20 per ton for commercial sources. The aggregate control costs presented in this section do not reflect the anticipated real world cost burden on the economy. Any market disruption, such as the implementation of hazardous waste MACT or risk based standards will cause a short tem disequilibrium in the * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

353 hazardous waste burning market. Following the implementation of the replacement standards, market adjustments will occur in a natural economic process designed to reach a new market equilibrium. Actual cost impacts to society are more accurately measured in response to allby taking into account market adjustments. These costs are commonly termed as Social Costs, and are generally less than total engineering costs due to cost efficiencies implemented during the market adjustment process. Social Costs theoretically represent the total real world costs of all goods and services society must give up in order to gain the added protection to human health and the environment. Social Costs are presented in Part VIII of this Section.

V. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner? Section 1( b)( 3) of Executive Order 12866 instructs Executive Branch Agencies to consider and assess available alternatives to direct regulation prior to making a determination for regulation. This regulatory determination assessment should be considered, " to the extent permitted by law, and where applicable." The ultimate purpose of the regulatory determination assessment is to ensure that the most efficient tool, regulation, or other type of action is applied in meeting the targeted objective( s). Requirements for MACT standards under the Clean Air Act, as mandated by Congress, have compelled us to select today's regulatory approach. Furthermore, we are under legal obligation to meet the targeted objectives of today's proposal through a regulatory action. As a result, alternatives to direct regulatory action were not evaluated. In addition to the statutory and legal mandates necessitating today's proposed rulemaking, we believe that federal regulation is the most efficient approach for helping to correct market failures leading to the negative environmental externalities resulting from the combustion of hazardous waste. The complex nature of the pollutants, waste feeds, waste generators, and the diverse nature of the combustion market would limit the effectiveness of a non regulatory approach such as taxes, fees, or an educational outreach program. The hazardous waste combustion industry operates in a dynamic market. Several combustion facilities and systems have closed or consolidated over the past several years and this trend is likely to continue. These closures and consolidations may lead to reduced air pollution, in the aggregate, from hazardous waste facilities. However, the ongoing demand for hazardous waste combustion services will ultimately result in a steady equilibrium as the market adjusts over the long term. We therefore expect that air pollution problems from these facilities, and the corresponding threats to human health and ecological receptors, will continue if a regulatory action was not implemented. TWe believe that the market has generally failed to correct the air pollution problems resulting from the combustion of hazardous wastes for several reasons. First, there exists no natural market incentive for hazardous waste combustion facilities to incur additional costs implementing control measures. This occurs because the individuals and entities who bear the negative human health and ecological impacts associated with these actions have no direct control over waste burning decisions. This environmental externality occurs because the private industry costs of combustion do not fully reflect the human health and environmental costs of hazardous waste combustion. Second, the parties injured by the combusted pollutants are not * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

20 Some economists consider this a failure of full and proper enforcement of property rights.

21 Including our proposal to apply section 112( d)( 4) to establish risk based standards for total chlorine for all sources, except hydrochloric acid production furnaces.

354 likely to have the resources or technological expertise to seek compensation from the damaging entity ( combustion source) through legal or other means. 20 Finally, emissions from hazardous waste combustion facilities directly affect a " public good," the air. Improved air quality benefits human health and the environment. The absence of government intervention, therefore, will perpetuate a market that fails to fully internalize key negative externalities, resulting in a suboptimal quantity and quality of public goods, such as air. We have assessed several regulatory options designed to mitigate the unacceptable levels of risk to human health and the environment resulting from the combustion of hazardous waste in the targeted units. We believe, based on available data, that our preferred regulatory approach21, as presented in today's proposed rule, is the most cost efficient method for reducing the level of several hazardous air pollutants. These include: dioxin and furan, mercury, semivolatile and low volatile metals, and total chlorine emissions ( i. e., hydrogen chloride and chlorine). Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter will also be reduced. We evaluated seven alternative methodologies in the development of today's proposed approach. These were: system removal efficiency plus feed control, straight emission based, modified emission based, exclusive technology approach, simultaneous achievability, using the CAA section 112( d)( 4) to establish risk based standards for total chlorine, and beyond the floor. Numerous different combinations of these methodologies were assessed. Selection of the Agency preferred approach was based, in part on methodological clarity, implementation simplicity, cost and economic impacts, stakeholder input, and necessary protectiveness to human health and the environment.

VI. What are the Economic Impacts?

Note to Reader: As a result of recent changes to the particulate matter emission standard, efforts to update compliance cost, social cost, economic impacts, and monetized benefits are currently under way. The revised figures are not yet available and are expected to be slightly lower than those presented in Sections IV, VI, and VIII of this Part.

Various market adjustments ( i. e., economic impacts) are expected in response to the changes in hazardous waste combustion costs anticipated as a result of the replacement standards, as proposed. Economic impacts may be measured through several factors. This section presents estimated economic impacts relative to market exits, waste reallocations, and employment impacts. Economic impacts presented in this section are distinct from social costs, * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

22 Even though we are proposing to allow sources ( except hydrochloric acid production furnaces) to invoke § 112( d)( 4) in lieu of MACT chlorine control requirements, we have not attempted to estimate the following: 1) the total number of sources that may elect to implement this provision, and, 2) what level of control may be necessary following a § 112( d)( 4) risk based determination, since this would vary on a site by site basis.

23 This analysis includes the cost of waste transport to alternative combustion sources, burning fees, and purchase of alternative fuels ( if appropriate).

355 which correspond only to the estimated monetary value of market disturbances. A. Market Exit Estimates The hazardous waste combustion industry operates in a dynamic market, with systems entering and exiting the market on a routine basis. Our analysis defines " market exit" as ceasing to burn hazardous waste. We have projected post rule hazardous waste combustion system market exits based on economic feasibility only. Market exit estimates are derived from a breakeven analysis designed to determine system viability. This analysis is subject to several assumptions, including: engineering cost data on the baseline costs of waste burning, cost estimates for pollution control devices, prices for combustion services, and assumptions about the waste quantities burned at these facilities. It is important to note that, for most sectors, exiting the hazardous waste combustion market is not equivalent to closing a plant. ( Actual plant closure would only be expected in the case of an exit from the hazardous waste combustion market of a commercial incinerator closing all its systems.) Under the Agency's proposed approach, we estimate there may be anywhere from 531 to 6058 systems ( sources) that stop burning hazardous waste. This represents anywhere from 198 percent to 221 percent of the total number of systems affected by the rule. The range is based on the inclusion or exclusion of total chlorine controls22. At the high end of this range, onsite incinerators represent about 575 percent of the total number of market exits. Liquid and solid fuel boilers ( includes three to four process heaters) account for the remaining sources projected to exit the market. No41 percent, and commercial incinerators, account for the remaining. No cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, or hydrochloric acid production furnaces are projected to exit the market as a result of the rule. Market exits are estimated to change only slightly under the alternative regulatory options. B. Quantity of Waste Reallocated CSome combustion systems ( sources) that, in response to rule requirements, aremay no longer be able to cover their hazardous waste burning costs as a result of rule requirements, as proposed. These sources are projectedexpected to divert or reroute theseir wastes to alternative combustion sourcesburners23. For multiple system facilities, this diversion may include on site ( non commercial) waste consolidation among fewer systems at the same facility. A certain portion of this waste may also be reallocated to waste management alternatives ( e. g., solvent reclamation). Combustion, however, is likely to remain the lowest cost option. Thus, we expect that the vast majority of reallocated waste will continue to be managed at combustion facilities. * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

356 Our economic model indicates that, in response to today's rule, approximately 95,00087,500 to 132120,000 U. S. 900 tons of hazardous waste may be reallocated, representing up to 3.74 percent of the total 1999 estimated quantity of hazardous waste burned at all sources. This estimate includes on site consolidations and off site diversions. Off site diversions alone represent no more than 1.85 percent of the total waste burned. About 5056 percent to 605 percent of the total reallocated waste quantity wouldis expected to be consolidated among fewer systems at the same non commercial facility. Commercial incinerators and commercial energy recovery ( cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns) facilities are projected to receive all hazardous waste that is rerouted off site. Onsite incinerators and boilers are the primary source of all off site diverted waste. AssumingBased on the high estimate for total waste reallocated ( 132120,000900 tons), commercial incinerators and cement kilns are projected to receive 4237 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The remainder, as mentioned above, is projected to be consolidated on site. Currently, there is more than adequate capacity to accommodate all off site waste diversions. C. Employment Impacts Today's rule is likely to cause employment shifts across all of the hazardous waste combustion sectors. These shifts willmay occur as specific combustion facilities find it no longer economically feasible to keep all of their systems running, or to stay in the hazardous waste market at all. When this occurs, workers at these locations may lose their jobs or experience forced relocations. At the same time, the rule may result in employment gains, as new purchases of pollution control equipment stimulate additional hiring in the pollution control manufacturing sector, and as additional staff are required at selected combustion facilities to accommodate reallocated waste and/ or various compliance activities. 1. Employment Impacts  Dislocations ( losses) Primary employment dislocations ( losses) in the combustion industry are likely to occur when combustion systems consolidate the waste they are burning into fewer systems or when a facility exits the hazardous waste combustion market altogether. Operation and maintenance labor hours are expected to be reduced for each system that stops burning hazardous waste. For each facility that completely exits the market, employment losses will likely also include supervisory and administrative labor. Total incremental employment dislocations potentially resulting from the proposed replacement standards are estimated to range from 32408 to 403387 full time equivalent ( FTE) jobs. Depending upon the scenario, on site incinerators and boilers are responsible for anywhere from about 885 to 100 percent all potential job dislocations. Their significant share of the losses is a function of both the large number of systems affected, and the number of expected exits within these sectors. 2. Employment Impacts  Gains In addition to employment dislocations, today's rule is also expected to result in job gains. These gains are projected to occur to both the air pollution control industry and to combustion firms as they hire personnel to accommodate reallocated waste and/ or comply with the various requirements of the rule. Hazardous waste combustion sources are projected to need additional operation and maintenance personnel for the new pollution control equipment and * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

24 Manufacturers and distributers of air pollution control devices are expected to increase sales as a result of this action.

25 See " Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Support to the Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Document," July 1999.

26 It should be noted that the avoided incidence estimates were based entirely on the incremental decrease in ambient air concentrations associated with emission controls on the 357 other compliance activities, such as new reporting and record keeping requirements. The total annual employment gains associated with the proposed standards are estimated to range from Job gains to the air pollution control industry24 represent about 331 percent of this total. Among all combustors, boilers are projected to experience the greatest number of job gains, followed by cement and lightweight aggregate kilns. Job gains in these sectors alone represent about 585 percent to 641 percent of total projected gains, depending upon regulatory scenario. While it may appear that this analysis suggests overall net job creation, such a conclusion would be inappropriate. Because the gains and losses occur in different sectors of the economy, they should not be added together. Doing so would mask important distributional effects of the rule. In addition, the employment gain estimates reflect within sector impacts only and therefore do not account for potential job displacement across sectors. This may occur if investment funds are diverted from other areas of the larger economy.

VII. What Are the Benefits of Reductions in Particulate Matter Emissions? For the 1999 rule, we estimated the avoided incidence of mortality and morbidity associated with reductions in particulate matter ( PM) emissions. 25 Estimates of cases of mortality and morbidity avoided were made for children and the elderly, as well as the general population, using concentration response functions derived from human epidemiological studies. Morbidity effects included respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses requiring hospitalization, as well as other illnesses not requiring hospitalization, such as acute and chronic bronchitis and acute upper and lower respiratory symptoms. Decreases in particulate matter related minor restricted activity days ( MRADs) and work loss days ( WLDs) were also estimated. Rates of avoided incidence, work days lost, and days of restricted activity were estimated for each of 16 sectors surrounding a facility using the concentration response functions and sector specific estimates of the corresponding population and model derived ambient air concentration, either annual mean PM 10 or PM 2.5 concentrations or distributions of daily PM 10 or PM 2.5 concentrations, depending on the concentration response function. The sectors were defined by 4 concentric rings out to a distance of 20 kilometers ( about 12 miles), each of which was divided into 4 quadrants. The sector specific rates were weighted by facility specific sampling weights and then summed to give the total incidence rates for a given source category. 26 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

hazardous waste sources subject to the 1999 rule. Background levels of particulate matter were assumed to be sufficiently high to exceed any possible threshold of effect but ambient background levels of particulate matter were not otherwise considered in the analysis.

27 U. S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of The Final Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP: Final Report, February 2004.

28 U. S. EPA, Benefits of the Proposed Inter State Air Quality Rule, January 2004.

29 Research Triangle Institute, Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Support to The Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Document, prepared for U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999.

30Pope, C. A., III, M. J. Thun, M. M. Namboodiri, D. W. Dockery, J. S. Evans, F. E. Speizer, and C. W. Heath, Jr. 1995. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U. S. adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine151: 669 674, as cited in Research Triangle Institute, op. cit.

31 Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldbert MS, Hoover K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M, Abrahamowicz M, White WH. 2000. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Special Report to the Health Effects Institute, Cambridge MA, July 2000.

358 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

32 To account for the increase in population since the 1990 census was taken, for the Phase I sources we also adjusted the avoided incidence estimates by the ratio of the population at the national level ( corresponding to the concentration response function) for the year 2000 census vs. the 1990 census. For Phase II source, we used the year 2000 census to develop source category specific population estimates for use in the extrapolations.

359 For the current proposal, we took the avoided incidence estimates from the September 1999 final rule and adjusted them to reflect the particulate matter emission reductions projected to occur under the proposed standards and the reduction in the numbers of facilities burning hazardous wastes since the analysis for the final rule was completed. For cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators, the estimates were made by adjusting the respective estimates at the source category level by the ratio of emission reductions ( for today's proposed rule vs. the 1999 final rule) and the ratio of the number of facilities affected by the rules ( facilities currently burning hazardous wastes vs. facilities burning hazardous wastes in the analysis for the September 1999 final rule). 32 For liquid and solid fuel fired boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces, we extrapolated the avoided incidence from the incinerator source category using a similar approach except that the ratios of the exposed populations were used ( corresponding to the concentration response functions from the 1999 analysis), instead of the number of facilities. We estimated the exposed populations for hazardous waste burning boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces using the same GIS methods as the September 1999 final rule ( i. e., a 16 sector overlay). Nonetheless, the extrapolated estimates are subject to some uncertainty. The estimates of avoided incidence of mortality and morbidity are shown in Table 3. The estimates of days of restricted activity and days of work lost are shown in Table 4.

Table 3: PM Related Avoided Incidence of Mortality and Morbidity ( cases per year)

Hospital Admissions Respiratory Illnesses Source Category Mortality Respiratory Illness Cardiovascular Disease Chronic Bronchitis Acute Bronchitis Lower Respiratory Symptoms Upper Respiratory Symptoms Cement Kilns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Lightweight Aggregate Kilns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

Table 3: PM Related Avoided Incidence of Mortality and Morbidity ( cases per year)

Hospital Admissions Respiratory Illnesses Source Category Mortality Respiratory Illness Cardiovascular Disease Chronic Bronchitis Acute Bronchitis Lower Respiratory Symptoms Upper Respiratory Symptoms 360 Incinerators 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solid Fuel Boilers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 HCl Production Furnaces 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquid Fuel Boilers 0.3 0.9 0.4 5.5 4.2 37.2 4.3 Total 0.3 0.9 0.4 5.6 4.3 38.0 4.4 Table 4: PM Related Restricted Activity and Work Loss Days ( days per year)

Source Category Minor Restricted Activity Days Restricted Activity Days Work Loss Days Cement Kilns 3.1 1.0 0.4 Lightweight Aggregate Kilns 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incinerators 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers 59.0 19.4 7.1 HCl Production Furnaces 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquid Fuel Fired Boilers 3692.2 1215.9 443.2 Total 3754.4 1236.4 450.7 We also conducted an analysis of key factors that influence the PM related health benefits by statistically comparing attributes of the sources subject to today's proposed rule versus the sources subject to the 1999 rule. The greater the similarities between the sources covered by * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

33 See " Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors," prepared under contract to EPA by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.

361 today's proposal and the sources subject to the 1999 rule, the more confidence we have in the extrapolated incidence estimates. The more the dissimilarities, the greater is the uncertainty in the estimates. The comparative analysis is discussed in a separate background document for today's rule. 33 VIII. What are the Social Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule?

Note to Reader: As a result of recent changes to the particulate matter emission standard, efforts to update compliance cost, social cost, economic impacts, and monetized benefits are currently under way. The revised figures are not yet available and are expected to be slightly lower than those presented in Sections IV, VI, and VIII of this Part.

The value of any regulatory action is traditionally measured by the net change in social welfare that it generates. Our economic assessment for today's rule evaluates compliance costs, social costs, benefits, economic impacts, selected other impacts ( e. g., children's health, unfunded mandates), and small entity impacts. To conduct this analysis, we examined the current combustion market and practices, developed and implemented a methodology for examining compliance and social costs, applied an economic model to analyze industry economic impacts ( results discussed above), examined benefits, and followed appropriate guidelines and procedures for examining equity considerations, children's health, and other impacts. The data we used in this analysis were the most recently available at the time of the analysis. Because our data were limited, the findings from these analyses are more accurately viewed as national estimates. A. Combustion Market Overview The hazardous waste industry consists of three key segments: hazardous waste generators, fuel blenders and intermediariesblenders/ intermediaries, and hazardous waste burners. Hazardous waste is combusted at four main types of facilities: commercial incinerators, on site incinerators, waste burning kilns ( cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns), and industrial boilers. Commercial incinerators are generally larger in size and designed to manage virtually all types of solids, as well as liquid wastes. On site incinerators are more often designed as liquid injection systems that handle liquids and pumpable solids. Waste burning kilns and boilers generally burn hazardous wastes to generate heat and power for their manufacturing processes. As discussed above, we have identified a total of 276 sources ( systems) permitted to burn hazardous waste in the United States. Liquid fuel fired boilers account for 107 sources, followed by on site incinerators at 92 sources. Cement kilns, hydrochloric acid production furnaces, and commercial incinerators account for 26, 17, and 15 sources, respectively. Solid * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

34 Many cement kilns are also able to burn a certain level of solid waste.

362 fuel fired boilers and lightweight aggregate kilns make up the remaining, at 12 and seven systems, respectively. ThereThese 276 sources are operated by a total of 150 separatedifferent facilities potentially affected by the proposed action. On site incinerators account for 69 facilities, or 46 percent of this total, followed by all boiler facilities at 45 percent ( 67 facilities). There are 14 cement kilns, 10 commercial incineration facilities and three lightweight aggregate kilns. A single facility may have one or more combustion systems. Facilities with multiple systems may have the same or different types. Thus, the numbers presented above will not sum to 150 facilities. The number of sources per facility in the combustion universe ranges from one to 12. On average, boilers, hydrochloric acid production furnaces, and lightweight aggregate kilns, with an average of 2.0 sources per facility, contain more waste burning combustion systems per facility than do incinerators and cement kilns, with an average of 1.4 sources per facility. On site incinerators, with 1.3 sources per facility, have the lowest average among all types of combustion devices in the universe. Combustion systems operating at chemical and allied product facilities represent 72 percent ( 199 sources) of the total number of hazardous waste burning systems. Stone, clay, and glass production accounts for 12 percent ( 34 sources), followed by electric, gas, and sanitation services at 8 percent ( 22 sources). The EPA Biennial Reporting System ( BRS) reports a total demand for all combusted hazardous waste, across all facilities, at 3.56 million tons ( U. S. ton) in 1999. Commercial energy recovery ( cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns) burned about 31 percent of this total, followed by on site incinerators at just over 28 percent, captive energy recovery ( all boilers) at 28 percent, and commercial incineration at nearly 13 percent. About 62 percent of all waste burned in 1999 was organic liquids. This is followed by inorganic liquids ( 15 percent), sludges ( 13 percent), and solids ( 9 percent). Hazardous gases represent about 0.1 percent of the total annual quantity burned. In terms of waste source, the industrial organic chemicals sector generates approximately a third of all hazardous waste burned, followed by pesticides and agricultural chemicals, business services, organic fibers, medicinal chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics materials and resins, petroleum, and miscellaneous. Companies that generate large quantities of uniform hazardous wastes generally find it more economical and efficient to combust these wastes on site using their own noncommercial systems. Commercial incineration facilities manage a wide range of waste streams generated in small to medium quantities by diverse industries. Cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and boilers derive heat and energy by combining clean burning ( solvents and organics) high Btu liquid hazardous wastes34 with conventional fuels. Regulatory requirements, liability concerns, and economics influence the demand for combustion services. Regulatory forces influence the demand for combustion by mandating certain hazardous waste treatment standards ( land disposal restriction requirements, etc.). Liability concerns of waste generators affect combustion demand because combustion, by * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

363 destroying organic wastes, greatly reduces the risk of future environmental problems. Finally, if alternative waste management options are more expensive, hazardous waste generators will likely choose to send their wastes to combustion facilities in order to increase their overall profitability. Throughout much of the 1980s, hazardous waste combustors enjoyed a strong competitive position and generally maintained a high level of profitability. During this period, EPA regulations requiring combustion greatly expanded the waste tonnage for this market. In addition, federal permitting requirements, as well as powerful local opposition to siting of new incinerators, constrained the entry of new combustion systems. As a result, combustion prices rose steadily, ultimately reaching record levels in 1987. The high profits of the late 1980s induced many firms to enter the market, in spite of the difficulties and delays anticipated in the permitting and siting process. Hazardous waste markets have changed significantly since the late 1980s. In the early 1990s, substantial overcapacity resulted in fierce competition, declining prices, poor financial performance, numerous project cancellations, system consolidations, and facility closures. Since the mid 1990s, several additional combustion facilities have closed, while many of those that have remained open have consolidated, or further consolidated their operations. Available excess capacity is currently estimated at about 20 percent of the total 1999 quantity combusted. B. Baseline Specification Proper and consistent baseline specification is vital to the accurate assessment of incremental costs, benefits, and other economic impacts associated with today's proposed rule. The baseline essentially describes the world absent the proposed rule. The incremental impacts of today's rule are evaluated by predicting post MACT compliance responses with respect to the baseline. The baseline, as applied in this analysis, is the point at which today's rule is promulgated. Thus, incremental cost and economic impacts are projected beyond the standards established in the February 13, 2002 Interim Standards Final Rule. C. Analytical Methodology and Findings  Social Cost Analysis Total social costs include the value of resources used to comply with the standards by the private sector, the value of resources used to administer the regulation by the government, and the value of output lost due to shifts of resources away from the current market equilibrium. To evaluate these shifts in resources and changes in output requires predicting changes in behavior by all affected parties in response to the regulation, including responses of directly affected entities, as well as indirectly affected private parties. For this analysis, social costs are grouped into two categories: economic welfare ( changes in consumer and producer surplus), and government administrative costs. The economic welfare analysis conducted for today's rule uses a simplified partial equilibrium approach to estimate social costs. In this analysis, changes in economic welfare are measured by summing the changes in consumer and producer surplus. This simplified approach bounds potential economic welfare losses associated with the rule by considering two scenarios: compliance costs assuming no market adjustments, and market adjusted compliance costs. The private sector compliance costs of million per year, as presented in Section VIIV, assume no market adjustments. These costs may be considered to represent the * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

35 We are proposing using section 112( d)( 4) of the Clean Air Act to establish riskbased standards for total chlorine for hazardous waste combustors ( except for hydrochloric acid production furnaces). The low end of this cost range assumes all facilities emit total chlorine levels below risk based levels of concern. Under this scenario, no total chlorine controls are assumed to be necessary.

36 Office of Management and Budget. Circular A 4. September 17, 2003.

364 high end of total social costs. SOur best estimate of social costs presented in this section assume normalrational market adjustments. Under this scenario, increased compliance costs are examined in the context of likely incentives combustion facilities would have to continue burning hazardous wastes, and the competitive balance in different combustion sectors. For all sectors to meet the proposed replacement standards, total annualized marketadjusted costs are estimated to range from . The low end of this range assumes no chlorine control costs. 35 The Phase II sources represent about 7883 percent of the high end total. Our economic model indicates that two sectors as a whole, commercial incinerators and cement kilns, would experience net gains following all market adjustments. This occurs due to marginally higher prices, increased waste receipts, and relatively low upgrade costs. Total annual government costs are approximately one half million dollars for the proposed approach. * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

37 USEPA, 1985. Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzo p Dioxins. EPA/ 600/ 8 84/ 014F. Final Report. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. September, 1985.

365 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

38 U. S. EPA, Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo p Dioxin ( TCDD) and Related Compounds, September 2000. Note: Toxicity risk factors presented in this document do should not reflect be considered EPA's official estimate of dioxin toxicity, but rather reflect EPA's ongoing effort to reevaluate dioxin toxicity.

39 These figures reflects the cancer risk factor of 1.56 x 105 [ mg/ kg/ day] 1. However, as previously discussed, the Agency's ongoing effort to refine its estimate of dioxin toxicity suggests that dioxin may be six times as toxic as previously believed. Assuming this higher risk factor, estimated baseline to beyond the floor benefits of reduced dioxin emissions are $ 1.92 million ( non discounted), $ 1.03 ( discounted at 3 percent, assuming a 21 year latency period), and $ 0.19 million ( discounted at 7 percent, assuming a 34 year latency period).

366 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

367 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

40 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP: Final Report, February 2004.

368 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

41 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP: Final Report, February 2004.

369 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

370 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

371 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

42 Although the primary pollutants which are detrimental to vegetation aesthetics and growth are tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride, three pollutants which are not regulated in the MACT standards, some literature exists on the relationship between metal deposition and vegetation health. ( Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume VI, 1997) ( Several studies are cited in this report.)

43 See, for example, Brown, T. C. et al. 1989, Scenic Beauty and Recreation Value: Assessing the Relationship, In J. Vining, ed., Social Science and Natural Resources Recreation Management, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado; this work studies the relationship between forest characteristics and the value of recreational participation. Also see Peterson, D. G. et al. 1987, Improving Accuracy and Reducing Cost of Environmental Benefit Assessments. Draft Report to the US EPA, by Energy and Resource Consultants, Boulder, Colorado; Walsh et al. 1990, Estimating the public benefits of protecting forest quality, Journal of Forest Management, 30: 175 189., and Homes et al. 1992, Economic Valuation of Spruce Fir Decline in the Southern Appalachian Mountains: A comparison of Value Elicitation Methods. Presented at the Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives Conference, March 9 1, 1992 Jasper, Alberta, Canada for estimates of the WTP of visitors and residents to avoid forest damage.

44 MacKenzie, James J., and Mohamed T. El Ashry, Air Pollution's Toll on Forests and Crops ( New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989).

372 * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

373 IX. How Does the Proposed Rule Meet the RCRA Protectiveness Mandate? As discussed in more detail below, we believe today's proposed standards, based on evaluating estimated emissions from sources, are generally protective. We therefore propose that these standards apply in lieu of RCRA air emission standards in most instances. A. Background Section 3004( a) of RCRA requires the Agency to promulgate standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as necessary to protect human health and the environment. The standards for hazardous waste incinerators generally rest on this authority. In * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

45 We estimated emissions for each facility based on site specific stack gas concentrations and flow rates measured during trial burn or compliance tests. For sources where stack gas measurements were unavailable, data were imputed by random selection from a pool of measurements for similar units. We assumed that sources would design their systems to meet an 374 addition, § 3004( q) requires the Agency to promulgate standards for emissions from facilities that burn hazardous waste fuels ( e. g., cement and lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces) as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Using RCRA authority, the Agency has historically established emission ( and other) standards for hazardous waste combustors that are either entirely risk based ( e. g., sitespecific standards for metals under the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule), or are technologybased but determined by a generic risk assessment to be protective ( e. g., the DRE standard for incinerators and BIFs). The MACT standards proposed today implement the technology based regime of CAA § 112. There is, however, a residual risk component to air toxics standards. Section 112( f) of the Clean Air Act requires the Agency to impose, within eight years after promulgation of the technology based standards promulgated under § 112( d) ( i. e., the authority for today's proposed standards), additional controls if needed to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental effect. RCRA § 1006 directs that EPA " integrate all provisions of [ RCRA] for purposes of administration and enforcement and ... avoid duplication, to the maximum extent possible, with the appropriate provisions of the Clean Air Act...." Thus, although considerations of risk are not ordinarily part of the MACT process, in order to avoid duplicative standards where possible, we have evaluated the protectiveness of the standards proposed today. As noted above, under RCRA, EPA must promulgate standards " as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment." RCRA § 3004( a) and ( q). Technology based standards developed under CAA § 112 do not automatically satisfy this requirement, but may do so in fact. See 59 FR at 29776 ( June 6, 1994) and 60 FR at 32593 ( June 23, 1995) ( RCRA regulation of secondary lead smelter emissions unnecessary at this time given stringency of technology based standard and pendency of § 112( f) determination). If the MACT standards, as a factual matter, are sufficiently protective to also satisfy the RCRA mandate, then no independent RCRA standards are required. Conversely, if MACT standards are inadequate, the RCRA authorities would have to be used to fill the gap. B. Assessment of Risks The Agency has conducted an evaluation, for the purposes of satisfying the RCRA statutory mandates, of the degree of protection afforded by the MACT standards being proposed today. We have not conducted a comprehensive risk assessment for this proposal; however, a comprehensive risk assessment for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns was conducted for the 1999 MACT rule. For this proposed rule, we are instead comparing characteristics of the sources covered by the 1999 rule to the sources covered by the replacement rule that are related to risk ( e. g., emissions45, stack characteristics, meteorology, and population). * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

emission level below the proposed standard. ( In the case of dioxin/ furan for sources that would not be subject to a numerical emission standard, we assumed liquid boilers without dry air pollution control systems and solid fuel fired boilers were emitting at their baseline emissions level as portrayed in the data base.) We called this the " design level." If available test data in our data base indicate that the source was emitting below the design level, we assumed that the source would continue to emit at the levels measured in test. For sources emitting above the design level of a standard, we assumed they would need to reduce emissions to the design level. In the 1999 rule, the design level was taken as 70% of the standard. For today's proposed standards, the design level is generally the lower of: ( 1) 70% of the standard; or ( 2) the arithmetic average of the emissions data of the best performing sources.

46 See " Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors," prepared under contract to EPA by Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.

375 In the 1999 rule we concluded that the promulgated standards were sufficiently protective and the existing RCRA standards for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns need not be retained. Based on the results of statistical comparisons, we infer whether risks for incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces will be about the same, less than, or greater than the risks estimated for 1999 rule. We think the comparative analysis lends additional support to our view regarding the protectiveness of the proposed standards. 46 We believe today's proposed standards provide a substantial degree of protection to human health and the environment. We therefore do no believe that we need to retain the existing RCRA standards for boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces ( just as we found that existing RCRA standards for incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns were no longer needed after the 1999 rule). However, as previously discussed in more detail in Part Two, Section XVII. D, site specific risk assessments may be warranted on an individual source basis to ensure that the MACT standards provide adequate protection in accordance with RCRA.

Note to Reader: We are currently reevaluating the comparative risk analysis methodology originally used to lend additional support to our conclusion that these proposed technology based standards are generally protective. This preamble section, and associated background document, will be updated in the near future if in fact this reevaluation results in a revised methodology to assess risks from these hazardous waste combustors. We are confident any changes to this comparative risk methodology will not result in changes to our original conclusion that these proposed standards are generally protective for the following reasons:

( 1) As discussed in Part Two, Section XVII. D, all Phase I replacement standards must * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

376 be equivalent to or more stringent than the negotiated interim standards. Many of the replacement standards proposed in today's notice would be more stringent than the interim standards. And, with the exception of the mercury standard for both new and existing LWAKs and the total chlorine standard for new LWAKs, they are also more stringent than the 1999 promulgated standards, which EPA determined to be generally protective in a national risk assessment conducted for that rulemaking.

( 2) The proposed standards for Phase II sources are significantly more stringent than the existing standards currently required under RCRA ( 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H) and are similar to the emission standards promulgated in the 1999 rule which EPA determined to be generally protective in a national risk assessment conducted for that rulemaking.

Part Five: Administrative Requirements I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 [ 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order." Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a " significant regulatory action" because this action may raise novel legal or policy issues due to the standards development methodology applied in development of the proposed replacement standards. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. The aggregate annualized social costs for this rule are under $ 100 million ( ranging from $ 421 to $ 570 million/ yr). We have prepared an economic assessment in support of today's action. This document is entitled: Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards  Proposed Rule, March 2004. This Assessment is designed to adhere to analytical requirements established under Executive Order 12866, and corresponding Agency and OMB guidance; subject to data, analytical, and resource limitations. An Addendum entitled: Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards  Proposed Rule, March 2004, has also been prepared. This Addendum * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

377 addresses belated changes made to the final proposed standards that were not captured in the Assessment. The RCRA docket established for today's rulemaking maintains a copy of the Assessment and Addendum documents for public review. Interested persons are encouraged to read and comment on this document. both documents for a full understanding of the analytical methodology, findings, and limitations associated with this report. Comments and supporting data are encouraged and welcomed.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request ( ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1773.07. EPA is proposing today's regulations under section 112 of the CAA, to protect and enhance the quality of our nation's air resources, and to promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the population. See CAA section 101( b)( 1). To this end, CAA sections 112( a) and ( d) direct EPA to set standards for stationary sources emitting the hazardous air pollutants. The records and reports required by the information collection under this proposal will be used to show compliance with the requirements of the rule. EPA believes that if these minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, EPA will not fulfill its Congressional mandate to protect public health and the environment. The information collection required under this ICR is mandatory for the regulated sources as it is essential to properly enforce the emission limitation requirements of the rule and will be used to further the proper performance of the functions of EPA. EPA has made extensive efforts to integrate the monitoring, compliance testing and recordkeeping requirements of the CAA and RCRA, so that the burden on the sources is kept to a minimum, and the facilities are able to avoid duplicate and unnecessary submissions. We also ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, the confidentiality of the submitted information. The projected annual burden under today's proposal is estimated at 70,199 hours at a total cost of $ 5.1 millions. For the hour burden, we estimate a total of 2,612 responses from 243 respondents, or an average of 27 hours per response, or 289 hours per respondent. The cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information includes a total capital and start up cost component, a total operation and maintenance component and a purchase of services component. The capital and start up cost component is estimated at $ 36,184 annualized over its expected useful life, and the operation and maintenance component is estimated at $ 488,947 annualized over its expected useful life. The frequency of different responses varies and is monthly or annually for some and on occasion for others. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

378 to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number RCRA 2003 0016. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ` Addresses' section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq. generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency is able to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not for profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. We have determined that hazardous waste combustion facilities are not owned by small entities ( local governments, tribes, etc.) other than businesses. Therefore, only businesses were analyzed for small entity impacts. For the purposes of the impact analyses, small entity is defined either by the number of employees or by the dollar amount of sales. The level at which a business is considered small is determined for each North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code by the Small Business Administration. Affected individual waste combustors ( incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid and liquid fuel fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces) will bear the impacts of today's rule. These units will incur direct economic impacts as a result of today's rule. Few of the hazardous waste combustion facilities affected by this proposed rule were found to be owned by small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration ( SBA). From our universe of 150 facilities, we identified six facilities that are currently owned by small businesses. Three of these are liquid boilers, one is an on site incinerator, one is a cement kiln, and one is an LWAK. Annualized economic impacts of the proposed replacement standards were found to range from 0.01 percent to 2.213 percent of gross annual corporate revenues. * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

379 Economic impacts to five of the companies were found to be less than one percent, while the sixth company was found to experience potential impacts between one and 3 percent ( 2.213 percent). These findings reflect worst case cost estimates under the Agency Preferred Approach. Actual economic impacts are likely to be less as market adjustments take effect ( see the regulatory flexibility screening analysisAppendix H of the Assessment and Assessment of Small Entity Impacts in the Addendum). Based on the above findings we believe that one small company with potential high end impacts between one and 3 percent of gross revenues does not reflect a significant economic impact on a substantial number of potentially affected small entities. Therefore, after considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The reader is encouraged to review and comment on our regulatory flexibility screening analysis prepared in support of this determination: Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis for the Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards. This document is available inincorporated as Appendix H of the public docketAssessment document.

IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) calls on all federal agencies to provide a statement supporting the need to issue any regulation containing an unfunded federal mandate and describing prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments. Today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 204 and 205 of UMRA. In general, a rule is subject to the requirements of these sections if it contains " Federal mandates" that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Today's final rule does not result in $ 100 million or more in expenditures. The aggregate annualized social cost for today's rule is estimated atto range from $ 41 to $ 570 million under the proposed standards.

V. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government." Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

47 Executive Order 13084 is revoked by this Executive Order 380 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 the Order. The proposed rule focuses on requirements for facilities burning hazardous waste, without affecting the relationships between Federal and State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did include three State representatives on our Agency workgroup. These representatives participated in the development of this proposed rule. State officials were contacted concerning the methodology used in standards development. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 1317547: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." Our Agency workgroup for this rulemaking includes Tribal representation. We have determined that this rule, as proposed, does not have tribal implications, as specified in the Order. No Tribal governments are known to own or operate hazardous waste combustors subject to the requirements of this proposed rule. Furthermore, this proposed rule focuses on requirements for all regulated sources without affecting the relationships between tribal governments in its implementation, and applies to all regulated sources, without distinction of the surrounding populations affected. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

VII. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under E. O. 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. Today's final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined under point one of the Order, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

381 VIII. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed. Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)). This rule, as proposed will not seriously disrupt energy supply, distribution patterns, prices, imports or exports. Furthermore, this rule is not an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.

IX. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104 113, 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement System (" PBMS"), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

X. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations" ( February 11, 1994) requires us to complete an analysis of today's rule with regard to equity considerations. The Order is designed to address the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low income populations. This section briefly discusses potential impacts ( direct or disproportional) today's rule may have in the area of environmental justice. To comply with the Executive Order, we have assessed whether today's rule may have negative or disproportionate effects on minority or low income populations. We have recently analyzed demographic data from the U. S. Census. Previously we examined data from two other reports: " Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations Living Near Cement Plants in * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

382 the United States" ( EPA, August 1994) and " Race, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the Populations Living Near Hazardous Waste Incinerators in the United States" ( EPA, October 1994). These reports examine the number of low income and minority individuals living near a relatively large sample of cement kilns and hazardous waste incinerators and provide county, state, and national population percentages for various sub populations. The demographic data in these reports provide several important findings when examined in conjunction with the risk reductions projected from today's rule. We find that combustion facilities, in general, are not located in areas with disproportionately high minority and low income populations. However, there is evidence that hazardous waste burning cement kilns are somewhat more likely to be located in areas that have relatively higher low income populations. Furthermore, there are a small number of commercial hazardous waste incinerators located in highly urbanized areas where there is a disproportionately high concentration of minorities and low income populations within one and five mile radii. The reduced emissions at these facilities due to today's rule could represent meaningful environmental and health improvements for these populations. Overall, today's rule should not result in any adverse or disproportional health or safety effects on minority or lowincome populations. Any impacts on these populations are likely to be positive due to the reduction in emissions from combustion facilities near minority and low income population groups. The Assessment document available in the RCRA docket established for today's rule presents the full Environmental Justice Analysis.

XI. Congressional Review The Congressional Review Act ( CRA), 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 the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, we will submit all necessary information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. As proposed, this action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. § 804( 2). * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

383 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors ( Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) Page __ of ___ Pages.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 265 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 266 Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271 Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

_______________________ ______________________ Michael O. Leavitt Dated: Administrator 6560 50 P * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

384 For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63   NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. 2. The table of contents of part 63, subpart EEE, is amended by revising to read as follows: Subpart EEE   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors GENERAL Sec. 63.1200 Who is subject to these regulations? 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart. 63.1202 [ Reserved]

EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND OPERATING LIMITS FOR INCINERATORS, CEMENT KILNS, AND LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE KILNS 63.1203 What are the standards for hazardous waste incinerators? 63.1203A What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste incinerators? 63.1204 What are the standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns? 63.1204A What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns? 63.1205 What are the standards for hazardous waste burning lightweight aggregate kilns? 63.1205A What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste burning lightweight aggregate kilns?

MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS 63.1206 When and how must you comply with the standards and operating requirements? 63.1207 What are the performance testing requirements? 63.1208 What are the test methods? 63.1209 What are the monitoring requirements?

NOTIFICATION, REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING 63.1210 What are the notification requirements? 63.1211 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements? 63.1212 What are the other requirements pertaining to the NIC and associated progress reports?

OTHER 63.1213 How can the compliance date be extended to install pollution prevention or waste minimization controls? * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

385 63.1214 Implementation and enforcement. 63.1215 What are the alternative risk based standards for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas?

EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND OPERATING LIMITS FOR SOLID FUEL FIRED BOILERS, LIQUID FUEL FIRED BOILERS, AND HYDROCHLORIC ACID PRODUCTION FURNANCES 63.1216 What are the standards for solid fuel fired boilers? 63.1217 What are the standards for liquid fuel fired boilers? 63.1218 What are the standards for hydrochloric acid production furnaces?

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART EEE OF PART 63   GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO SUBPART EEE APPENDIX A TO SUBPART EEE   QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS USED FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS 32. Section 63.1200 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph ( a)( 2) to read as follows: § 63.1200 Who is subject to these regulations? The provisions of this subpart apply to all hazardous waste combustors: incinerators that burn hazardous waste, cement kilns that burn hazardous waste, lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste, solid fuel fired boilers that burn hazardous waste, liquid fuel fired boilers that burn hazardous waste, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces that burn hazardous waste. Hazardous waste combustors are also subject to applicable requirements under parts 260 270 of this chapter. ( a) * * * ( 2) Both area sources and major sources subject to this subpart, but not previously subject to title V, are immediately subject to the requirement to apply for and obtain a title V permit in all States, and in areas covered by part 71 of this chapter. * * * * *

43. Section 63.2011201 is amended in paragraph ( a) by revising the definition of " New source", and adding the definition ofs for " Hydrochloric acid production furnace", " Liquid fuelfired boiler", and " Solid fuel fired boiler" to paragraph ( a) in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart. ( a) * * * Hydrochloric acid production furnace and HCl production furnace mean a halogen acid furnace defined in § 260.10 of this chapter that produces aqueous hydrochloric acid ( HCl) product and that burns hazardous waste at any time. * * * * * * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

386 Liquid fuel fired boiler and liquid boiler mean a boiler defined in § 260.10 of this chapter that does not burn solid fuels and that burns hazardous waste at any time. Liquid fuelfired boiler includes boilers that only burn gaseous fuels. * * * * * New source means any affected source the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the dates specified under § § 63.1206( a)( 1)( i)( B), ( a)( 1)( ii)( B), and ( a)( 2)( ii). * * * * * Solid fuel fired boiler and solid boiler mean a boiler defined in § 260.10 of this chapter that burns a solid fuel and that burns hazardous waste at any time. * * * * * 5. Section 63.1203A is added to read as follows:

Text Was Moved From Here: 1 ( ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; ( 6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 0.18 parts per million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride ( Cl()) equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and ( 7) Except as provided by paragraph ( e)( 3), particulate matter in excess of 1.6 mg/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. ( c) Destruction and removal efficiency ( DRE) standard. ( 1) 99.99% DRE. Except as provided in paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section, you must achieve a destruction and removal efficiency ( DRE) of 99.99% for each principle organic hazardous constituent ( POHC) designated under paragraph ( c)( 3) of this section. You must calculate DRE for each POHC from the following equation: DRE = [ 1  ( W out / W in)] x 100% Where: W in = mass feedrate of one POHC in a waste feedstream; and W out = mass emission rate of the same POHC present in exhaust emissions prior to release to the atmosphere. ( 2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the dioxin listed hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 ( see § 261.31 of this chapter), you must achieve a DRE of 99.9999% for each POHC that you designate under paragraph ( c)( 3) of this section. You must demonstrate this DRE performance on POHCs that are more difficult to incinerate than tetra, penta, and hexachlorodibenzo p dioxins and dibenzofurans. You must use the equation in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section to calculate DRE for each POHC. In addition, you must notify the Administrator of your intent to incinerate hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027. ( 3) Principal organic hazardous constituent ( POHC). ( i) You must treat each POHC in the waste feed that you specify under paragraph ( c)( 3)( ii) of this section to the extent required by paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( c)( 2) of this section. ( ii) You must specify one or more POHCs from the list of hazardous air pollutants * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

387 established by 42 U. S. C. 7412( b)( 1), excluding caprolactam ( CAS number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, for each waste to be burned. You must base this specification on the degree of difficulty of incineration of the organic constituents in the waste and on their concentration or mass in the waste feed, considering the results of waste analyses or other data and information. ( d) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section are presented with two significant figures. Although you must perform intermediate calculations using at least three significant figures, you may round the resultant emission levels to two significant figures to document compliance. ( e) Alternative to the particulate matter standard for incinerators. ( i) General. In lieu of complying with the applicable particulate matter standards of paragraphs ( a)( 7) and ( b)( 7) of this section, you may elect to comply with the following alternative metal emission control requirements: ( ii) Alternative metal emission control requirements for existing sources. ( A) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain cadmium, lead, and selenium in excess of 59 ug/ dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and, ( B) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel in excess of 84 ug/ dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. ( iii) Alternative metal emission control requirements for new sources. ( A) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain cadmium, lead, and selenium in excess of 6.5/ dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and, ( B) You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel in excess of 8.9 ug/ dscm, combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 6. Section 63.1204A is added to read as follows: § 63.1204A What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns? ( a) Emission limits for existing sources. You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain: ( 1)( i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen; or ( ii) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen provided that the combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the initial dry particulate matter control device is 400 ° F or lower based on the average of the test run average temperatures; ( 2) Mercury in excess of 64 ug/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen; ( 3) In excess of 4.0 x 10 4 lbs combined emissions of cadmium and lead attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; ( 4) In excess of 1.4 x 10 5 lbs combined emissions of arsenic, beryllium, and chromium attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; ( 5) Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. ( i) For kilns equipped with a by pass duct or * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*

388 midkiln gas sampling system, either: ( A) Carbon monoxide in the by pass duct or mid kiln gas sampling system in excess of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you elect to comply with this carbon monoxide standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard under paragraph ( a)( 5)( i)( B) of this section, you must also document that, during the destruction and removal efficiency ( DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by § 63.1206( b)( 7), hydrocarbons in the by pass duct or mid kiln gas sampling system do not exceed 10 parts per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or ( B) Hydrocarbons in the by pass duct or midkiln gas sampling system in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; ( ii) For kilns not equipped with a by pass duct or midkiln gas sampling system, either: ( A) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or ( B) Carbon monoxide in the main stack in excess of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you elect to comply with this carbon monoxide standard rather than the hydrocarbon standard under paragraph ( a)( 5)( ii)( A) of this section, you also must document that, during the destruction and removal efficiency ( DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by § 63.1206( b)( 7), hydrocarbons in the main stack do not exceed 20 parts per million by volume during those runs, over an hourly rolling average ( monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane. ( 6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas in excess of 110 parts per million by volume, combined emissions, expressed as a chloride ( Cl()) equivalent, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and ( 7) Particulate matter in excess of 65 mg/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. ( b) Emission limits for new sources. You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain: ( 1)( i) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.20 ng TEQ/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen; or ( ii) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen provided that the combustion gas temperature at the inlet to the initial dry particulate matter control device is 400 ° F or lower based on the average of the test run average temperatures; ( 2) Mercury in excess of 35 ug/ dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen; ( 3) In excess of 6.2 x 10 5 lbs combined emissions of cadmium and lead attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit heat input from the hazardous waste; ( 4) In excess of 1.4 x 10 5 lbs combined emissions of arsenic, beryllium, and chromium * Internal Agency Staff Draft ( Deliberative)  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Distribute*