&EPA
United Status
Environmental Protection
Agnncy
HOSPITAL/MEDICAL/INFECTIOUS
WASTE INCINERATORS:
Summary of Requirements for Revised or New
Section lll(d)/129 State Plans Following Amendments
to the Emission Guidelines
-------
11
-------
EPA-453/B-10-001
October 2010
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators:
Summary of Requirements for Revised or New Section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans Following
Amendments to the Emission Guidelines
By:
RTI International
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Contract No. EP-D-06-118
Work Assignment No. 4-23
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Natural Resources and Commerce Group
Research Triangle Park, NC
in
-------
Disclaimer
This document does not establish any new requirements and is not binding or
enforceable. It does not constitute final agency action under Clean Air Act section 307(b)(l), 42
U.S.C. 7607(b)(l). Rather, it summarizes existing regulations and provides guidance to States
pertaining to State Plan development under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990.
IV
-------
Executive Summary
Air pollution emissions from the incineration of hospital waste and medical/infectious
waste are regulated by federal rules promulgated to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA) as
amended in 1990. This guidance document addresses requirements established by the
regulations that have been developed and amended for hospital/medical/infectious waste
incinerator(s) (HMIWI) under sections 111 and 129 of the CAA. Section 111 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7411, addresses Standards of Performance for Stationary Sources. Section 129, 42
U.S.C. 7429, addresses Solid Waste Combustion. The original HMIWI regulations were
promulgated by EPA on September 15, 1997. Amendments to the regulations were promulgated
on October 6, 2009.
Federal rules under the CAA promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that
affect the combustion of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste include:
1. Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerators [40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ce, as amended October 6, 2009]
(The amended Emission Guidelines [EG] apply to all HMIWI that commenced
construction on or before June 20, 1996; the amended EG also apply to those
HMIWI that commenced construction after June 20, 1996 but no later than
December 1, 2008, except where the emission limits in the original 1997 new
source performance standards [NSPS] are more stringent);
2. Rules Governing the Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated
Facilities [40 CFR Part 60, subpart B];
3. Standards of Performance for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators for
Which Construction is Commenced After June 20, 1996 [40 CFR Part 60,
subpart EC, as amended October 6, 2009] (The original NSPS promulgated in
1997 apply to those HMIWI that commenced construction after June 20, 1996 but
no later than December 1, 2008, except where the emission limits in the amended
EG are more stringent; the amended NSPS apply to those HMIWI that
commenced construction after December 1, 2008);
4. Federal Plan Requirements for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
Constructed On or Before June 20, 1996 [40 CFR Part 62, subpart HHH] (The
Federal Plan Requirements apply to those HMIWI that commenced construction
on or before June 20, 1996; the Federal Plan Requirements have not yet been
amended to incorporate the provisions in the amended EG); and
-------
5. Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants; General Provisions [40 CFR Part 62, subpart A] (These General
Provisions are applicable to all section 11 l(d)/129 plans and revisions).
Unlike the subpart EC NSPS, which apply directly to new sources, states develop a State
Plan in order to compel existing sources to meet the EG. Together, subpart B and subpart Ce
specify the State Plan content and the general rules for adopting and submitting State Plans.
State Plans have already been developed to implement the EG adopted on September 15, 1997,
and states need to revise existing or develop new State Plans to implement the amended EG
adopted on October 6, 2009. Working with EPA Regional Offices and states, EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards has produced this guidance document to assist states in
ensuring that their revised or new State Plans are complete and meet all the requirements of
subpart B and subpart Ce, as amended on October 6, 2009.
This document draws together relevant information from the federal regulations that
affect hospital and medical/infectious waste incineration to give state regulatory agencies the
information they need to revise or develop State Plans. Section 1 of this document provides an
overview of regulatory and State Plan requirements; section 2 presents information on the
timeline and responsibilities for revising/developing and submitting these State Plans; and
section 3 discusses the required elements of a State Plan. The appendices to this document
contain reference and explanatory materials, including:
1. Key elements of an acceptable State Plan;
2. A Fact Sheet on the amended EG;
3. Clarifications of the applicability of the amended EG;
4. An implementation timeline;
5. Contacts for further information;
6. Emission factors for calculating FDVIIWI air pollutant emissions;
7. A copy of CAA section 11 l(d);
8. A copy of CAA section 129;
9. A copy of 40 CFR Part 60, subpart B (rules governing adoption/submittal of State
Plans);
10. A copy of 40 CFR Part 62, subpart A (General Provisions regarding approval/
promulgation of State Plans);
11. Copies of 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ce (amended EG) and subpart EC (amended
NSPS);
12. A copy of the Federal Register (FR) notice for the amended EG; and
13. The latest (2010) inventory of HMIWI.
VI
-------
An appendix that was included in the original version of this document, published in
November 1997 (Answers to Questions about the Emission Guidelines and State Plan Process)
will be updated and provided as a separate document.
The CAA directs state regulatory agencies to implement the EG according to a State Plan
developed under sections 11 l(d) and 129 of the CAA, and to submit the State Plan to EPA
within 1 year after EPA's promulgation of the EG (i.e., by October 6, 2010 for the amended EG).
To be approved by EPA, the State Plans need to contain specific information and the legal
mechanisms necessary to implement the EG. The minimum requirements set forth in CAA
section 129 and in 40 CFR Part 60, subparts B and Ce are listed below.
1. A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the section 11 l(d)/129
State Plan and identification of enforceable mechanisms, including:
a list in the enforcement section of the State Plan indicating the
consequences for sources not in compliance and the authority under which
a state can shut down/close a source;
a reference to section 129(f)(3) ("PROHIBITION"), which prohibits a
plant from operating if it does not comply with the standard; and
adequate authority to enforce the recordkeeping and notification
requirements for co-fired combustors and incinerators burning only
pathological, low-level radioactive, and chemotherapeutic waste.
[CAA section 129(f)(3) and 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.32e(b) and (c)]
2. An inventory of sources in the state affected by the EG, including to the best of
the state's knowledge, HMIWI that have shut down and are capable of restarting,
and including:
a statement preceding the inventory which says that sources subject to the
standard "include but are not limited to" the inventory in the State Plan,
and
an additional statement that says, "should another source be discovered
subsequent to this notice, there will be no need to reopen the State Plan."
[40 CFR 60.25(a)]
3. An inventory of emissions from HMIWI operating in the state. [40 CFR 60.25(a)
and (c)]
4. Emission limits for HMIWI that are at least as protective as those in the EG.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.24(a)-(c) and 60.33e]
5. Testing and monitoring requirements at least as protective as those in the EG.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.37e]
6. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements at least as protective as those in the
EG. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.25(b)(l) and 60.38e]
vn
-------
7. Operator training and qualification requirements at least as protective as those in
the EG. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and (d) and 40 CFR 60.34e]
8. Inspection requirements at least as protective as those in the EG. [CAA section
129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.25(b)(2), and 60.36e]
9. Waste management plan requirements at least as protective as those in the EG.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.35e]
10. Compliance schedules (including increments of progress for compliance
schedules which extend beyond 1 year after State Plan approval). [40 CFR
60.24(a) and (e)(l) and 60.39e]
11. An expeditious final compliance date not later than 3 years after approval of the
revised or new State Plan or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier.1 [CAA section
129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(c)]
12. A record of public hearing(s) on the State Plan. [40 CFR 60.23(f)(l) and (2)]
13. Provision for state progress reports to EPA. [40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f)]
Prior to submittal to EPA, EPA's regulations direct the state to make available to the
public the State Plan and provide an opportunity for public comment. [40 CFR 60.23(c)] The
deadline for the state to submit the final revised or new State Plan to EPA is October 6, 2010.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(a)(2)] EPA then has 180 days (6 months) to
approve or disapprove the State Plan. [CAA section 129(b)(2)] State Plan approval or
disapproval will be published in the FR. If a State Plan is disapproved, EPA will state the
reasons for disapproval in the FR_and give the state an opportunity to respond to EPA's concerns
and submit a revised State Plan. [CAA section 129(b)(2)] Pursuant to section 129(b)(3), a
Federal Plan would need to be in place by October 6, 2011 for each state that does not have an
approved revised or new State Plan. [CAA section 129(b)(3) and 40 CFR 60.39e(f)]
Based on EPA's latest (2010) inventory of HMIWI subject to the EG (see Appendix M),
54 HMIWI are subject to the amended EG, with a total combustion capacity of approximately
224,000 tons per year. (Note: EPA estimated 57 HMIWI were operating when the October 6,
2009 EG were being developed, and 3 of those HMIWI have since shut down.) According to the
compliance beyond 1 year after State Plan approval is possible only if the State
Plan contains increments of progress (see section 10). [40 CFR 60.24(e) and 60.39e(c)]
Vlll
-------
2010 inventory, 96 percent of the HMIWI (which represent 99.9 percent of the U.S. HMIWI
combustion capacity) employ some kind of add-on air pollution control device (APCD). An
additional 4 percent of the HMIWI population (which constitute approximately 0.1 percent of the
U.S. HMIWI combustion capacity) are believed to have good combustion.2 An estimated 87
percent of the HMIWI (which represent 88 percent of the U.S. HMIWI combustion capacity)
will require retrofit of an additional APCD to meet the amended EG. The table below presents
the number of currently operating HMIWI by state.
Table 1. Number of Hospital/Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerators by State
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
State
Connecticut
New Jersey
Maryland
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Tennessee
Minnesota
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Texas
Kansas
Montana
North Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Hawaii
Alaska
Number of HMIWP
1
1
7
6
2
10
1
4
1
1
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2To the extent that good combustion is defined, it means 2-second residence time in the
secondary chamber at 1800EF. However, the Emission Guidelines do not require 2-second
residence time and 1800EF. [docket no. A-91-61, document no. II-A-112, page 31]
IX
-------
EPA Region State Number of HMIWP
Total 54
a The inventory of HMIWI is based on data gathered from contacts with EPA
Regions, states, and HMIWI facilities and from review of existing HMIWI
inventories, title V permits, emission test reports, and HMIWI facility websites.
The figure below shows the location of the HMIWI currently in operation (2010) (see
Appendix M), compared to those HMIWI in operation in 1995—the date of the last inventory
prepared prior to the 1997 HMIWI regulations (see docket no. A-91-61, document no. IV-B-45).
-------
Figure 1. Inventory of Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (1995 and 2010)
2010 Inventory
1995 Inventory
XI
-------
Xll
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Disclaimer iv
Executive Summary v
Table of Contents xiii
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Organization of this Document 1-2
1.2 Clean Air Act Requirements 1-2
1.3 Emission Guidelines 1-4
1.4 Emission Guideline Subcategories 1-5
1.5 Requirements for State Plans 1-6
1.6 Requirements for Negative Declarations 1-10
1.7 Relationship Between the Section lll(d)/129 State Plan and SIP 1-10
2.0 Schedule and Responsibilities 2-1
2.1 State Plan Schedule 2-1
2.2 Responsibilities 2-4
2.2.1 EPA Responsibilities 2-4
2.2.2 State Responsibilities 2-5
2.2.3 Source Responsibilities 2-6
3.0 Required Elements of an Acceptable State Plan 3-1
3.1 Demonstration of Legal Authority 3-1
3.2 Enforceable Mechanisms 3-3
3.3 Inventory 3-4
3.3.1 Source Inventory 3-4
3.3.2 Emission Inventory 3-5
3.4 Compliance with Emission Limits 3-7
3.5 Determining HMIWI Compliance Status 3-9
3.5.1 Testing Requirements 3-10
3.5.2 Monitoring Requirements 3-10
3.5.3 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 3-11
3.5.4 Operator Training and Qualification Requirements 3-11
3.5.5 Waste Management Plan Requirements 3-12
3.5.6 Inspection Requirements 3-12
3.6 Compliance Schedules 3-13
3.6.1 Retrofit Required 3-14
3.6.2 Retrofit Schedules for HMIWI 3-15
3.6.3 Increments of Progress 3-15
3.6.4 HMIWI Shutdowns 3-18
3.7 Public Hearings 3-20
3.8 State Progress Reports to EPA 3-21
4.0 Requirements for Co-fired Combustors and Incinerators Burning Only Pathological,
Low-level Radioactive, and Chemotherapeutic Waste 4-1
5.0 Title V Requirements for HMIWI 5-1
5.1 Existing HMIWI 5-1
5.2 Exempt Units 5-2
xni
-------
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Key Elements of an Acceptable Section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan for HMIWI
Fact Sheet for Amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS (40 CFR Part 60
Subparts Ce and EC)
Applicability of the FDVUWI Emission Guidelines
FDVUWI Implementation Timeline
EPA Regional and State/Local Agency Contacts
FDVUWI Emission Factors
Clean Air Act Section 11 l(d)
Clean Air Act Section 129
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B
40CFRPart62SubpartA
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts Ce (EG) and EC (NSPS)
Federal Register Notice for Amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS (40 CFR
Part 60 Subparts Ce and EC)
2010 HMIWI Inventory
List of Figures
Figure 1. Inventory of Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
(1995 and 2010)
Figure 2-1. HMIWI Implementation Timeline
Page
xi
2-2
List of Tables
Table 1. Number of Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators by State
Table 1-1. Appendices to This Document
Table 1-2. Relationship Between Section lll(d), Section 129, and Subpart B
Table 1-3. Outline of the Emission Guidelines for HMIWI
Table 1-4. Regulations for Adopting and Submitting State Plans
Table 2-1. Sample State Schedule for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
Table 3-1. Summary of Requirements for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
Table 3-2. Schedule for HMIWI Compliance with the HMIWI Emission Guidelines.
Page
ix
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-9
2-3
3-2
3-13
xiv
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFS
APCD
CAA
cc
Cd
CEMS
CFR
CISWI
CO
DIFF
Dioxins/furans
EPA
FR
HMIWI
HC1
Hg
Ib/hr
MSA
MWC
NAAQS
NEDS
NESHAP
NO2
NOX
NSPS
OSWI
Pb
PM
QA/QC
SIP
SMSA
SNCR
SO2
TCDD
TEQ
Air Facility System
Air Pollution Control Device
Clean Air Act
Carbon Copy
Cadmium
Continuous Emission Monitoring System
Code of Federal Regulations
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators
Carbon Monoxide
Dry Injection Fabric Filter
Tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Register
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator(s)
Hydrogen Chloride
Mercury
Pounds per hour
Metropolitan Statistical Area
Municipal Waste Combustor
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Emissions Data System
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxides
New Source Performance Standard
Other Solid Waste Incinerators
Lead
Particulate Matter
PM with an Aerodynamic Diameter at or below 10 jim
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
State Implementation Plan
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as referenced in OMB Bulletin No.
93-17, dated June 30, 1993
Selective Noncatalytic Reduction
Sulfur Dioxide
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalent
xv
-------
XVI
-------
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to assist state air regulatory agencies in developing
revised or new State Plans which will implement the amended regulations controlling air
pollutant emissions from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator(s) (HMIWI). Under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is required to develop regulations to control air pollutant emissions from HMIWI.
Emissions from new HMIWI are addressed by standards of performance for new sources (New
Source Performance Standards [NSPS]), and emissions from existing HMIWI are addressed by
guidelines for existing sources (Emission Guidelines [EG]). EPA originally promulgated the
NSPS (subpart EC) and EG (subpart Ce) for HMIWI on September 15, 1997. In a response to a
suit filed by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) remanded the HMIWI regulations on
March 2, 1999 for further explanation of EPA's reasoning in determining the minimum
regulatory "floors" for new and existing HMIWI. The HMIWI regulations were not vacated, and
states developed State Plans to implement the original EG for existing sources. For any states
without an acceptable State Plan, EPA developed a Federal Plan (published in the FR on August
15, 2000 [65 FR 49868]) to implement the original EG. The original EG were fully implemented
as of September 15, 2002.
On February 6, 2007, EPA published a proposed response to the Court's remand and
solicited public comments. Following recent court decisions and receipt of public comments on
the proposal, EPA re-assessed its response to the remand, and on December 1, 2008 published
another proposed response and again solicited public comments. On October 6, 2009, EPA
published its final response to the Court's remand and also satisfied the CAA section 129(a)(5)
requirement to conduct a review of the standards every 5 years. EPA's response to the remand
and section 129(a)(5) requirement included substantial revisions to the NSPS and EG. States are
to revise, amend, or develop State Plans to implement the amended EG for existing sources and
submit these revised or new State Plans to EPA by October 6, 2010. On May 14, 2010 at FR 75
FR 27249, EPA published proposed amendments to the NSPS, correcting the nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (802) emissions limits for new large HMIWI, as well as errors in
cross-references in the NSPS reporting and recordkeeping provisions for new HMIWI. These
amendments are intended to match the final NOx and SO2EG limits, which reflect EPA's intent
1-1
-------
in the October 6, 2009 final rule; however, these revisions do not impact States' implementation
of the EG. At the time of publication of this document, EPA's final action promulgating the
amendments is pending the Administrator's signature.
This document provides state agencies information on the content these State Plans need
to include in order to obtain EPA approval, under EPA's regulations. This document is an
update to the November 1997 guidance document entitled "Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerator Emission Guidelines: Summary of the Requirements for Section 11 l(d)/129 State
Plans" (EPA-456/R-97-007).
1.1 Organization of this Document
This document discusses the information on the relevant parts of the various regulations
that affect existing HMIWI constructed on or before December 1, 2008. These regulations were
developed under section 11 l(d) and section 129 of the CAA. The regulations are codified in
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 60 and 62. The rules include
(1) Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities (40 CFR Part 60, subpart B);
(2) the EG for existing HMIWI (40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ce), as amended October 6, 2009; and
(3) Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; General
Provisions (40 CFR Part 62, subpart A).
Section 1 of this document provides an overview of regulatory and State Plan
requirements; section 2 presents information on the timeline and responsibilities for developing
and submitting State Plans; and section 3 discusses the required elements of an approvable State
Plan. The appendices of this document are listed in Table 1-1. The appendices include reference
materials that states may find useful when revising, amending, or developing their State Plans,
such as key elements of an acceptable State Plan, clarifications of the applicability of the EG, an
implementation timeline, contact lists, emission factors (for estimating emissions from HMIWI),
and copies of relevant regulations. An appendix from the original 1997 guidance document that
provided answers to questions about the EG and State Plan process is being updated to include
information about the amended EG and will be provided as a separate document.
1.2 Clean Air Act Requirements
Section 11 l(d) has been included in the CAA since the 1970s and requires EPA to
establish procedures for the submission of State Plans for implementing EG. The first EG
1-2
-------
adopted was for sulfuric acid plants in 1977. Other EG have been adopted since that time. The
State Plans implement and provide mechanisms for enforcing the EG. Section 129 was added to
Table 1-1. Appendices to This Document
Appendix Title
A
Key Elements of an Acceptable Section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan for HMIWI
B Fact Sheet for Amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS (40 CFR Part 60
Subparts Ce and EC)
C Applicability of the HMIWI Emission Guidelines
D FCVIIWI Implementation Timeline
E EPA Regional and State/Local Agency Contacts
F HMIWI Emission Factors
G Clean Air Act Section 111 (d)
H Clean Air Act Section 129
I 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B
J 40 CFR Part 62 Subpart A
K 40 CFR Part 60 Subparts Ce (EG) and EC (NSPS)
L Federal Register Notice for Amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS
M 2010 HMIWI Inventory
the CAA in 1990 and specifically addresses solid waste combustion. It requires EPA to establish
EG for HMIWI and directs states to develop State Plans for implementing the EG. The
subpart Ce EG for HMIWI differ from some other EG adopted in the past because the subpart Ce
EG address both section 11 l(d) and section 129 requirements. Section 129 overrides some
aspects of section 11 l(d). (The subpart Cb EG for Large Municipal Waste Combustors
[MWCs], subpart BBBB EG for Small MWCs, subpart DDDD EG for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators [CISWI], and subpart FFFF EG for Other Solid Waste
Incinerators [OSWI] similarly address both section lll(d) and section 129 requirements.)
Detailed procedures for submitting and approving State Plans under section 11 l(d) were
promulgated by EPA in 1975 at 40 CFR Part 60, subpart B and amended in 1979, 1989, 1995,
2000, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The major revisions to subpart B address differences between
sections 129 and 11 l(d) of the CAA. In particular, section 129(b)(2) directs states to submit
State Plans for HMIWI to EPA within 1 year after promulgation of the EG, whereas the
subpart B procedures [40 CFR 60.23(a)] developed to implement section 11 l(d) Plans have a
1-3
-------
different schedule. Also, section 129(b)(2) requires section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans to be "at least
as protective as the guidelines" in order to be approved by EPA, whereas section 11 l(d)(l)
allows states flexibility to consider the remaining useful life of the source and other factors in
developing State Plans and standards. Where section 129 conflicts with section 11 l(d), the
December 19, 1995 revisions to subpart B supersede otherwise applicable requirements of
subpart B. [60 FR 65414 and 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.24] Table 1-2 addresses the relationship
between sections lll(d), section 129, and subpart B.
Table 1-2. Relationship Between Section lll(d), Section 129, and Subpart B
Statutes Rules, Regulations, and Procedures
Clean Air Act 40 CFR Part 60
Section lll(b) NSPS —^-GeneralProvisions—>subpart A
(new sources) Source category NSPS—>subpart D-KKKK
Section 11 l(d) EG—>—^-Procedures (State Plan)—>subpart B - amended to allow additional
(existing sources) directions specified in section 129
Source category EG^subpart Cb (large MWC), Ce (HMIWI), etc.
Section 129a Provides more specific directions about complying with sections 11 l(b) and 11 l(d)
for those solid waste combustors listed in section 129
a Section 129 was added with the 1990 Amendments to the CAA. Section 129 changed section 11 l(d) in the
following ways:
• State rule needs to be at least as protective as the EG.
• Deletes opportunity for sources to have a longer compliance schedule than what the EG specify. Section
129(f)(2) of the CAA requires expeditious compliance.
• Allows states a longer time for submittal of their State Plan (i.e., 12 months instead of 9 months).
The General Provisions associated with the approval and promulgation of State Plans are
codified in 40 CFR Part 62, subpart A, and each state's plan is provided in a separate subpart
under Part 62. (See Appendices G, H, I, and J for the full text of section 11 l(d); section 129; 40
CFR Part 60, subpart B; and 40 CFR Part 62, subpart A.)
1.3 Emission Guidelines
The original EG for FDVIIWI were promulgated on September 15, 1997, and amendments
to the EG were promulgated on October 6, 2009. [62 FR 48347 and 74 FR 51368] The EG are
codified in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ce. An outline of the amended EG is presented in Table 1-3.
The amended EG apply to all existing FDVIIWI that commenced construction on or before
June 20, 1996, as well as to those FDVIIWI that commenced construction after June 20, 1996 but
no later than December 1, 2008 (i.e., those FfJVIIWI subject to the original NSPS), except where
1-4
-------
the emission limits in the original NSPS are more stringent. [40 CFR 60.32e(a)(l) and (2) and
60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b)] The pollutants regulated by subpart Ce include metals (cadmium
[Cd], lead [Pb], and mercury [Hg]); particulate matter (PM); acid gases, (sulfur dioxide [SO2],
nitrogen oxides [NOX], and hydrogen chloride [HC1]); organic compounds (dioxins and furans);
carbon monoxide (CO); and opacity. [CAA section 129(a)(4) and (b)(l), Tables IB and 2B of
subpart Ce] The amended EG are summarized in a Fact Sheet included in this document (see
Appendix B). The full text of the amended EG (subpart Ce) is also provided (see Appendix K),
as well as the October 6, 2009 amendments (see Appendix L).
Table 1-3. Outline of the Emission Guidelines for HMIWI
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce)
Section Contents
60.30e Scope
60.31e Definitions
60.32e Designated facilities
60.33e Emission guidelines
60.34e Operator training and qualification guidelines
60.35e Waste management guidelines
60.36e Inspection guidelines
60.37e Compliance, performance testing, and monitoring guidelines
60.38e Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines
60.39e Compliance times
1.4 Emission Guideline Subcategories
For the amended EG, there were no changes to the HMIWI subcategories that were
developed for the original EG. The subcategories are based on (1) FDVIIWI pound per hour
(Ib/hr) capacity to burn hospital waste and medical/infectious waste [40 CFR 60.51c; see
definitions for "Large HMIWI," "Medium HMIWI," and "Small HMIWI"]; and (2) distance
from the nearest standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), as referenced in OMB Bulletin
No. 93-17, dated June 30, 1993. [40 CFR 60.3le and 60.33e(b)] (Note: Such areas are currently
referred to as "Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).")
The "small" subcategory consists of HMIWI that burn less than or equal to 200 Ib/hr. [40
CFR 60.51c] The "small" subcategory has been further divided to include a "small rural"
1-5
-------
subcategory, which consists of those small HMIWI located in rural areas that burns less than
2,000 pounds per week of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste. [40 CFR 60.31e and
60.33e(b)] The "rural criteria" used in determining which small HMIWI are small rural HMIWI
are presented in sections 60.31e and 60.33e(b) and are further discussed in Appendix C of this
document. The "medium" subcategory includes HMIWI that burn between 200 and 500 Ib/hr,
and the "large" subcategory consists of HMIWI which burn more than 500 Ib/hr. [40 CFR
60.5 Ic] Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator capacity is determined using the methods
presented in section 60.51c of subpart EC (see definition for "Maximum design waste burning
capacity") and is further discussed in Appendix C of this document. The emission limits in the
EG are different for each of the HMIWI subcategories.
1.5 Requirements for State Plans
States are to revise or develop section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans to implement the amended
HMIWI EG and to submit their Plans to the appropriate EPA Regional Office for approval. The
first step for revising or developing such a State Plan is to identify and prepare an updated list of
sources operating in the state that are subject to the amended EG. [40 CFR 60.25(a)]
All sources, whether they are on the state's list or not, are subject to the revised or new
State Plan and need to be in compliance no later than 3 years following State Plan approval or by
October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier, under CAA section 129(b)(2) and (f)(2). While not
required by the EG, in order to cover sources that might be discovered after submittal of the
revised or new State Plan, EPA recommends that states may want to include certain language in
the State Plan. Although a state could choose to revise the State Plan in order to establish a
separate, but equally protective compliance schedule for the newly discovered source, it is not
necessary, if states choose to include the following (or similar language) in the revised or new
State Plan:
1. A statement preceding the inventory which says that sources subject to the
standard "include, but are not limited to" the inventory in the State Plan; and
2. In additional statement that says, "Should another source be discovered
subsequent to this notice, there will be no need to reopen the State Plan."
States may also want to include in their revised or new State Plan a generic expeditious
compliance schedule with which "all other applicable sources" not listed individually in the State
Plan would need to comply. Any newly discovered source would then be bound to that schedule.
1-6
-------
It is possible that HMIWI that are not operating at the time of State Plan submittal could
reopen as an existing unit in the future. Such a unit would be considered an existing HMIWI,
assuming it was constructed prior to December 1, 2008.l [40 CFR 60.32e(a)(2)] Therefore, EPA
recommends that states should make a reasonable effort to include sources in the inventory
which have shut down but that have the potential to reopen. Regarding those HMIWI that
reopen, EPA suggests for each state the following course of action, based on the original HMIWI
Federal Plan. [40 CFR 62.14472] The state would submit a revised or new State Plan to require
retrofit of the necessary air pollution controls before the HMIWI reopens. The revised Plan for
the non-operating unit would contain a final compliance date and legal authority to ensure that
the HMIWI would complete retrofit before reopening. As discussed above, the state would not
revise the State Plan in order to require newly discovered sources to retrofit, but rather, would
only refer them to the generic compliance schedule contained in the State Plan. If a source were
discovered well into the compliance time and had already missed several increments of progress,
it would need to shut down immediately and remain closed until it had caught up with the
increments. Of course, the state always has the option of assigning a separate compliance
schedule to that newly discovered source, but in order to do so, the state would need to revise the
State Plan.
States which have HMIWI units are directed to submit a revised or new
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan. At a minimum, to be approved by EPA, the State Plan needs to
include the elements listed below.
1. A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the section 11 l(d)/129
State Plan and identification of enforceable mechanisms, including:
a list in the enforcement section of the State Plan indicating the
consequences for sources not in compliance and the authority under which
a state can shut down/close a source;
a reference to the section 129(f)(3) ("PROHIBITION") which prohibits a
plant from operating if it does not comply with the standard; and
adequate authority to enforce the recordkeeping and notification
requirements for co-fired combustors and incinerators burning only
pathological, low-level radioactive, and chemotherapeutic waste (see
section 60.32e of subpart(e)).
1 If an HMIWI that shut down and reopened had been modified, then it would be
considered a new source. Modification means any change that results in an increase in emissions
to the atmosphere or the capital cost of the change is more than 50 percent of the
inflation-adjusted replacement cost of the HMIWI. [CAA section 129(g)(3) and 40 CFR 60.51c]
1-7
-------
[CAA section 129(f)(3) and 40 CFR 60.26(a) and 60.32e(b) and (c)]
2. An inventory of sources in the state affected by the EG, including to the best of
the state's knowledge, HMIWI that have shut down and are capable of restarting,
and including:
a statement preceding the inventory which says that sources subject to the
standard "include but are not limited to" the inventory in the State Plan,
and
an additional statement that says, "should another source be discovered
subsequent to this notice, there will be no need to reopen the State Plan."
[40 CFR 60.25(a)]
3. An inventory of emissions from HMIWI operating in the state. [40 CFR 60.25(a)
and (c)]
4. Emission limits for HMIWI that are at least as protective as those in the EG.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.24(a)-(c) and 60.33e]
5. Testing and monitoring requirements at least as protective as those in the EG.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.37e]
6. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements at least as protective as those in the
EG. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.25(b)(l) and 60.38e]
7. Operator training and qualification requirements at least as protective as those in
the EG. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and (d) and 40 CFR 60.34e]
8. Inspection requirements at least as protective as those in the EG. [CAA section
129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.25(b)(2), and 60.36e]
9. Waste management plan requirements at least as protective as those in the EG.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.35e]
10. Compliance schedules (including increments of progress for compliance
schedules which extend beyond 1 year after State Plan approval). [40 CFR
60.24(a) and (e)(l) and 60.39e]
11. An expeditious final compliance date not later than 3 years after approval of the
revised or new State Plan or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier.2 [CAA section
129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(c)]
12. A record of public hearing(s) on the State Plan. [40 CFR 60.23(f)(l) and (2)]
2 Final compliance beyond 1 year after State Plan approval is possible only if the State
Plan contains increments of progress (see Section 3.6). [40 CFR 60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c)]
1-8
-------
13. Provision for state progress reports to EPA. [40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f)]
The revised or new State Plans are due to EPA by October 6, 2010. Table 1-4 is a
crosscheck of subpart B requirements and identifies whether or not each section applies to
HMIWI. Table 1-4 also indicates where the HMIWI EG (subpart Ce) and section 129 of the
CAA override specific provisions of subpart B. EPA published guidance for subpart B in 1977.
That guidance applies to the HMIWI EG, except where overridden by the changes introduced in
section 129 of the CAA of 1990 and the latest version of subpart Ce.
Table 1-4. Regulations for Adopting and Submitting State Plans
(40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B)
Section Number
and Title
General Contents
Does the Section Apply to HMIWI ?
60.20
"Applicability"
Subpart B applies when final
Guidelines are promulgated
(i.e., subpart Ce).
Yes, final amended HMIWI Guidelines
(subpart Ce) were published October 6, 2009,
so subpart B applies to HMIWI.
60.21
"Definitions"
Definitions of key terms.
Definition of "designated pollutant" in
subpart B does not apply to HMIWI.
Subpart Ce lists nine HMIWI pollutants that
are covered.
Definition of "designated facility" in subpart B
is defined in subpart Ce as each HMIWI for
which construction commenced on or before
June 20, 1996 and for which construction
commenced after June 20, 1996 but no later
than December 1,2008.
60.22
"Publication of
guideline documents,
Emission Guidelines,
and final compliance
times"
Descriptions of contents of
Emission Guidelines to be
developed by EPA.
Yes. Amended guidelines for HMIWI
(subpart Ce) have been developed and
published as required (October 6, 2009 [74 FR
51368]).
60.23
"Adoption and
submittal of State Plans,
public hearings"
Schedules and procedures for
states to follow in developing
and submitting State Plans.
Requirements for public hearings
on State Plans.
Yes, except for 60.23(a). Section 129 specifies
that State Plans for HMIWI be submitted 1 year
after publication of subpart Ce (i.e., October 6,
2010).
60.24
"Emission standards3
and compliance
schedules"
State Plans must include
emission standards and
compliance schedules. State
Plans may be more or less
stringent than the Guidelines.
Yes, except 60.24(f) does not apply.
Subpart Ce and Section 129 specify that State
Plans must be "at least as protective" as the
Guidelines.
3Note that "emission standards" can include any state enforceable mechanisms including,
but not limited to, state rules (see section 3.2 in this document).
1-9
-------
Section Number
and Title
General Contents
Does the Section Apply to HMIWI ?
60.25
"Emission inventories,
source surveillance,
reports"
Plans must include a plant
inventory and an emissions
inventory and provisions for
monitoring compliance. States
must submit progress reports to
EPA.
Yes.
60.26
"Legal authority'
Plans must demonstrate that the
state has legal authority to carry
out the Plan as submitted.
Yes.
60.27
"Actions by the
Administrator"
Procedures for EPA review and
approval or disapproval of Plans.
Federal Plans will be developed
if states have not submitted
approvable Plans.
The schedules in 60.27 do not apply. For
HMIWI, section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act
allows 6 months for EPA to approve or
disapprove State Plans. EPA will implement a
Federal Plan per section 129(b) for all states
(with affected sources) which do not have an
EPA approved State Plan in place by October
6, 2011 (2 years after promulgation).
60.28
"Plan revisions by the
state"
Procedures for revision of Plans. Yes.
60.29
"Plan revisions by the
Administrator"
Procedures for revision of Plans. Yes.
1.6 Requirements for Negative Declarations
If no sources affected by the amended EG in the state, then the state need only submit a
letter of certification, called a "negative declaration," to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator in lieu of a revised or new State Plan.4 [40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06] EPA has no
formal review process for negative declaration letters. Once the negative declaration letter is
received, a copy is placed in the public docket and a notice is published in the Federal Register
(FR). If, at a later date, an existing HMIWI is found in the state, the Federal Plan implementing
the HMIWI EG would automatically apply to that unit until the State Plan is approved. [40 CFR
62.14400 and 65 FR 49869-70, 74] If the State Plan is already approved when an existing
HMIWI is found in the state, the state plan would apply.
1.7 Relationship Between the Section 111(d)/129 State Plan and SIP
The State Plans for implementing the HMIWI EG are different from State
Implementation Plans (SIP) required by sections 110 or 172 of the CAA. The State Plan and the
The absence of known sources does not preclude a State from submitting a State Plan.
States with no known sources may still want to submit a State Plan to cover existing sources
subsequently discovered.
1-10
-------
SIP are programs for state implementation of federal requirements, and for both, the
administrative procedures, particularly the public hearing process, are similar. Both programs
are designed to achieve emission reductions at sources by identifying the pollutant to be
controlled, establishing the emission limits for the source, and establishing procedures to ensure
that emission limits are met.
However, the states and EPA fulfill different responsibilities under the two programs.
The goal of section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans is to control the emissions of designated pollutants5
by establishing standards of performance for existing sources. Section 11 l(d)/129 EG (including
emission limits or performance levels) are technologically-based and are established by EPA on
a national level. States are responsible for developing and implementing a program to achieve
compliance with these technologically-based standards.
The goal of the SIPs, on the other hand, is to attain and maintain National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) or ambient concentrations for certain criteria pollutants (Pb, SC>2,
PMio, NC>2, CO, and ozone) in a given area. Hence, in the SIP program, the state establishes
emission limits or standards based on the sources' contributions to local air quality and other
local factors. The emission control requirements for a regulated source category under a SIP
may vary from facility to facility based on local factors. The states are responsible for
implementing both section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans and SIP programs, and both programs
complement each other.
5 Section 11 l(d)/129 Plans apply to PM, SO2, HC1, CO, NOX, Pb, Cd, Hg, dioxins/furans,
and opacity (as appropriate) [CAA section 129(a)(4) and (b)(2)].
1-11
-------
1-12
-------
2.0 Schedule and Responsibilities
Sections 11 l(d) and 129 of the CAA direct each state to adopt and submit Plans that
implement the HMIWI EG within 1 year after EPA publication of the final EG. [CAA sections
11 l(d)(l) and 129(b)(2)] Amended EG for HMIWI (40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ce) were
published on October 6, 2009 [74 FR 51368], and revised or new State Plans need to be
submitted to EPA on or before October 6, 2010 [CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR
60.39e(a)(2)]. Figure 2-1 is a timeline which shows how implementation of the EG might
proceed if the maximum time allowed is used for each event.
2.1 State Plan Schedule
In order to submit a revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan by October 6, 2010,
States need to revise an existing or develop a new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan as soon as
possible and complete the required public hearings. The steps that are necessary for states to
develop and submit the State Plans are listed in Table 2-1, along with an example schedule.
After the revised or new State Plan is submitted, EPA is required to approve or
disapprove the State Plan no later than 180 days (6 months) of State Plan submittal. [CAA
section 129(b)(2)] EPA's decision to approve or disapprove each State Plan will be published in
the FR. [40 CFR 62.02(e) and 62.04] Final decisions will be codified in 40 CFR Part 62,
"Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants." If a
revised or new State Plan is not approvable, EPA will discuss its concerns about the State Plan
with the state prior to official disapproval. If the State Plan is not approved, the basis for
disapproval will be discussed in the FR notice, and the state would have an opportunity to submit
a revised Plan addressing EPA's concerns. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 62.02(e) and (f)]
If the state does not have an approved Plan in place by October 6, 2011, EPA's Federal Plan will
go into effect immediately and will be applicable to affected sources in that state. [CAA section
129(b)(3) and 40 CFR 62.13 and 60.39e(f)]
2-1
-------
4/6/2011 10/6/2014
10/6/2009 EPA Approves/ "Backstop"
Revised Rule Disapproves 4/6/2012 Compliance
Promulgated1 State Plans3 Compliance Due5 Deadline
\ Compliance Window \
i^ Increments of progress ^_
required6 I
10/6/2010 10/6/2011
State Plans Federal Plan
Due2 Published4
174FR51368.
2 Section 129(b)(2) requires State Plans be submitted not later than one year after promulgation of the rule.
3 Section 129(b)(2) requires EPA to approve or disapprove a State Plan within 180 days of submission.
4 Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to develop a Federal Plan within 2 years of rule promulgation (if necessary).
5 Due 12 months after EPA approval of State Plan under section 60.39e of subpart Ce unless the State has granted an extension to a source (up to 3 years after
approval of State Plan but not less than 5 years after promulgation). Note: Section 129(f)(2) requires expeditious compliance.
6 Section 60.24(e)(1) of subpart B requires legally enforceable increments of progress for any compliance schedule extending beyond 12 months from State Plan
approval. Section 60.39e(c)(1)-(9) of subpart Ce and section 60.21 of subpart B list suggested increments of progress, and section 60.21 of subpart B contains five
required increments of progress.
Notes:
Subpart B General requirements for all section 111(d) State Plans. Amended 12/19/95 to allow subsequent subparts (e.g., subpart Ce) to
supersede subpart B.
Subpart Ce Emission Guidelines for HMIWI.
Figure 2-1. HMIWI Implementation Timeline
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. Sample State Schedule for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans
Action
Date
Begin source inventory
Amended EG promulgated by EPA
Decide what state authority to use
Start state rulemaking or other procedure needed to ensure
state authority
Start revising or drafting State Plan
Notice of public hearings
Complete state rulemaking or other procedure needed
Complete public hearing on revised or new State Plan
Revised or new State Plans due to EPA Regional Office
Respond to any clarifications requested by EPA
EPA approval/disapproval of the revised or new State Plan
If disapproved, submit revised approvable State Plan
Federal Plan (if applicable)
Immediately
October 6, 2009
November 2009
December 2009
December 2009
February 2010 (30 days before
hearing)
June 2010
June 2010
October 6, 2010
During the 180 day period
following October 6, 2010
No later than 6 months after
State Plan submittal
Prior to October 6, 2011 to
avoid Federal Plan
October 6, 2011
To be approved by EPA, the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans need to
include a compliance schedule for all existing HMIWI located in the state. [40 CFR 60.24(a) and
60.39e] The compliance schedule should require compliance as expeditiously as practicable
after EPA approval of the Plan and can allow up to 3 years from State Plan approval for HMIWI
to comply, provided the State Plan includes enforceable increments of progress. [40 CFR
60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c)] In all cases, all applicable sources need to be in compliance no later
than 3 years after State Plan approval by EPA or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier. [CAA
section 129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(c)] Compliance could be achieved by
completing a retrofit of air pollution controls or by shutting down, [see 40 CFR 62.14470 and
62.14471 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example] States may establish compliance
schedules that are shorter than the times allowed by the EG, but they may not establish
2-3
-------
compliance schedules that are longer than allowed by the EG. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and
40 CFR 60.24(g) and 60.39e(b)-(d)]
2.2 Responsibilities
EPA, the states, and owners and operators of HMIWI each have responsibilities for
implementing the EG. The primary responsibilities for each party are outlined below.
2.2.1 EPA Responsibilities
Assisting State and Local Programs and HMIWI Owners and Operators EPA
assists state and local agencies to prepare revised or new, approvable section 11 l(d)/129 State
Plans. EPA provides information, answers questions, and interprets federal requirements for the
state and for HMIWI owners and operators. EPA conducts outreach and compliance assistance
programs. EPA identifies contact persons to answer states' questions, clarify approval criteria,
and address specific implementation issues as necessary. States' questions should be directed to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office to ensure efficient and consistent responses. (See
Appendix E for a list of Regional and state contacts.)
Review of State Plans. Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to approve or
disapprove State Plans within 180 days (6 months) of submittal. States are to revise or develop
their section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60, subpart B (as revised December
19, 1995 to conform with section 129). EPA will inform the state if EPA has questions about the
revised or new State Plan before making a decision on the approval or disapproval of the State
Plan. After a state incorporates a requirement in the revised or new State Plan, and the State Plan
is reviewed and approved by EPA, the state requirement becomes federally enforceable.
Federal Plan. EPA anticipates that many of the states with HMIWI will prepare revised
or new, approvable section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans. In the event an approvable State Plan is not
submitted, EPA will develop and implement a Federal Plan, which will go in effect immediately
on October 6, 2011 for any state that does not have an approved State Plan.
Tribal Plans No existing HMIWI are located on tribal lands. EPA does not anticipate
the need for any tribes to develop Tribal Plans.
2-4
-------
2.2.2 State Responsibilities
Developing a State Plan. The state is to revise or develop a State Plan that meets the
criteria presented in sections 11 l(d) and 129 and the amended EG. This document discusses
how states could meet this responsibility.
Establishing Compliance Schedules. To be approved by EPA, the revised or new State
Plan needs to include the amended emission limits and compliance schedules for all HMIWI.
When preparing a revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan, states should contact HMIWI
owners and operators to ensure that they understand the requirements of the amended EG.
Facilities could come into compliance with the State Plan by completing a retrofit or shutting
down by the 1-year compliance date (i.e., 1 year after EPA approval of the State Plan). [40 CFR
60.39e(b)] If the revised or new State Plan contains increments of progress (see section 3.6),
HMIWI may be allowed to extend their retrofit schedule beyond the 1-year compliance date. [40
CFR 60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c)] All HMIWI planning to retrofit would need to do so within
3 years of EPA approval of the revised or new State Plan, but no later than October 6, 2014.
[CAA section 129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(c)] All HMIWI planning to shut down
would need to do so within 1 year after EPA approval of the revised or new State Plan, unless
granted an extension by the state under the provisions of section 60.39e(d) of subpart Ce. Be
aware that a state can only consider petitions per section 60.39e(d) if the State Plan includes a
provision that allows such sources to request an extension to continue operating beyond 1 year
after State Plan approval (see section 3.6). [40 CFR 60.24(a) and (e)(l) and 60.39e(c) and (d)]
Ensuring Compliance. Facilities could achieve compliance by completing retrofits or
shutting down by the dates established in the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans, [see
40 CFR 62.14470 and 62.14471 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example] In order to
prevent sources from continuing to operate or restarting without proper controls, the revised or
new State Plans need to demonstrate the legal authority requiring HMIWI that have shut down to
maintain closure. [40 CFR 60.26(a)] States are advised to include a generic compliance schedule
in their revised or new State Plans to cover facilities which have shut down but may reopen in
the future. Units that shut down by the date 1 year after EPA approval of the revised or new
State Plan, and restart prior to the October 6, 2014 deadline would need to complete all of the
missed increments of progress in the state's generic compliance schedule before restarting. [40
CFR 60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c); see 40 CFR 62.14472 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an
2-5
-------
example] Units which restart after the October 6, 2014 compliance deadline would need to
comply with the revised or new State Plan before resuming operation. [CAA section 129(f)(3)
and 40 CFR 60.26(a); see 40 CFR 62.14472 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example]
Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators that shut down can be divided into two
groups. The first group is FDVIIWI that have shut down or will shut down and are not planning to
restart. Once shut down, such sources cannot restart without a State Plan revision and retrofit of
air pollution control equipment. [40 CFR 60.24(e)(l), 60.25(a), 60.28(c), and 60,39e(b) and (c);
see 40 CFR 62.14471 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example]
The second group is HMIWI that shut down as an element of their retrofit activities. For
these HMIWI, schedules for shutdown and completion of retrofit activities would be included in
the revised or new State Plan. For retrofitting facilities, the revised or new State Plan needs to
include the five enforceable increments of progress for retrofit activities (discussed in
section 3.6.3), along with a sixth increment, a date for shutdown. Under the State Plan, the
HMIWI would shut down by the specified date and could not restart until the other increments of
progress, including retrofit of controls, are complete. [40 CFR 60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c); see
40 CFR 62.14470 and 62.14472 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example]
Submitting Progress Reports. States are to report annually to EPA on the progress of
implementing the revised or new Plan, including meeting increments of progress and achieving
final compliance. The States also need to include in this report (as discussed in section 3.12):
(1) compliance status, (2) enforcement actions, and (3) updates on inventory. [40 CFR 60.25(e)
and (f)]
2.2.3 Source Responsibilities
Developing Compliance Plans and Schedules. Hospital/medical/infectious waste
incinerator owners and operators are to work with the state to develop a compliance plan and
retrofit schedule under the revised or new State Plan. [40 CFR 60.39e(d)(l)(i) and (ii)] To
comply, all HMIWI will need to either shut down within 1 year of EPA approval of the State
Plan1 or complete retrofits to comply with the emission limits not later than 3 years after
lln some cases, sources planning to shut down may be granted an extension beyond the
1-year deadline, if the State Plan contains the provisions outlined in section 60.39e(d) of
subpart Ce.
2-6
-------
approval of the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan or by October 6, 2014, whichever is
sooner. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(b)-(d); see 40 CFR 62.14470 and
62.14471 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example]
Upgrading or Retrofitting Facilities. Owners and operators will need to retrofit or
upgrade their facilities to meet the amended emission limits on the compliance schedules
established by the state. [CAA section 129(b)(2), (f)(2), and (f)(3) and 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and
(e)(l) and 60.39e(b)-(d)]
Meeting Additional State Plan Requirements In addition to completing the necessary
retrofits, owners and operators are responsible for meeting other State Plan requirements
(summarized in section 3.5). Facilities are required to comply with operator training and
qualification requirements, inspection requirements, and waste management plan requirements.
[40 CFR 60.25(b) and 60.34e-60.36e] Facilities are to report to the state their progress towards
compliance, report ongoing testing and monitoring results, and keep required records to
demonstrate compliance. [40 CFR 60.25(b), 60.37e, and 60.38e] Most of these requirements are
to be completed at the time of full compliance, with the exception of the operator training and
qualification requirements and the inspection requirements, which are to be completed within
1 year after EPA approval of the revised or new State Plan. [40 CFR 60.34e, 60.36e(a) and (c),
and 60.39e(e)]
2-7
-------
-------
3.0 Required Elements of an Acceptable State Plan
Table 3-1 summarizes the elements of the State Plan for FDVIIWI, provides citations from
subparts B and Ce, and identifies the sections of this chapter that discuss each element. States
may find this summary helpful in preparing their revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans,
and EPA will use it in reviewing the State Plans.
Some components of a section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan duplicate existing state
requirements and, therefore, will not add additional requirements. For example, most states
require public notice for rulemaking consistent with 40 CFR Part 60, subpart B. Similarly,
section 112 and title V of the CAA require various demonstrations of legal authority. To the
extent that earlier demonstrations of legal authority by the state meet the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 60, subpart B, the state would simply need to include copies of such demonstrations in the
State Plan submittal, including a copy of the state laws or regulations (if applicable).
3.1 Demonstration of Legal Authority
To be approved by EPA, the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan needs to demonstrate that the
state has the legal authority under current state law to adopt and implement the emission
standards and compliance schedules in the State Plan. [CAA section 129(f)(3) and 40 CFR
60.26(a)] The legal authority should support the legal mechanism selected by the state to
implement the emission limits for FDVIIWI. The legal authority needs to be available to the state
at the time the state submits its section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan to EPA. [40 CFR 60.26(c)] States
are to submit with the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan copies of the laws or regulations that
demonstrate the state's legal authority if a state law or regulation is the enforceable mechanism.
[40 CFR 60.26(b)] 1
A state could use existing demonstrations of legal authority to meet the requirements of
subpart B. Which existing authorities the state uses to implement the section 11 l(d)/129
requirements depends on the legislative structure of the state. This implementation guidance
discusses the minimum requirements of section 11 l(d) and 129 pertaining to FDVIIWI and notes
1 Only citations from the overall rule and copies of the sections pertaining to HMIWI would need to be submitted.
[40 CFR 60.26(b), noting that the "provisions of law or regulations... shall be specifically identified." (emphasis
added)]
3-1
-------
that states retain flexibility to implement the requirements as long as the provisions are
enforceable under state law.
Table 3-1. Summary of Requirements for Section lll(d)/129 State Plans"
Required Item
Reference in 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B or Ce
Section of this
Document
Demonstration that state has legal authority to
carry out Plan
60.26(a)ofsubpartB
3.1
Enforceable mechanisms selected by the state to
implement the Guidelines
60.24(a)ofsubpartB
3.2
Inventory of HMIWI, their emissions and
information related to their emissions
60.25(a) and (c) of subpart B
3.3
Compliance with emission limits
60.24(a)-(c) of subpart B and
60.33e of subpart Ce
3.4
Provisions for determining HMIWI compliance
status, including:
1. Legally enforceable procedures for requiring
the maintenance of records and periodic reporting
to the state for the determination of compliance;
2. Periodic inspections and testing;
3. Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in subpart Ce;
4. Operator training and qualification;
5. Waste management plan; and
6. Inspections
60.24(b)(2) and 60.25(b) of
subpart B and 60.34e-60.38e
of subpart Ce
3.5
Compliance schedules and legally enforceable
increments of progress for HMIWI to achieve
compliance
60.24(a) and (e)(l) of
subpart B and 60.39e of
subpart Ce
3.6
Certification that a public hearing was held
before the State Plan was adopted and list of the
attendees at the hearing and their affiliation, with
a summary of their presentations and handouts
60.23(f)(l)and(2)of
subpart B
3.7
State progress reports
60.25(e) and (f) of subpart B
3.8
a See text of section 3 and Appendix A of this document for additional discussion of the required
elements of a State Plan.
A state needs to include in its demonstration of existing legal authority a showing that it
has the authority to:
1. Adopt emission standards (including stack opacity) and enforceable conditions
(see section 3.2) as well as compliance schedules applicable to the designated
facilities and pollutants for which the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan is submitted;
[40 CFR 60.26(a)(l), 60.33e, and 60.39e]
3-2
-------
2. Enforce the relevant laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules
referenced in section 11 l(d) and section 129 and seek injunctive relief and
prevent restart of HMIWI that have shut down; [40 CFR 60.26(a)(2)]
3. Obtain information necessary to determine compliance; [40 CFR 60.26(a)(3)]
4. Require reporting and recordkeeping, operator training and qualification,
inspections, and testing; [40 CFR 60.26(a)(3), 60.34e, and 60.36e-60.38e]
5. Require the use of monitors and require emission reports of FDVIIWI
owners/operators; [40 CFR 60.26(a)(4) and 60.37e]
6. Make emission data available to the public; [40 CFR 60.26(a)(4)] and
7. Require a waste management plan. [40 CFR 60.35e]
Demonstrations of legal authority can take several forms. States that use a legal
mechanism other than rulemaking to implement the EG should submit legal documentation,
preferably an opinion by the state's Attorney General, that the state possesses the adequate
authority to implement and enforce the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan using that legal
mechanism. [CAA section 114(b)(l) and 40 CFR 60.26]
A state governmental agency other than the state air pollution control agency may be
assigned responsibility for carrying out a portion of a section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan, provided
that the state demonstrates that the state governmental agency has adequate authority.
[40 CFR 60.26(d)] The state may authorize a local agency to implement a portion of the
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan, provided that the local agency demonstrates that it has adequate
legal authority to implement that portion of the State Plan and the state is not relieved of
responsibility. [40 CFR 60.26(e)]
3.2 Enforceable Mechanisms
Many states that have HMIWI covered by the amended EG will revise existing or
develop new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans that use state rules as the legal instrument to enforce
the amended EG. An essential element of a section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan is the emission
standards, which 40 CFR 60.21(f) defines as "a legally enforceable regulation (emphasis added)
setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment
specifications for control of air pollution emissions."
3-3
-------
Note that the pollutants regulated under the amended HMIWI EG are a combination of
criteria and hazardous air pollutants. Generally, states have adequate authority under their air
pollution statutes to regulate both criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants through a
variety of mechanisms.
If the state relies on a mechanism that is not a state rule to implement the amended EG,
the state needs to document in the State Plan how the selected mechanism ensures that the
HMIWI will meet the requirements of the amended EG and attach a copy of the enforceable
mechanism. [CAA section 114(b)(l), 40 CFR 60.26(b)] To ensure that the selected mechanism
meets all of the requirements of the EG, the State would need to legally certify (preferably an
Attorney General's Opinion) that the selected mechanism can be used to create enforceable
requirements under the EG. Given that a process other than a rulemaking is being used to create
federally-enforceable requirements, the State would also need to explain how the public has had
an opportunity to participate in the development of the EG requirements, how the mechanism is
permanent, and how the public will have access to the underlying documents which contain the
limits and requirements.
The selected enforcement mechanism should not be title V permits because title V
permits could not be used to create applicable federal requirements from the emission guidelines,
title V permits are not permanent, and the public participation process under the EG is distinct
from title V public notice requirements. Additionally, it is important to note that Attorney
General Opinions submitted as part of title V program submittals would not be able to address
the issues resulting from a State selecting an enforceable mechanism other than a rule to
implement the EG.
3.3 Inventory
3.3.1 Source Inventory
A complete, updated source inventory of affected HMIWI in the state regulated by the
EG is to be submitted as part of the state's revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan.
[40 CFR 60.25(a)] Sources affected by the EG that will need to be included in the state's source
inventory include: (1) HMIWI, (2) co-fired combustors, and (3) incinerators burning only
pathological, low-level radioactive, and chemotherapeutic waste alone or in combination.
[40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.32e(a)-(c)] Each of these three types of combustors are defined in
3-4
-------
section 60.5 Ic of subpart EC. The HMIWI are subject to all of the subpart Ce requirements.
Co-fired combustors and incinerators burning pathological, low-level radioactive, and
chemotherapeutic waste are only required to notify the Administrator of an exemption claim and
to keep certain records. [40 CFR 60.32e(b) and (c)] Nevertheless, these sources are affected by
the EG and thus, will need to be included in the source inventory. [40 CFR 60.25(a)] In addition,
States are encouraged to make a reasonable effort to include sources which have shut down their
incinerator, but which still have the capability of resuming operation.
In cases where a facility has shut down its HMIWI and does not intend to resume
operation, the HMIWI may be left off of the state's source inventory if the state determines that
the HMIWI is inoperable. [40 CFR 60.25(a); see also 65 FR 49876, in the preamble to the
original HMIWI Federal Plan] Criteria for determining whether an incinerator is inoperable
could include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following conditions:
1. Waste charge door welded shut
2. Stack/by-pass stack removed
3. Combustion air blowers removed
4. Burners or fuel supply removed
[65 FR 49876]
States should use their best judgment to ensure that a facility has taken steps to render the
HMIWI inoperable before omitting the HMIWI from their source inventory.
3.3.2 Emission Inventory
An updated emission inventory, based on the updated HMIWI source inventory, for the
pollutants regulated by the EG, is required by 40 CFR 60.25(a) and is to be included in the
state's revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan. The emission inventory, as well as the
source inventory, is to be made available to the public at the public hearing and presented with
the applicable emission standards. [60.23(d)(2)] The inventory data should include emission
data for the designated pollutants (e.g., continuous emission monitoring system [CEMS] data,
actual test data, or recent estimates of emissions where practicable). [40 CFR 60.25(a) and Part
60 Appendix D] Means of estimating emissions from HMIWI are readily available and are
discussed in section 3.4.1 below and in Appendix F. It may be more difficult to estimate
emissions from co-fired combustors and incinerators burning only pathological, low-level
radioactive, and chemotherapeutic waste due to the mixtures of wastes combusted. Unlike
HMIWI, co-fired combustors and incinerators burning pathological, low-level radioactive, and
3-5
-------
chemotherapeutic waste are not required to be subject to the emission limits in the State Plan. [40
CFR 60.32e(b) and (c)] Therefore, while states should include these sources in their source
inventories, states could elect to leave these units out of the emission inventory. [40 CFR
60.25(a) and 60.32e(a)] Likewise, States could choose to leave incinerators which have shut
down out of their emission inventory, since these sources would have zero emissions. [40 CFR
60.25(a); see also 65 FR 49876, in the preamble to the original FDVIIWI Federal Plan, as an
example]
3.3.2.1 Emission Estimation Methods
Estimates of emissions for the emission inventory can be derived from a variety of
methods. To the degree that a variety of types of data are available, EPA recommends the
following hierarchy for estimating emissions2:
1st choice. Where already available, CEMS data that provide a continuous record of
emissions over an extended and uninterrupted period of time.
2nd choice. Where already available, stack sampling results.
3 rd choi ce. Emi s si on factors:
a. AP-42/FIRE3 emission factors rated "A" through "D"~based on source
tests performed at one or more facilities within an industry ("A" is the
highest rating) or EPA emission factors generated from data used in the
development of the amended FDVIIWI EG (presented in Appendix F).
b. State emission factors—possibly more optimized to local or regional
conditions.
c. Industry emission factors.
d. AP-42/FIRE emission factors rated "E" and "U" ("E" is the lowest rating
on the A through E scale, and "U" is unratable).
Where emission factors are used, the AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors provides preferred emission estimation methods. Example calculations for estimating
emissions from emission factors are provided in AP-42. However, where emissions data from
2Chapter 4, Introduction to Stationary Point Source Emission Inventory Development,
May 2001. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume02/iiOI_may2001 .pdf
3 AP-42 is the common name for the EPA document entitled Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition., January 1995,
available from GPO or from the CHIEF bulletin board. The Factor Information Retrieval System
(FIRE) is factor retrieval software that is available from the CHIEF bulletin board or by calling
Info-CHIEF hotline at (919) 541-5285.
3-6
-------
CEMs or stack testing are already available and are thought to be representative, the data should
be used in place of emission factors. Additional testing would not be needed for the inventory in
the State Plan where data are not available. [40 CFR 60.25(a) and Part 60 Appendix D]
3.3.2.2 Required Emission Summary Reports
A summary of emissions should be submitted with the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129
State Plan. The summary should include, at a minimum, the emission rate of each of the
designated pollutants for each HMIWI. These values should be provided with the corresponding
emission standards to show the relationship between measured or estimated emissions and the
amounts of such emissions allowed by the standard. [40 CFR 60.25(a)]
3.3.2.3 Annual Emission Reporting
In addition to the updated emission inventory required for the revised or new
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan, 40 CFR 60.25(e) also requires states to submit reports on progress
in plan enforcement, as part of the annual report to EPA submitted under 40 CFR 51.321 through
51.323. These annual reports are to update the emission inventory for sources that achieve
compliance, sources that are new or modified, sources that have shut down, and sources whose
emissions have changed more than 5 percent from the most recently submitted emission data. [40
CFR 60.25(f)(4) and (5)] If none of the above events occurs, then there are no updates to report,
and the only change the state would need to make to the next annual report would be to change
the year (i.e., the state could still use the data from the previous year). [40 CFR 60.25(f)(5)]
3.3.2.4 Reporting to AFS
Emissions data are to be reported to the Air Facility System (AFS) as specified in
paragraph (a) of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 60. The AFS is a repository of emission
information for stationary sources that supersedes the National Emissions Data System (NEDS)
described in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix D.
3.4 Compliance with Emission Limits
Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators will need to retrofit controls to comply
with the emission limits in the revised or new State Plan or shut down their incinerator. The
revised or new State Plan should include emission limits that are at least as protective as the
amended EG and also should address non-operating HMIWI (unless the HMIWI is inoperable)
3-7
-------
and HMIWI that will shut down rather than retrofit air pollution control equipment. [CAA
section 129(b)(2), 60.24(c), 60.25(a), and 40 CFR 60.33e(a)] The emission limits are to apply at
all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, as defined in subpart Ce. [40
CFR 60.37e(a) and 60.56c(a)]
Under section 129(b)(2), the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans are to include
emission limits that are "at least as protective as" those in the amended HMIWI EG (40 CFR
Part 60, subpart Ce). The emission limits for the nine HMIWI pollutants and opacity are found
in subpart Ce (presented in Appendix K of this document).
The revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan should include limits for all nine of the
pollutants plus opacity in subpart Ce. Section 60.33e of subpart Ce specifies emission limits for
PM, CO, Cd, Pb, Hg, SO2, HC1, dioxins/furans, NOX, and opacity. All of these pollutant limits
are in units of concentration. For example, the PM and metals limits are in units of milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter exhaust. The dioxins/furans limit is also a concentration limit (in
units of nanograms per dry standard cubic meter) for total dioxins/furans and the toxic equivalent
[TEQ] for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [TCDD]). The HC1, SO2, NOX, and CO limits are
concentration limits in units of parts per million by volume. The opacity limit is in units of
percent opacity.
To be approvable, the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan should include
emission limits in dimensions identical to the amended Guidelines, or alternative formats
demonstrated to be at least as protective as the concentration limits specified for each pollutant in
subpart Ce. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 40 CFR 60.33e(a)] Other state
programs and permits may include limits in the form of emission rates (e.g., pounds per hour) or
ambient air concentrations; these types of limits are not required to be included in the revised or
new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan. If a revised or new State Plan uses any format for emission
limits other than those in subpart Ce, the state needs to demonstrate to EPA that these emission
limits are at least as protective as those in subpart Ce. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and 40 CFR
60.24(c) and 40 CFR 60.33e(a)]
3-8
-------
3.5 Determining HMIWI Compliance Status
To be approved by EPA, the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan needs to
include requirements for the testing and monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping, operator
training and qualification, waste management plans, and the inspection provisions from the EG.
These provisions are specified in the amended HMIWI EG (subpart Ce). These include,
in particular:
1. The performance testing methods listed in section 60.56c of subpart EC
[40 CFR 60.37e],
2. The monitoring requirements listed in section 60.57c of subpart EC [40 CFR
60.37e],
3. The reporting and recordkeeping provisions listed in section 60.58c of subpart EC
[40CFR60.38e],
4. The operator training and qualification requirements listed in section 60.53c of
subpart EC [40 CFR 60.34e],
5. The waste management guidelines listed in section 60.55c of subpart EC [40
CFR60.35e], and
6. The inspection guidelines listed in section 60.36e of subpart Ce.
The amended EG include periodic performance tests and monitoring of specific operating
parameters. [40 CFR 60.37e(a)-(e), 60.56c(c), and 60.57c(a)-(e)] Each facility is to maintain
records of the performance test and specified operating parameters for 5 years. [40 CFR
60.38e(a) and 60.58c(b)(2) and (6)] The facility is to submit annual reports if it is in compliance
and semiannual reports if it exceeds emission standards or operating parameter limits. [40 CFR
60.38e(a) and (b)(2) and 60.58c(d) and (e)] Details of these requirements are contained in
subpart Ce (presented in Appendix K of this document).
A revised or new State Plan that incorporates the testing, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements specified in subpart Ce will be consistent with the State Plan
requirements in subpart B. Under section 60.25(b) and (c) of subpart B, State Plan requirements
for monitoring compliance are to include the following:
1. Legally enforceable requirements that require owners and operators to keep
records of the nature and amount of emissions and any other information that may
be necessary to enable the state to judge compliance. This information is to be
3-9
-------
reported periodically to the state. [40 CFR 60.25(b)(l)] (Subpart Ce requires such
records and reports.)
2. Legally enforceable requirements that provide for periodic inspection and testing.
[40 CFR 60.25(b)(2)] (Subpart Ce requires periodic testing and monitoring of
operating parameters.)
3. Provisions for making reports of emissions, correlated with the emission
standards that apply available to the general public. [40 CFR 60.25(c)]
In addition, State Plan provisions for testing and monitoring are to be conducted in accordance
with the quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, and in the underlying test
methods.
3.5.1 Testing Requirements
Consistent with Section 60.37e of the amended subpart Ce EG, revised or new State
Plans are to require all FDVIIWI, including small rural FDVIIWI, to demonstrate initial compliance
with the 2009 amended emission limits for all nine pollutants and opacity, if the sources have not
already demonstrated compliance. Revised or new State Plans may allow sources to use results
of their previous emission tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the amended emissions
limits as long as the sources certify that the previous test results are representative of current
operations with regard to factors such as charge rate, operating parameters, etc. [40 CFR
60.37e(f)] Only those sources who could not so certify and/or whose previous emission tests do
not demonstrate compliance with one or more amended emission limits would need to conduct
another emission test for those pollutants. [40 CFR 60.37e(a)(2), (b)(2), and (f) and 60.56c(b)]
Revised or new State Plans are also to require all FDVIIWI, including small rural FDVIIWI, to
demonstrate annual compliance with the amended PM, CO, and HC1 emission limits by
conducting an annual performance test. [40 CFR 60.37e(a)(2) and (b)(2) and 60.56c(c)(2)] In
addition, revised State Plans are to require existing HMIWI to conduct a Method 22 visible
emissions test of the incinerator ash handling operations during the next performance test at the
facility. State Plans for new HMIWI are to require a Method 22 visible emissions test of the
incinerator ash handling operations during each compliance test. [40 CFR 60.37e(a)(2) and (b)(2)
and 60.56c(b)(14)]
3.5.2 Monitoring Requirements
Revised or new State Plans are to require sources to establish site-specific operating
3-10
-------
parameter limits during the performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with amended
emission limits, as well as to require sources to monitor those operating parameters to ensure
ongoing compliance. Section 60.37e of the amended subpart Ce EG specifies the types of
operating parameters to be monitored. Revised or new State Plans may also include the use of
CO, PM, HC1, multi-metals, and Hg CEMS and integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and
dioxin monitoring (i.e., continuous sampling with periodic sample analysis) as alternatives to
parameter monitoring. [40 CFR 60.37e(a)(2) and (b)(2) and 60.56c(c)(4)-(7)]
3.5.3 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Revised or new State Plans are to include the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
specified in section 60.38e of the subpart Ce EG, as amended on October 6, 2009. Sources
covered under the State Plan would need to maintain thorough records documenting the results
of their initial and annual performance tests, records of continuous monitoring of their site-
specific operating parameters, records of initial and annual inspections, records of compliance
with the operator training and qualification requirements, and records of compliance with the
waste management plan. [40 CFR 60.35e, 60.38e(a) and (b), 60.55c, and 60.58c(b)(2), (b)(6),
(b)(9), and (b)(10)] Sources would need to keep these records on file for at least 5 years. [40
CFR 60.58c(b)]
The subpart Ce EG provide for owners or operators to submit the results of the initial
performance test and all subsequent performance tests or inspections. [40 CFR 60.38e(a) and (b)
and 60.58c(c)(l) and (d)(6) and (d)(9)] Additionally, reports on emission rates or operating
parameters that have not been obtained or that exceed applicable limits are to be submitted on a
semi-annual basis. [40 CFR 60.38e(a) and 60.58c(e)] If no exceedences occur during a semi-
annual period, the owner of the designated facility is to submit an annual report stating that no
exceedences occurred. [40 CFR 60.38e(a) and (b)(2) and 60.58c(d)] All reports are to be signed
by the facilities manager. [40 CFR 60.38e(b)(2) and 60.58c(d) and (e)]
3.5.4 Operator Training and Qualification Requirements
As specified in section 60.34e of the amended subpart Ce EG, State Plans are to require
that each facility have at least one trained and qualified operator on duty or on-call. The trained
and qualified HMIWI operator needs to pass an HMIWI operator training course, which is state-
approved or meets the requirements specified in the amended Guidelines. [40 CFR 60.34e and
3-11
-------
60.53c(b) and (c)] Also, State Plans are to require each facility to develop site-specific
information regarding HMIWI operation. [40 CFR 60.34e and 60.53c(h)] State Plans are to
require each employee involved with the operation of the HMIWI to review the operating
information developed for the HMIWI each year. [40 CFR 60.34e and 60.53c(i)]
For designated facilities as defined in section 60.32e(a)(l) of the amended subpart Ce
(existing sources under the September 15, 1997 HMIWI rule), the initial operator training
requirements should have been met 1 year after the effective date of either the State Plan
approval or Federal Plan promulgation. [40 CFR 60.34e and 60.39e(e)] For designated facilities
as defined in section 60.32e(a)(2) of the amended subpart Ce (NSPS sources under the
September 15, 1997 HMIWI rule), the initial operator training requirements should have been
met at the time of initial facility start-up. [40 CFR 60.53c]
3.5.5 Waste Management Plan Requirements
Section 60.35e of subpart Ce directs State Plans to ensure that facilities develop a waste
management plan that identifies the feasibility and the approach to separate certain components
of the solid waste stream from the health care waste stream. The waste management plan
requirements in State Plans are to be at least as protective as the requirements for waste
management plans under section 60.55c of subpart EC.
For those HMIWI covered under the September 15, 1997 HMIWI rules (subparts Ce and
EC), the waste management plan provisions under those rules should have been met no later than
60 days after the required initial performance test. [62 FR 48381 and 48389] A revised waste
management plan for those sources, under the amended October 6, 2009 subpart Ce provisions,
needs to be completed. The revised plan needs to be submitted no later than 60 days after the
initial performance test demonstrating compliance with the amended subpart Ce emission limits
contained in an approved, revised or new State Plan. [40 CFR 60.38e(a) and 60.58c(c)(3)]
3.5.6 Inspection Requirements
Revised or new State Plans are to require facilities to conduct initial and annual HMIWI
and control equipment inspections. Section 60.36e of the amended subpart Ce lists the
components of the HMIWI and control equipment which revised or new State Plans are to
require facilities to inspect. Revised or new State Plans are to require initial HMIWI and control
equipment inspections for large, medium, and small HMIWI and initial control equipment
3-12
-------
inspections, if applicable, for small rural HMIWI within 1 year following EPA approval of the
revised or new State Plan. [40 CFR 60.36e(a) and (c)] Revised or new State Plans are also to
require annual HMIWI and control equipment inspections for all existing HMIWI after that
point. [40 CFR 60.36e(b) and (d)] (Note: Existing small rural HMIWI should have already
conducted the initial HMIWI equipment inspection included in the 1997 EG for those sources.)
According to section 60.36e(a)(2) and (c)(2) of the amended subpart Ce, State Plans are to
require facilities to complete any necessary HMIWI and control equipment repairs within 10
operating days following an inspection. Revised or new State Plans may allow repairs to be
completed after 10 operating days, provided that the state supplies the facility with written
permission and a date by which all repairs are to be completed. [40 CFR 60.36e(a)(2) and (c)(2)]
3.6 Compliance Schedules
To comply with the emission limits contained in the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129
State Plan, existing HMIWI may need to retrofit emission controls. The revised or new State
Plan needs to contain expeditious schedules for retrofitting these HMIWI. [CAA section
129(f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e)(l) and 60.39e(a)-(d)] The elements included in a
compliance schedule are listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Schedule for HMIWI Compliance with the HMIWI
Emission Guidelines
Activity Date
State Plan submittal October 6,2010
State Plan approval April 6,2011
If not in compliance by this date, need April 6, 2012
enforceable increments of progress for
HMIWI
Submit a final control plan October 6, 2012a
Award contracts for control system May 6, 2013a
Initiate construction or installation of control January 6, 2014a
system
Complete construction or installation of August 6, 2014a
control system
Final compliance date for HMIWI No later than 3 years from approval of State
Planb or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier, or
3-13
-------
Activity Date
shut down by that date
Reports of periodic performance test data Annually after compliance date, if in compliance;
semiannually after compliance date, if the
emission limits or operating parameters are
exceeded
a The dates presented for increments of progress are suggested dates based on the schedule
included in section 62.14470 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan. A specific State Plan could
include different dates.
b Section 129 does not preclude a state from requiring earlier compliance dates.
The retrofit schedules for HMIWI are developed by the state air pollution control agency
considering input from the public and input from the HMIWI owners and operators. The EG
place certain restrictions on retrofit schedules. Retrofit schedules can extend up to 3 years after
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan approval, but no retrofit schedule can extend beyond October 6,
2014. [CAA section 129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(c)]
The section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan also needs to specify legally enforceable increments of
progress toward compliance for HMIWI that have compliance or retrofit schedules that extend
past 1 year beyond approval of the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan. [40 CFR 60.24(e)(l) and
60.39e(c)] In some cases, for example, an HMIWI could shut down as of October 6, 2014 or
3 years after state approval, whichever is earlier, complete a retrofit, and then reopen when
retrofits are completed, based on provisions in the original HMIWI Federal Plan. [40 CFR
62.14472]
3.6.1 Retrofit Required
The subpart Ce Guidelines are "performance standards," that is, the standards do not
prescribe one control system over another, but, rather, the HMIWI owners and operators can
choose the actual equipment selected for retrofit at a facility that they believe will achieve the
emission limits.
Control systems for the regulated HMIWI pollutants can be considered as two sub-
groups: (1) combustion system upgrades — referred to as "good combustion" (defined
previously as 2-second residence time in the secondary chamber at 1800°F); and (2) add-on
control systems (e.g., wet scrubber, dry injection followed by a fabric filter [DIFF]). "Good
combustion" controls PM, CO, and organic emissions (e.g., dioxins/furans). Wet scrubbers and
3-14
-------
DIFF are more expensive control systems and control multiple pollutants, including
dioxins/furans, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, HC1, and 862. Other add-on control systems that can be used in
addition to these systems include activated carbon injection systems, which control Hg and
dioxins/furans, and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems, which control NOx.
The amended EG are based on emission data associated with the best-performing
12 percent of FDVIIWI in each FDVIIWI subcategory (i.e., large, medium, small, small rural units).
[73 FR 72980] The emission data reflect both technology factors (e.g., add-on control systems)
and non-technology factors (e.g., waste segregation, good combustion). [73 FR 72964, 72970]
The best-performing HMIWI use good combustion in combination with various types of add-on
control systems, except for small rural units, which use good combustion alone (i.e., no add-on
control systems in place). [73 FR 72980] HMIWI also use waste segregation. [73 FR 72964,
72975, 72979]
3.6.2 Retrofit Schedules for HMIWI
Under section 60.39e(c) of subpart Ce, HMIWI retrofits are to be in compliance with the
amended EG within 3 years after approval of the revised or new State Plan or by October 6,
2014, whichever is earlier. Note, however, that enforceable increments of progress are required
for units with compliance schedules extending more than 1 year after State Plan approval. [40
CFR 60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c)] As noted previously, State Plans could allow units to shut down
by the specified date and restart after completing the retrofit. [40 CFR 60.24(e)(l) and 60.39e(c);
see also 40 CFR 62.14472 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example]
3.6.3 Increments of Progress
Compliance schedules for HMIWI with compliance dates that extend more than 1 year
after State Plan approval should include legally enforceable increments of progress towards
compliance as required by section 60.24(e) of subpart B. Each increment of progress from
section 60.21(h) of subpart B should have an enforceable compliance date in the revised or new
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan. The minimum five increments of progress required by
section 60.21(h) of subpart B for each HMIWI within a state are as follows:
3-15
-------
1. Submitting a final control plan. This may be a brief document or letter describing
the controls that the source will use to comply with the emission limits and other
requirements. In most cases, the source, public, and state will have discussed this
information as part of the state process for development of the compliance
schedule for the draft State Plan before the State Plan is submitted to EPA; [40
CFR60.21(h)(l)]
2. Awarding contracts for control systems or process modifications or orders for
purchase of components; [40 CFR 60.21(h)(2)]
3. Initiating on-site construction or installation of the air pollution control device(s)
or process changes; [40 CFR 60.21(h)(3)]
4. Completing on-site construction or installation of control equipment or process
changes; [40 CFR 60.21(h)(4)] and
5. Final compliance. [40 CFR 60.21(h)(5)]
EPA's rules allow States a variety of options in setting the dates associated with these
increments of progress. For example, all five increments of progress for HMIWI could be fixed
calendar dates or set as floating dates. For increments one to four, the floating dates could be
tied to either the date of the approval of the revised or new State Plan or the date of a local
permit issuance. Also, the date for submitting a final control plan could be set as 3 months
following approval of the State Plan. If an increment of progress is tied to the date of a permit
issuance, EPA recommends the State Plan should identify the specific permit.
The fifth increment of progress, the date for final compliance, could also be set as a
calendar date or a floating date. As a floating date, it should be tied only to the date of the
approval of the revised or new State Plan, not to the date of permit issuance and would need to
include the limitation that the date in no case can be later than 3 years from State Plan approval
or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier (unless the HMIWI will shut down). [CAA section
129(b)(2) and (f)(2) and 40 CFR 60.39e(c) and (d)]
The State Plan could include additional increments of progress as may be necessary for
close and effective supervision of progress toward final compliance. Additional suggested
increments of progress are listed in section 60.39e(c)(l) through (9) of subpart Ce. Some of
these suggested increments of progress are already required by subpart B. The remaining
suggested increments of progress could be included in the revised or new section 11 l(d)/129
State Plan as enforceable increments of progress with compliance dates, as non-enforceable
3-16
-------
increments of progress with reporting requirements only, or they could be left out of the revised
or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan entirely.
The additional suggested increments of progress from subpart Ce are:
1. Date for submitting a petition for site-specific operating parameters; [40 CFR
60.39e(c)(l)]
2. Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering firm regarding the
air pollution control device(s); [40 CFR 60.39e(c)(2)]
3. Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control device(s); [40 CFR
60.39e(c)(3)]
4. Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s); [40 CFR 60.39e(c)(4)]
5. Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution control device(s);
[40 CFR 60.39e(c)(5)]
6. Date for initiation of site preparation for installation of the air pollution control
device(s); [40 CFR 60.39e(c)(6)]
7. Date for initiation of installation of the air pollution control device(s); [40 CFR
60.39e(c)(7)]
8. Date for initial startup of the air pollution control device(s); [40 CFR
60.39e(c)(8)] and
9. Date for initial compliance test(s) of the air pollution control device(s). [40 CFR
60.39e(c)(9)]
The revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan may include one set of increments with
compliance dates applicable to all HMIWI within the state or it may tailor compliance dates to
individual HMIWI to address specific issues. In all cases, the enforceable increments of progress
should be arranged chronologically, and the compliance dates should be set to ensure full
compliance with the applicable requirements as expeditiously as practicable [40 CFR 60.24(c)]
but not later than 3 years after State Plan approval, or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier. For
example, a revised or new State Plan that requires a HMIWI to "submit a final control plan and
to award contracts no later than the third year of the compliance schedule" would likely be
disapproved because the increments are too close to the end of the compliance window, do not
appear to ensure expeditious progress, and thus jeopardize timely compliance, unless the HMIWI
plans to shut down. Although there may be HMIWI-specific reasons for other schedules, EPA
3-17
-------
would expect contracts to be awarded within the first year for HMIWI taking longer than 1 year
to comply. Depending on the extent of the retrofit, EPA would expect on-site construction to be
completed in the second or third year of the compliance schedule.
3.6.4 HMIWI Shutdowns
Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators that are planning to shut down rather than
meet the amended EG should be identified in the revised or new State Plan. [40 CFR 60.25(a)]
These State Plans should specify that HMIWI planning to comply by shutting down should do so
by a specific calendar date which is not later than 1 year after State Plan approval. [40 CFR
60.39e(b); see also 40 CFR 62.14471 of the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example] As
discussed in section 3.3, HMIWI which shut down should be included in the state's source
inventory unless the HMIWI is rendered inoperable. [40 CFR 60.25(a); see 65 FR 49876 in the
preamble to the original HMIWI Federal Plan as an example] In some special cases, facilities
may be allowed more than 1 year after State Plan approval to shut down, provided that the State
Plan contains provisions for allowing facilities to petition the state for an extension. Section
60.39e(d) of subpart Ce outlines the specific provisions that State Plans should include in order
to allow facilities more than 1 year to shut down.
The provisions of section 60.39e(d) allow states to provide temporary relief to those
unique facilities which are planning to shut down and have no waste disposal options other than
onsite incineration. One example of a facility planning to shut down which has special needs for
an extension beyond the 1-year compliance deadline would be a facility planning to install an
onsite alternative waste treatment technology (e.g., an autoclave) that will not be available for
installation until after the 1-year deadline. Such a facility would need to be able to demonstrate
that there are no waste disposal options (e.g., commercial disposal) other than onsite incineration
in the interim while the autoclave is being installed. [40 CFR 60.39e(d)(l)(i)] A second example
of a facility planning to shut down that may need an extension beyond the 1-year deadline would
be a facility planning to contract with a commercial hauler that, for some unusual reason, is
unable to secure a contract by the 1-year deadline. [40 CFR 60.39e(d)(l)(i)]
Under such special circumstances, states could allow facilities to petition the state after
approval of a State Plan for additional time to come into compliance by shutting down their
HMIWI. In order to allow facilities an extension, the State Plan would need to contain
provisions for granting or denying petitions for an extension beyond the 1-year deadline.
3-18
-------
Section 60.39e(d) of subpart Ce directs that states have sources submit the following information
in time to allow the state adequate opportunity to grant or deny the extension before the 1-year
compliance deadline:
1. Documentation of the analysis undertaken to support the need for an extension,
including an explanation of why up to 3 years after EPA approval of the Sate Plan
is sufficient while 1 year after EPA approval the State Plan is not sufficient;
2. An evaluation of the option to transport the waste offsite to a commercial medical
waste treatment and disposal facility on a temporary or permanent basis; and
3. A plan that documents measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress4
to be taken towards compliance with the EG.
When a petition for an extension is granted, states could allow sources planning to shut
down up to 3 years after EPA approval of the revised or new State Plan to come into compliance
with the amended EG by shutting down. [40 CFR 60.39e(d)(3)] However, states should use their
best judgment to determine if the source can shut down before the date 3 years after EPA
approval of the revised or new State Plan. In cases where a source requesting an extension is
able to shut down before the 3-year deadline, the state should require the source to shut down as
soon after the 1-year compliance deadline as possible. [CAA section 129(f)(2) and 40 CFR
60.24(c) and 60.39e(d)(3)]
Commercial medical waste disposal services, which collect medical waste from a facility
and transport it to a central disposal site (usually a commercial HMIWI), are operated in many
areas of the country. In some locations commercial disposal services are not readily available at
a reasonable cost because the hauler would need to travel long distances. However, in many
cases, the services of a commercial medical waste disposal company are available and can be
acquired in a short period of time. Sources installing an onsite alternative waste treatment
technology, in most cases, could contract with a commercial disposal company in the interim
period between the 1-year compliance deadline and the time when the onsite alternative is
installed. Therefore, section 60.39e(d) requires State Plans including provisions for an extension
4 The incremental steps of progress for units planning to shut down are not the same as
the incremental steps of progress for facilities planning to retrofit their HMIWI and continue
operation. The increments of progress for facilities planning to shut down are intended to
demonstrate that the facility is in the process of shutting down. Specific increments are
discussed later in this section.
3-19
-------
to have the source requesting an extension document reasons why the services of a commercial
disposal company cannot be reasonably obtained.
Sources planning to shut down which request an extension are also to provide the state
with a plan that documents the incremental steps of progress that the facility intends to take to
demonstrate that it is in the process of shutting down. [40 CFR 60.39e(d)(l)] The source plan
should contain completion dates for each of the increments of progress contained in the plan.
The following are some suggested increments of progress (based on the original HMIWI Federal
Plan) that sources requesting extensions to install onsite alternative treatment technologies could
use to demonstrate to the state that they are in the process of shutting down their HMIWI:
1. Going under contract with an alternative treatment technology vendor;
2. Initiating onsite construction or installation of the alternative treatment
technology;
3. Completing onsite construction or installation of the alternative treatment
technology;
4. Shutting down the existing HMIWI; and
5. Rendering the existing HMIWI inoperable.5
[40 CFR 62.14471(b)(l)(ii); 65 FR 49876]
The following are some suggested increments of progress (based on the original HMIWI
Federal Plan) that sources requesting extensions to contract with a commercial disposal company
on a permanent basis could use to demonstrate to the state that they are in the process of shutting
down their HMIWI:
1. Obtaining price quotes from commercial disposal services;
2. Going under contract with a commercial waste treatment and disposal facility;
3. Shutting down the existing HMIWI; and
4. Rendering the existing HMIWI inoperable.3
[40 CFR 62.14471(b)(l)(ii); 65 FR 49876]
3.7 Public Hearings
Public participation, under the provisions of the CAA, is an important right and
responsibility of citizens in the state process of developing, adopting, and implementing
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans. As with SIPs for criteria pollutants, EPA regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, subpart B, make it clear that citizen input on section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans is
5Rendering the HMIWI inoperable is not necessary for a source to be shut down;
however, any HMIWI capable of operation should be included on the state's source inventory
(see section 3.3). [40 CFR 60.25(a)]
3-20
-------
encouraged in order to help define appropriate emission standards and retrofit schedules. Under
section 60.23 of subpart B, some minimum public participation requirements are as follows:
1. Reasonable notice of opportunity for one or more public hearing(s) at least 30
days before the hearing(s). [40 CFR 60.23(d)]
2. One or more public hearing(s) on the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan (or revision)
conducted at location(s) within the state, if requested. [40 CFR 60.23(c)(l)]
3. Date, time, and place of hearing(s) prominently advertised in each region affected.
[40 CFR 60.23(d)(l)]
4. Availability of draft section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan for public inspection in at least
one location in each region to which it will apply. [40CFR 60.23(d)(2)]
5. Notice of hearing provided to:
a. EPA Regional Administrator
b. Local affected agencies
c. Other states affected
[40 CFR 60.23(d)(3)-(5)]
6. Certification that the public hearing was conducted in accordance with subpart B
and state procedures. [40 CFR 60.23(f)] Upon written application by the state
agency, EPA may (for limited special cases) approve different procedures,
provided that they ensure adequate public participation. [40 CFR 60.23(g)]
7. Retention of hearing records (e.g., list of commenters, their affiliation, and a
summary of each presentation and/or comments submitted) for a minimum of
2 years. [40 CFR 60.23(e)]
3.8 Sta te Progress Reports to EPA
In their revised or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans, states are to commit to send EPA
annual reports on progress in the implementation of the amended EG. [40 CFR 60.25(e)] These
reports can be incorporated into the annual source emissions and State action report required by
40 CFR section 51.321. Inclusion in this SIP report is intended to avoid duplicative reports.
Each progress report should include compliance status, enforcement actions, increments of
progress, identification of sources that have shut down or started operation, emission inventory
information for sources that have started operation, updated emission inventory and compliance
information, and copies of technical reports on all performance testing and monitoring, including
concurrent process data. [40 CFR 60.25(f)(l)-(6)]
3-21
-------
States may want to include additional information in their progress reports, such as
periodic inspection and testing activities, emission and parameter exceedances, quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC), outreach activities, title V or other permit condition
compliance status, and compliance assistance activities.
Some states and EPA Regional Offices have developed more specific or tailored
reporting and recordkeeping procedures via Memoranda of Agreements, Program Specific
Guidance for section 105 Grants, and the Timely and Appropriateness Guidance. For example,
some EPA Regional Offices prefer that the states retain the performance test reports until EPA
requests review as part of a compliance determination or other action. The state and EPA will
continue to have discretion on the format of the annual reports.
3-22
-------
4.0 Requirements for Co-fired Combustors and Incinerators
Burning Only Pathological, Low-level Radioactive, and
Chemotherapeutic Waste
Co-fired combustors are defined as units combusting 10 percent by weight or less
hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste with other fuels or wastes (e.g., coal, municipal
solid waste). [40 CFR 60.51c] The original 1997 EG exempted co-fired combustors and
incinerators burning only pathological, low-level radioactive, and chemotherapeutic waste from
most of the requirements under the EG. [62 FR 48380, 40 CFR 60.32e(b) and (c)] These
exemptions were not changed in the 2009 amended EG. All revised/updated or new State Plans
are to require these units to notify the Administrator of an exemption claim and to keep certain
records, per section 60.32e(b)(l) and (2) (pathological, low-level radioactive, and
chemotherapeutic) and section 60.32e(c)(l)-(3) (co-fired) of the HMIWI rule, if not already done
so in response to the 1997 guidelines.
Assuming an approved State Plan is in effect, exemption claims are to be sent to the head
of the state air pollution control agency responsible for implementing the EG through the State
Plan, with a courtesy copy of the exemption claim sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
[40 CFR 60.26(a), 60.32e(b)(l) and (c)(l), and 62.10] A list of state and Regional Office
contacts is provided in Appendix E. Exemption claims are to be received by the state agency and
EPA Regional Office within 1 year following State Plan approval, providing adequate time for
the state to determine if an exemption is in order. [40 CFR 60.39e(b)]
Facilities operating co-fired combustors are to provide the state with an estimate of
(1) the amount of hospital and medical/infectious waste combusted, and (2) the amount of other
fuels and wastes being combusted. [40 CFR 60.32e(c)(2)] This information could be submitted
to the state as part of the exemption claim. In addition to submitting an exemption claim,
facilities operating co-fired combustors are to keep records on a calendar quarter basis on the
weight of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste combusted and the weight of all other
fuels and/or wastes combusted. [40 CFR 60.32e(c)(3)] The EG do not direct states to have
facilities operating co-fired combustors maintain records of each individual type of waste
burned. Rather, the EG should be interpreted, as in the original HMIWI Federal Plan, to mean
that facilities are to keep records of two categories of wastes: (1) the combined weight of hospital
waste and medical/infectious waste, and (2) the combined weight of all other wastes and fuels
4-1
-------
burned at the co-fired incinerator. [40 CFR 62.14400(b) and 65 FR 49872, 49882]
Incinerators are not subject to the emission standards of subpart Ce during periods when
only pathological, low-level radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic waste are being incinerated,
provided the facility submits an exemption claim and keeps records on a calendar quarter basis
of periods of time when only such waste is burned. [40 CFR 60.32e(b)(l) and 2)]
As discussed in section 3.3, under the section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan requirements, states
are to include co-fired combustors and incinerators burning only pathological, low-level
radioactive and/or chemotherapeutic waste in their source inventory. [40 CFR 60.25(a) and
60.32e(b) and (c)]
4-2
-------
5.0 Title V Requirements for HMIWI
Title V of the CAA provides for a nationwide operating permit program which applies to
all major sources and to certain other sources. The title V permit brings together in one
document all of the CAA requirements that apply to a source. Title V permits clarify which
requirements apply to each source and describe how compliance with those requirements is to be
maintained and demonstrated. All of the regulations applicable to each HMIWI are ultimately
incorporated into the title V permit for the affected source.
State air quality agencies implement the operating permit program pursuant to criteria in
40 CFR Part 70. EPA implements the title V program under 40 CFR Part 71 in Indian country
until Tribes gain approval of their permitting program.
5.1 Existing HMIWI
Owners and operators of all existing HMIWI should have already submitted permit
applications and been issued a title V permit as a result of the original EG issued in 1997. With
the 2009 revision of the EG, states are to develop and seek EPA approval for revised or new
State Plans, and EPA is to promulgate a new Federal Plan for states that do not have an approved
State Plan. If 3 or more years are remaining on the permit term for an HMIWI when the
applicable State Plan is approved and becomes effective or the Federal Plan is promulgated and
becomes effective, then the HMIWI owner and/or operator will receive from its permitting
authority a notice of intent to reopen the title V permit to include the new requirements of the
applicable State/Federal Plan. [40 CFR 70.7(f)(l)(i) and 65 FR 49868, 49878, August 15, 2000]
If less than 3 years are remaining on the permit term at the time the applicable State Plan or
Federal Plan becomes effective, then the owner and/or operator need not modify its title V permit
to include the applicable requirements until permit renewal-bearing in mind that the sources are
subject to the applicable State/Federal Plan requirements, even though the requirements are not
yet contained in the permit. [40 CFR 70.7(f)(l)(i), 71.7(f)(l)(i), and 65 FR 49868, 49878,
August 15, 2000] Owners and operators are reminded that they need to wait until the revised or
new State Plan has been approved and becomes effective or the new Federal Plan has been
promulgated and becomes effective before they can determine how much time remains on their
permit term. [65 FR 49868, 49878, August 15, 2000]
5-1
-------
5.2 Exempt Units
Co-fired combustors and incinerators burning only pathological, low-level radioactive,
and chemotherapeutic waste are exempt from the HMIWI emission limits, so the owners and
operators of those sources are not required to obtain a title V permit under the HMIWI
regulation.1 [CAA section 502(a), 40 CFR 70.3(a)(2), 71.3(a)(2), and 62.14480, and 65 FR
49868, 49872] If the incinerators burn waste other than pathological, low-level radioactive, or
chemotherapeutic waste, then the incinerators are subject to the EG and are also subject to the
requirement to apply for a title V permit. Additionally, if the incinerators or co-fired combustors
do not comply with the recordkeeping and notification requirements necessary to qualify for
exemption from the other requirements of the EG, these sources then become subject to the other
requirements of the EG and also to the requirement to obtain a title V permit. [40 CFR
60.32e(b)(l) and (2), 60.32e(c)(l)-(3), and 65 FR 49868, 49878, August 15, 2000]
1 However, this does not necessarily mean they would not be required to obtain a title V
permit under a different regulation (e.g., the OSWI regulation).
5-2
-------
-------
Appendix A
Key Elements of an Acceptable Section lll(d)/129 State Plan for HMIWI
-------
APPENDIX A--KEY ELEMENTS FOR AN ACCEPTABLE SECTION 11 l(d)/129
STATE PLAN FOR HMIWI
This document is provided to facilitate preparation of the required revised/amended or
new State Plans.
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires that states submit to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State Plans to implement and enforce the Emission
Guidelines (EG) promulgated for hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator(s) (HMIWI)
pursuant to sections 11 l(d) and 129 of the Act. Section 129 requires that the state submit the
State Plans not later than one year after EPA promulgates the EG. On September 15, 1997, EPA
promulgated the EG as 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Ce, and State Plans were submitted to EPA for
approval no later than one year later. A court remand necessitated revisions to the 1997 rule, and
on October 6, 2009, EPA promulgated amendments to the rule. Revised/amended or new State
Plans implementing the amended EG are due no later than October 6, 2010.
The official procedures for adoption and submittal of State Plans are codified in 40 CFR
Part 60, subpart B. The EPA promulgated the subpart B provisions on November 17, 1975. The
EPA amended them on December 19, 1995, to allow the subparts developed under section 129 to
include specifications that supersede the provisions in subpart B regarding the schedule for
submittal of State Plans, the stringency of the emission limitations, and the compliance
schedules. That is, these amendments were promulgated in order to allow conformity with
section 129, which requires the State Plans for HMIWI be submitted within one year and
requires the State Plans to be as protective as the EG and requires that each unit be in compliance
not later than three years after the State Plan is approved by EPA and no later than five years
after the EG is promulgated (rather than the case-by-case exceptions the state may demonstrate
as otherwise specified in subpart B).
States must adopt their State Plans according to state procedures prior to official
submittal to EPA. [section 60.23 (a)] At a minimum, the revised/amended or new State Plan
must include the following elements:
• A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the revised/amended or
new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan as submitted;
• Demonstration of approval of state's legal authority by Administrator;
• An inventory of HMIWI in the state affected by the amended Emission
Guidelines;
• An inventory of emissions from HMIWI in the state;
• Emission limits at least as protective as the amended emission limits in
subpart Ce;
A-l
-------
• Testing and monitoring requirements at least as protective as the amended testing
and monitoring requirements in subpart Ce;
• Recordkeeping and reporting requirements at least as protective as the amended
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in subpart Ce;
• Inspection requirements at least as protective as the amended inspection
requirements in subpart Ce;
• Operator training and qualification requirements at least as protective as the
operator training and qualification requirements in subpart Ce;
• Waste management plan requirements at least as protective as the amended waste
management plan in subpart Ce;
• Compliance schedules, extending no later than October 6, 2014;
• A final compliance date no later than October 6, 2014;
• A record of public hearing(s) on the revised/amended or new State Plan; and
• Provision for annual state progress reports to EPA on implementation of the
revised/amended or new State Plan;
The following pages include information about legal authority, emission inventories,
emission standards and other emission limitations, source surveillance, compliance assurance,
enforcement, compliance schedules, and cross-references to the EG.
A. Legal Authority [section 60.26(a)]
1. The State Plan shall include demonstration of the state's legal authority to:
(a) adopt emission standards (enforceable conditions) and compliance
schedules applicable to the designated facilities and designated pollutants
for which the State Plan is submitted;
(b) enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards, and compliance schedules,
and seek injunctive relief;
(c) obtain information necessary to determine compliance;
(d) require recordkeeping, make inspections, and conduct tests;
(e) require the use of monitors and require emission reports of owners or
operators; and
A-2
-------
(f) make emission data publicly available.
2. The state must specifically identify the provisions above and include copies of the
provisions of the law establishing such legal authority unless they have been
approved as a portion of a previous State Implementation Plan (SIP). To facilitate
its review of State Plans, EPA encourages states to submit an opinion by the
state's Attorney General as part of the demonstration required above. States may
use previously submitted Attorney General opinions (e.g., under title V) to the
extent those documents specifically address the requirements of section 60.26 as
they apply to the designated facilities and the designated pollutants, [section
60.26(b)]
3. The legal authority shown must be in effect at time of State Plan submission.
[section 60.26(c)]
4. The state may authorize another state governmental agency to carry out a portion
of the State Plan, provided the state demonstrates that the state governmental
agency has adequate authority, [section 60.26(e)]
5. The state may authorize a local agency to carry out a portion of the State Plan
provided that the state demonstrates that the local agency has adequate legal
authority to implement that portion of the State Plan and the state is not relieved
of responsibility, [section 60.26(e)]
B. Emission Inventories
The State Plan must include an "emission inventory" of all designated pollutants for all
designated facilities, [section 60.25(a)J
Emission data must be included where available, but estimates can be used where data
are not currently available. Emission factors and default values are described in this Summary
Document.
In addition to the initial inventory, updates are required, [section 60.25(f)(5] The
updated information is required to be submitted annually in the section 51.321 reports, [section
60.24(e)(l)] The emission data should be submitted to the Air Facility System (AFS) [sections
51.321-51.323]
C. Emission Standards and other Emission Limitations
1. The emission limitations must be at least as protective as the EG. If the
limitations are not identical, the state must demonstrate that the standards are at
least as protective, [section 60.24(f), as revised December 19, 1995, to be
consistent with section 129 of the Act and section 60.33e ofsubpart CeJ
NOTE: Nothing in the Clean Air Act nor the CFR restricts the state from having standards and
schedules more stringent than the EG. [section 60.24(g)]
A-3
-------
2. The State Plan shall include the specific emission limitations, preferably cross-
referenced to the specific EG requirements, [section 60.24(a)]
3. Test methods and procedures for determining compliance shall be specified.
[section 60.24(b)2)]
4. If the methods and procedures are not identical to those in section 60.56c, the
state must demonstrate equivalence or request EPA approval of acceptable
alternatives per current EPA method review procedures, [section 60.24(b)(2)]
5. If emission standards are adopted by local agencies or other state agencies, they
must also be included in the State Plan and if not identical to the EG, then the
state must show that they are at least as protective as the emission guidelines.
[section 60.24(a)]
D. Source Surveillance, Compliance Assurance & Enforcement
The State Plan must provide for monitoring the status of compliance. As a minimum, the
State Plan shall include:
1. Provisions for legally enforceable procedures to:
(a) require recordkeeping on nature and amount of emissions and reports to
the state, [section 60.25(b)(l)]
(b) require any additional information to judge compliance, [section
60.25(b)(l)]
2. Provisions for periodic inspection and testing, if necessary, [section 60.25(b)(2)]
3. Provisions for emission data and other compliance monitoring information to be
correlated with applicable emission standards and be made available to the public.
"Correlated" means showing the relationship between the measured or estimated
amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowable. For example,
the emissions should be in the same units and averaging times, [section 60.25(a)
and (c)]
4. HMIWI requirements for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that
are identical to those specified in sections 60.37e and 60.38e. [subpart CeJ
5. Specific identification of the provisions in 1 through 4 above. Copies of such
provisions should be included unless they have been approved as portions of a
preceding section 11 l(d)/129 State Plan or SIP and the state demonstrates that the
provisions are applicable and the requirements of section 60.26 (legal authorities)
are met. [section 60.25(d)]
A-4
-------
6. Commitment to submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to the EPA
Regional Administrator on an annual basis and include it in the reports required
by 51.321. [section 60.25(e) and (f)] Each progress report shall include:
enforcement actions, achievement of increments of progress, identification of
sources that have ceased operation, emission inventory information for sources
that were not in operation at the time of plan development, updated emission
inventory and compliance information, and copies of technical reports on all
performance testing, including concurrent process data, [section 60.25(f)(l)
through 60.25(f)(6)]
Note: Some states and Regions have developed more specific or tailored reporting and
recordkeeping procedures via Memoranda of Agreements, Program Specific Guidance for
Section 105 Grants, and the Timely and Appropriateness Guidance that should also be followed.
For example, some Regions prefer that the state retain the performance test report until the
Region needs to review it as part of a compliance determination or other action.
E. Compliance Schedules
1. Compliance schedules must match the subpart Ce and B specifications.
[subpart Ce, section 60.39e]
2. For compliance schedules extending more than 12 months beyond the date of
EPA approval of the State Plan, the compliance schedule must include legally
enforceable increments of progress towards compliance for that HMIWI. Each
increment of progress in section 60.21(h) of subpart B must have a compliance
date and must be included as an enforceable increment in the State Plan. The
State Plan may include such additional increments of progress as may be
necessary to permit close and effective supervision of progress towards final
compliance, [sections 60.24(e)(l), 60.21(h), & 60.39e]
The minimum five increments of progress are as follows:
(a) Submitting a final control plan (This may be a brief document or letter
describing the controls that the source will use to comply with the
emission limitations and other requirements. In most cases, the source,
public, and state will have discussed this information as part of the state
process for development of the compliance schedule for the draft State
Plan prior to submittal of the State Plan to EPA.); [section 60.21(h)(l)]
(b) Awarding contracts for control systems or process modifications or orders
for purchase of components; [section 60.21(h)(2)]
(c) Initiating on-site construction or installation of the air pollution control
device(s) or process changes; [section 60.21(h)(3)]
(d) Completing on-site construction or installation of control equipment or
process changes; [section 60.21(h)(4)]
A-5
-------
(e) Final compliance, [section 60.21(h)(5)]
The first four of these increments of progress can be set as calendar dates or floating
dates tied to the date of the approval of the revised/amended or new State Plan or the issuance
date of a local permit issuance. For example, the date for submitting a final control plan could
be set as three months following approval of the State Plan. If an increment of progress is tied to
the date of a permit issuance, the State Plan must identify the specific permit.
The fifth increment of progress, the date for final compliance, can be set as a calendar
date or a floating date, but if it is floating, it can be tied only to the date of approval of the
revised/amended or new State Plan, not the date of permit issuance, and must include the
limitation that the date can in no case be later than three years from State Plan approval or
October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier (unless the FDVIIWI will shut down).
3. Suggested measurable and enforceable activities are listed in section 60.39e(c)(l)
through (9) (60 FR 48381). The state may choose to include them in the
revised/amended or new State Plan as enforceable increments of progress with
compliance dates, or as non-enforceable increments of progress with reporting
requirements only, or choose to leave them out of the revised/amended or new
State Plan.
The suggested increments of progress activities are:
(a) Date for submitting a petition for site-specific operating parameters;
(b) Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering firm
regarding the air pollution control device(s);
(c) Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control device(s);
(d) Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s) [already required
where practicable by sections 60.24(e)(l) and 60.21(h)(l)J;
(e) Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution control
device(s);
(f) Date for initiation of site preparation for installation of the air pollution
control device(s) [already required where practicable by sections
60.24(e)(l) and 60.2 l(h)(l)];
(g) Date for initiation of installation of the air pollution control device(s);
(h) Date for initial startup of the air pollution control device(s);
(i) Date for initial compliance test(s) of the air pollution control device(s);
A-6
-------
The EPA strongly recommends that activities (h) and (i) be included in the compliance
schedules. Performance tests must be conducted within 180 days after the final retrofit, and the
report of the test results must be submitted within 60 days after the test is conducted. The test
results will demonstrate whether or not the HMIWI is in compliance with the emission
standards. This performance test timing is consistent with other EPA air regulations for existing
sources, such as the Part 63 General Provisions for national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA also strongly encourages states and HMIWI owners or
operators to conduct preliminary performance tests at least 2-3 months prior to the scheduled
final compliance date, in order for the HMIWI to make any necessary shakedown changes and
retest(s), as necessary, prior to the final compliance date.
4. The State Plan may include one set of increments with compliance dates
applicable to all HMIWI within the state, or it may tailor compliance dates to
individual HMIWI to address specific issues. In all cases, the enforceable
increments of progress must be arranged chronologically, and the compliance
dates must be set to ensure full compliance with the applicable requirements as
expeditiously as practicable [section 60.24(c)J, but not later than three years after
State Plan approval, or October 6, 2014, whichever is earlier. For example, a
revised/amended or new State Plan that requires an HMIWI to "submit a final
control plan and to award contracts no later than the third year of the compliance
schedule" will likely be disapproved because the increments are too close to the
end of the compliance window, do not appear to ensure expeditious progress, and
thus jeopardize timely compliance, unless the HMIWI plan to shut down.
Although there may be HMIWI-specific reasons for other schedules, EPA would
expect contracts to be awarded within the first year for HMIWI taking longer than
one year to comply. Depending on the extent of the retrofit, EPA would expect
on-site construction to be completed in the second or third year of the compliance
schedule.
F. Public Participation
Public participation, under the Clean Air Act, is an important right and responsibility of
citizens in the state process of developing, adopting, and implementing the required
section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans. Under 40 CFR Part 60, subpart B, the minimum requirements
for the state to conduct public hearings on the adoption of State Plans and any revisions thereof
are as follows:
1. Reasonable notice of one or more public hearing(s) at least 30 days prior to the
hearing(s). [section 60.23(d)]
2. One or more public hearing(s) on the State Plan (or revisions) conducted in
location(s) within the state, [section 60.23(c)(l)]
3. Date, time and place of hearing(s) prominently advertised in each region affected.
[section 60.23(d)(l)] "Region" is defined as "air quality control region." [section
60.
A-7
-------
4. Availability of draft State Plan for public inspection in at least one location in
each region to which it will apply, [section 60.23(d)(2)]
5. Notice of hearing provided to: (a) EPA Regional Administrator, (b) local affected
agencies, and (c) other states affected, [section 60.23(d)(3),(4),&(5)]
6. Retention of hearing records (e.g., list of commenters and their affiliation and
summary of each presentation and comments submitted and the state's responses
to those comments) for at least 2 years, [section 60.23(e) and (f)]
1. Certification that public participation was conducted in accordance with subpart B
and state procedures, [section 60.23(f)] Upon written application by the state
agency, EPA may (expected only for limited special cases) approve different
procedures provided that they ensure adequate public participation, [section
60.23(g)]
No hearing is required on a state or local emission standard in effect prior to October 6,
2009, the promulgation date of the subpart Ce amendments, if it was adopted after a public
hearing and is at least as stringent as the emission guideline, [section 60.23(c)(3)]
Similarly, no public hearing is required for any change to an increment of progress unless
the change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to comply with the final compliance date.
[section 60.23(c)(2)]
A-8
-------
Appendix B
Fact Sheet for Amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS
(40 CFR Part 60 Subparts Ce and EC)
-------
APPENDIX B-- FACT SHEET FOR AMENDED EMISSION GUIDELINES AND NSPS
(40 CFR PART 60 SUBPARTS Ce AND EC)
Note: An electronic copy of the Fact Sheet for the amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS for
HMIWI is available at EPA's TTN Air Toxics Website for HMIWI:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/129/hmiwi/rihmiwi .html.
FACT SHEET
FINAL AMENDMENTS TO NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR HOSPITAL, MEDICAL, AND INFECTIOUS WASTE
INCINERATORS
ACTION
• On September 15, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final
revisions to the September 1997 new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission
guidelines to control emissions from existing hospital, medical, and infectious waste
incinerators (HMIWI).
• EPA recalculated the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floors for
existing and new HMIWI and developed new emission limits. The MACT floor level of
control is the minimum level of stringency that can be considered in establishing
standards under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act.
• The final emission limits will require improvements in performance for 50 of the 57
currently operating HMIWI. EPA estimates that a total of 393,000 pounds per year of the
regulated pollutants will be reduced, of which acid gases (i.e., hydrogen chloride and
sulfur dioxide) comprise about 62 percent, particulate matter about 0.8 percent, carbon
monoxide about 0.3 percent, nitrogen oxides about 37 percent, and metals (i.e., lead,
cadmium, and mercury) and dioxins/furans about 0.2 percent.
• EPA estimates that the total nationwide cost for the 57 currently operating HMIWI to
comply with the final rule revisions will be approximately $15.5 million per year. EPA
also estimates that the cost of an available disposal alternative would be about $10.6
million, or roughly two-thirds of the estimated compliance costs.
• Based on the stringency of revisions being promulgated for the NSPS, EPA does not
anticipate any new HMIWI, and therefore, no impacts of the revised NSPS for new units.
• EPA does not expect most facilities with HMIWI to be significantly impacted, whether
the compliance costs are passed on or absorbed.
• Of the 44 companies and other entities that own HMIWI, there is one small business,
which owns two HMIWI impacted by the final rule.
B-l
-------
FINAL RULE SUMMARY
• The final amendments to the HMIWI regulations include:
• Strengthened existing emission limits for all regulated pollutants
• Additional stack testing requirements for existing and new sources
• Additional monitoring requirements for new sources
• Annual inspections of emission control devices
• One-time visible emissions test of ash handling operations
• Procedures for test data submittal
• Revised waste management plan provisions
BACKGROUND
• The CAA requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and emission guidelines for solid
waste incineration units including hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. The
Act also requires EPA to review and, if appropriate, revise the NSPS and emission
guidelines every five years after the initial promulgation.
• There were approximately 2,400 HMIWI operating in the United States at the time EPA
adopted the 1997 NSPS and emission guidelines.
• The NSPS and emission guidelines require new and existing HMIWI to control emissions
of hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, particulate matter,
dioxins/furans, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide to levels that reflect the degree of
emission reduction based on MACT.
• On November 14, 1997, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed
suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging EPA's
methodology for adopting the HMIWI regulations.
• On March 2, 1999, the Court issued its opinion, rejecting Sierra Club's and Natural
Resources Defense Council's statutory interpretations of the Act, but remanding the rule
to EPA for further explanation of the Agency's reasoning in determining the minimum
regulatory emission limits or "floors" for new and existing HMIWI.
• The Court did not vacate the regulations, stating that it was possible EPA could
adequately address the Court's concerns. The NSPS and emission guidelines remained in
effect during the remand and were fully implemented by September 2002.
• On February 6, 2007, EPA published a notice that proposed the Agency's response to the
questions raised in the Court's remand and that also proposed its response to the Clean
Air Act requirement to review the NSPS and emission guidelines every five years.
B-2
-------
• After evaluating rulings by the U. S. Court of Appeals that came after the 2007 proposal
and considering issues raised in public comments on the proposal, EPA reassessed its
approach to setting the proposed MACT floor.
• On December 7, 2007, EPA and the petitioner reached a settlement agreement requiring
EPA to re-propose the rule in response to the remand by November 15, 2008, and issue a
final rule by September 15, 2009.
• The final action responds to the Court remand of the HMIWI regulations and implements
the terms of the settlement agreement on the remand reached with the Sierra Club. The
final action also satisfies the CAA requirement to conduct a review of the standards every
five years.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
• Interested parties can download the final notice from EPA's website at the following
address: www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html.
• This final rule and other background information are also available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, or
in hardcopy at the EPA Docket Center's Public Reading Room.
• The Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room
Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. Hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern standard
time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
• Visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal
detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor materials will be processed
through an X-ray machine as well. Visitors will be provided a badge that must be
visible at all times.
• Materials for this final action can be accessed using Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
• For further information about the final action, contact Mr. Ketan Patel of EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group at (919) 541-9736 or by e-mail at patel.ketan@epa.gov.
-------
Appendix C
Applicability of the HMIWI Emission Guidelines
Cl - Applicability Flowcharts and Venn Diagrams
C2 - HMIWI Capacity Determination
C3 - Small Rural Criteria
-------
Appendix Cl
Applicability Flowcharts and Venn Diagrams
-------
APPENDIX Cl--APPLICABILITY FLOWCHARTS AND VENN DIAGRAMS
The amended HMIWI Emission Guidelines (EG) apply to individual HMIWI for which
construction was commenced on or before June 20, 1996, as well as to those HMIWI for which
construction was commenced after June 20, 1996 but no later than December 1, 2008, except
where the emission limits in the original subpart EC New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
are more stringent. [40 CFR 60.32e(a)(l) and (2) and 60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b)]
Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators which commenced construction after December 1,
2008 are not subject to the amended EG, but are subject to the amended subpart EC NSPS. [40
CFR 60.50c(a)(3)] For HMIWI modifications, applicability for the amended EG and NSPS is
determined based on a different set of dates (March 16, 1998 instead of June 20, 1996; and April
6, 2010 instead of December 1, 2008). [40 CFR 60.32e(a)(l) and (2) and 60.50c(a)(4)]
An HMIWI is any device which combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or
medical/infectious waste (as defined in section 60.51 c of subpart EC). There are several
exemptions to the HMIWI EG as noted below.
Combustors are not subject to the EG during periods when only pathological, low-level
radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic waste (all defined in section 60.5 Ic of subpart EC) are
being burned, provided that facilities operating such combustors notify the Administrator of an
exemption claim; and keep records of the periods of time when only these wastes are burned. [40
CFR 60.32e(b)]
Similarly, co-fired combustors are not subject to the EG, provided that facilities operating
such combustors notify the Administrator of an exemption claim; provide an estimate of the
weight of hospital waste, medical/infectious waste, and other fuels and/or wastes combusted; and
keep quarterly records of the amount of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste, and other
fuels burned. [40 CFR 60.32e(c)] Co-fired combustors are defined in section 60.51c of subpart
EC as units which combust 10 percent or less by weight (of the fuel feed) hospital waste and
medical/infectious waste as measured on a calendar quarter basis. Although pathological,
chemotherapeutic, and low-level radioactive wastes sometimes meet the definition of hospital
waste or medical/infectious waste, they are considered Aother fuels and/or wastes@ when
calculating the amount of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste burned in a co-fired
combustor. [40 CFR 60.51c]
Combustors required to have a permit under Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act; combustors subject to subparts Cb, Ea, or Eb (municipal waste combustors [MWCs] larger
than 250 tons/day); and cement kilns firing hospital and/or medical/infectious waste are not
subject to the HMIWI EG. [40 CFR 60.32e(d), (e), and (g)] Furthermore, pyrolysis units are not
subject to the EG. [40 CFR 60.32e(f)] Pyrolysis is defined in section 60.5 Ic of subpart EC as the
endothermic gasification of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste using external energy.
The first applicability flowchart (Figure C-l) provided below summarizes the
applicability of the EG to the various types of combustors which may combust items that could
be considered as hospital waste and/or medical infectious waste. Generally, the HMIWI EG
C-3
-------
apply to incinerators located at hospitals, commercial medical waste incinerators, and other
incinerators used primarily for burning hospital waste and/or medical/infections waste. [40 CFR
60.51c] However, there are many types of combustion systems that may burn small amounts of
waste that could be considered as hospital waste or medical/infectious waste under the
promulgated definitions of these wastes in the HMIWI EG. [40 CFR 60.51c] The purpose of the
HMIWI EG is not to cover every system that may burn a few items that could be considered as
hospital or medical/infectious waste. Therefore, EPA has attempted to exclude most combustion
systems not intended to primarily combust hospital waste or medical/infectious waste from
coverage under the HMIWI EG through either an outright exemption or through the co-fired
combustor provision. [40 CFR 60.32e(b)-(g)] Regulations for other types of solid waste
incinerators have been or will be developed (e.g., Other Solid Waste Incinerators [OSWI] EG).
Thus, burning of hospital waste or medical/infectious wastes in other solid waste incineration
units will be covered by those regulations. The questions and answers in Figure C-l attempt to
clarify how certain types of combustors are either included or excluded from the HMIWI EG.
The second applicability flowchart (Figure C-2) provided below summarizes the
applicability of the EG and NSPS to those combustors that would be considered HMIWI based
on Figure C-l. The amended HMIWI EG apply to those HMIWI that were subject to the 1997
EG. [40 CFR 60.32e(a)(l)] The amended guidelines also apply to those HMIWI that were
subject to the 1997 NSPS, except where the emission limits in the 1997 NSPS are more
stringent. [40 CFR 60.32e(a)(2) and 60.33e(a)(3)] Specifically, the 1997 NSPS PM emission
limit for medium HMIWI and the 1997 NSPS HC1 emission limit for small HMIWI are more
stringent than the corresponding PM and HC1 emission limits in the amended EG, so the "old"
NSPS units would be subject to the more stringent 1997 NSPS limits. [40 CFR 60.33e(a)(3),
referencing Table IB to subpart Ce; and 40 CFR 60.52c(a)(l), referencing Table 1A to subpart
EC] Those HMIWI that started construction after December 1, 2008 are subject only to the
amended NSPS. [40 CFR 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)] The questions and answers in Figure C-2
attempt to clarify this applicability.
The Venn diagrams (Figure C-3) provided below summarize the overlap of the
definitions for "Hospital Waste," "Medical/Infectious Waste," and "Pathological Waste" and
show how the HMIWI regulations apply in different situations. Further explanation is provided
with each diagram below.
C-4
-------
Figure C-l. Applicability Flowchart for the FtMIWI Emission Guidelines, Part 1.
Does the incinerator combust any hospital waste or
medical/infectious waste, including any pathological, low-
level radioactive, or chemotherapeutic waste meeting the
hospital waste or medical/infectious waste definition?1
1 Not including pyrolysis units or cement kilns.
Yes
Is the incinerator subject to a Section 3005 permit under
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or subject to 40 CFR 60
subpart Cd, Ea, or Eb (MWC)?
No
Does the incinerator combust 10 percent or less hospital
waste and medical/infectious waste (by weight) on a
calendar quarter basis? [Pathological, low-level
radioactive, and chemotherapeutic waste are considered
'other fuels and/or wastes" when calculating the amount of
hospital and medical/infectious waste burned.]
No
No
Yes
The incinerator is not subject to
subpart Ce or EC. No
recordkeeping is required.
Yes
The incinerator is not subject to subpart Ce or EC, but
must notify the Administrator of an exemption claim
and keep records of fuels and waste combusted. The
unit must also have an enforceable requirement (i.e.,
permit) limiting the unit to combustion of 10 percent
or less by weight of hospital/medical/infectious waste.
1
r
Does the incinerator operate
during periods when only
pathological waste, low-level
radioactive waste, and/or
chemotherapeutic waste is
combusted?
i
No
r
Yes
Is the incinerator combusting
only pathological waste, low-
level radioactive waste, and/
or chemotherapeutic waste?
i
No
r
Yes
The incinerator is not subject to
subpart Ce or EC, but must notify
the Administrator of an exemption
claim and keep records of the
periods of time when only these
wastes are combusted.
The incinerator is subject to all requirements of subpart Ce or EC.
C-5
-------
Figure C-2. Applicability Flowchart for the FDVUWI Emission Guidelines, Part 2.
Did construction of the incinerator
begin on or before Jun. 20, 1996?
OR
Did modification of the incinerator
begin on or before Mar. 16, 1998?
Yes
No
Yes
The incinerator is subject to the
emission limits in the amended
subpart Ce, as implemented
through the applicable State or
Federal Plan.
Did construction of the incinerator
begin on or before Dec. 1, 2008?
OR
Did modification of the incinerator
begin on or before Apr. 6, 2010?
Yes
Is the emission limit in the
amended subpart Ce more
stringent than the emission limit in
the original 1997 subpart EC?
No
The incinerator is subject to the
emission limits in the original
1997 subpart EC.
No
The incinerator is subject to the
emission limits in the amended
subpart EC.
C-6
-------
Figure C-3. Overlap of Definitions for "Hospital Waste," "Medical/Infectious Waste,'
and "Pathological Waste"
Hospital
Medical/Infectious
Medical/infectious
waste that is not from a
hospital and is not
pathological waste
(e.g., needles and other
sharps from a nursing
home)
Medical/infectious
waste from a hospital
that is not pathological
waste (e.g., needles
and other sharps from
a hospital)
Waste from a hospital that is
neither medical/infectious
nor pathological (e.g.,
cafeteria trash,
administrative office paper)
Medical/infectious
pathological waste
from a hospital (e.g.,
gall bladder removed
during surgery)
Medical/infectious
pathological waste
that is not from a
hospital (e.g.,
laboratory animals
from a research lab
that were exposed to
infectious agents
during research)
Pathological
waste from a
hospital that is n
medical/infectious
Pathological waste that is not from a
hospital and does not meet the
definition of medical/infectious waste
(e.g., chicken carcasses from a
chicken farm or grocery store)
Pathological
Three terms are used in the hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI)
regulations:
— Hospital Waste
— Medical/Infectious Waste
— Pathological Waste
[40CFR60.51c]
This diagram shows how the definitions of the three types of waste overlap.
This series of diagrams will show how the HMIWI regulations apply in different
situations.
C-7
-------
Hospital
Waste from a hospital that is
neither medical/infectious
nor pathological (e.g.,
cafeteria trash,
administrative office paper)
Medical/infectious
waste from a hospital
that is not pathological
waste (e.g., needles
and other sharps from
a hospital)
Medical/Infectious
Medical/infectious
pathological waste
from a hospital (e.g.,
gall bladder removed
during surgery)
Pathological
waste from a
hospital that is nol
medical/infectious
Medical/infectious
waste that is not from a
hospital and is not
pathological waste
(e.g., needles and other
sharps from a nursing
home)
Medical/infectious
pathological waste
that is not from a
hospital (e.g.,
laboratory animals
from a research lab
that were exposed to
infectious agents
during research)
Pathological
• The HMIWI regulations cover units burning these wastes. If a combustor burns any
amount of these materials, it may be subject to the HMIWI regulations. [40 CFR
60.32e(a) and 60.5Ic]
• Conversely, if a combustor does not burn any of these materials, it is not subject to
any part of the HMIWI regulations. Combustors that are not burning any of these
materials need not notify EPA or keep records. They need not be included in State
Plans and they need not qualify for any of the HMIWI exemptions. [40 CFR
60.32e(d)]
• If a combustor burns these materials in a hazardous waste incinerator, in a cement
kiln, or in a MWC subject to the large MWC regulations, it is not subject to the
HMIWI regulations (no matter how much of these materials it burns). [40 CFR
60.32e(e) and (g)]
• Pyrolysis units are not subject to the HMIWI regulations. [40 CFR 60.32e(f)]
• The pathological and co-fired combustor exemptions are described later. [40 CFR
60.32e(b) and (c)]
-------
Hospital
Medical/Infectious
Pathological
Pathological waste that is not from a
hospital and does not meet the
definition of medical/infectious waste
(e.g., chicken carcasses from a
chicken farm or grocery store)
Consequently, if a combustor is burning these materials (alone or with other
materials) and is not burning any of the materials from the previous diagram, it is not
subject to any part of the HMIWI regulations (i.e., it need not notify EPA, it need not
keep records, it need not be included on a State Plan inventory). It need not qualify
for the pathological exemption because it is not an HMIWI. [40 CFR 60.32e(d)]
C-9
-------
Hospital
Medical/Infectious
Medical/infectious
pathological waste
from a hospital (e.g.,
gall bladder removed
during surgery)
Pathological
waste from a
hospital that is noh
medical/infectious
' Medical/infectious
pathological waste
that is not from a
hospital (e.g.,
laboratory animals
from a research lab
that were exposed to
infectious agents
during research)
Pathological
• If there are time periods when a combustor burns only these materials, it is exempt
from most provisions in the HMIWI regulations during those periods, but it should
notify EPA and keep records. This is known as the pathological waste exemption.
[40 CFR 60.32e(b)]
• This exemption applies to combustors which burn only these materials all of the time,
and also applies to combustors which burn only these materials some of the time
while burning other materials at other times. [40 CFR 60.32e(b)]
• If the combustor burns any other materials along with these materials (i.e., at the
same time), it does not qualify for the pathological exemption (except as provided on
the next diagram). [40 CFR 60.32e(b)]
C-10
-------
Hospital
Medical/infectious
pathological waste
from a hospital (e.g.,
gall bladder removed
during surgery)
Pathological
waste from a
hospital that is nob
medical/infectious
Medical/Infectious
' Medical/infectious
pathological waste
that is not from a
hospital (e.g.,
laboratory animals
from a research lab
that were exposed to
infectious agents
during research)
Pathological waste that is not from a
hospital and does not meet the
definition of medical/infectious waste
(e.g., chicken carcasses from a
chicken farm or grocery store)
Pathological
• If there are time periods when a combustor burns only these materials, it is also
exempt from most provisions in the HMIWI regulations, but it should notify EPA and
keep records. This is part of the pathological waste exemption. [40 CFR 60.32e(b)]
• Again, these exemption applies to combustors which burn only these items all of the
time, and also applies to combustors which burn only these materials some of the
time while burning other materials at other times. [40 CFR 60.32e(b)]
• As stated previously, however, if the combustor burns any other materials along with
these materials (i.e., at the same time), it does not qualify for the pathological
exemption. [40 CFR 60.32e(b)]
C-ll
-------
Hospital
Medical/infectious
waste that is not from a
hospital and is not
pathological waste
(e.g., needles and other
sharps from a nursing
home)
Medical/infectious
waste from a hospital
that is not pathological
waste (e.g., needles
and other sharps from
a hospital)
Waste from a hospital that is
neither medical/infectious
nor pathological (e.g.,
cafeteria trash,
administrative office paper)
Medical/Infectious
Pathological
• A combustor which burns 10 percent or less of these materials (in aggregate) on a
calendar quarter basis is exempt from most provisions in the HMIWI regulations, but
it should notify EPA and keep records. This is the co-fired combustor exemption. [40
CFR 60.32e(c)]
• Notice that pathological waste is not counted toward the 10 percent, but all other
hospital and medical/infectious waste is counted toward the 10 percent. [40 CFR
60.51c]
C-12
-------
Appendix C2
HMIWI Capacity Determination
-------
APPENDIX C2 - HMIWI CAPACITY DETERMINATION
The HMIWI EG contain different emission limitations for the three HMIWI size
subcategories: small, medium, and large. The three HMIWI size subcategories are based on
waste burning capacity (pound per hour [lb/hr]). The small size subcategory consists of HMIWI
that burn less than or equal to 200 pounds of waste per hour (< 200 lb/hr). The medium size
subcategory includes HMIWI that burn between 200 and 500 pounds of waste per hour (> 200 to
< 500 lb/hr). The large size subcategory includes HMIWI that burn more than 500 pounds of
waste per hour (> 500 lb/hr). [40 CFR 60.5Ic]
Generally, there are three different HMIWI design types: batch, intermittent, and
continuous. These design types differ in the methods used to charge waste and remove ash. In
batch HMIWI, neither waste charging nor ash removal can occur during combustion.
Intermittent HMIWI are designed to allow waste charging, but not ash removal, during
combustion. Continuous HMIWI are designed to allow waste charging and ash removal during
combustion. [40 CFR 60.5Ic]
Due to the differences in waste charging techniques, the methods for determining the
maximum design waste burning capacity and maximum charge rate (defined in section 60.5Ic of
subpart EC) are different for batch HMIWI than for continuous and intermittent HMIWI. Either
the maximum design waste burning capacity or the maximum charge rate may be used to
determine the HMIWI size subcategory. [62 FR 48367]
For continuous and intermittent HMIWI, maximum charge rate is defined in subpart EC
as 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average charge rate measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limits. Table C-l presents an
example of the maximum charge rate calculation for an intermittent HMIWI with two days of
initial test data.
Maximum design waste burning capacity is defined for continuous and intermittent
HMIWI with the following formula: [40 CFR 60.5Ic]
C = Pvx (15,000/8,500)
where:
C = HMIWI capacity (lb/hr),
PV = primary chamber volume (ft3),
15,000 = primary chamber heat release rate factor (Btu/ft3/hr), and
8,500 = standard waste heating value (Btu/lb).
For batch HMIWI, the maximum charge rate is defined in section 60.5 Ic of subpart EC as
110 percent of the lowest daily charge rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the emission limits. For example, suppose a batch HMIWI was
charged with 1,400 Ib on day 1 and 1,700 Ib on day 2 of an initial compliance test. The
maximum charge rate for this HMIWI would be 110 percent of 1,400 Ib/day (the lowest daily
charge rate) or 1,540 Ib/day.
C-14
-------
Table C-l. Maximum Charge Rate
Example Calculation
Charge log (Ib/hr)
345
376
359
341
387
361
368
337
329
358
362
343
364
381
3 -hour average (Ib/hr)
—
—
360
359
362
363
372
355
345
341
350
354
356
363
Lowest 3 -hour average charge rate during initial testing =
341 Ib/hr
Maximum charge rate = 1.1 x 341 = 375 Ib/hr
Maximum design waste burning capacity is defined for batch HMIWI with the following
formula: [40 CFR 60.51 c]
C = Pvx(4.5/8)
where:
C = HMIWI capacity (Ib/hr),
Pv = primary chamber volume (ft3),
4.5 = waste density (Ib/ft3), and
8 = typical hours of operation for a batch HMIWI (hr).
Table C-2 summarizes the criteria specified in the EG for maximum design waste
burning capacity and for maximum charge rate for the three HMIWI size subcategories.
C-15
-------
Table C-2. Summary of Criteria for Determining HMIWI Size Category as Stated in the
Emission Guidelines
Size Criteria
Maximum design waste burning capacity
(Ib/hr)
Maximum charge rate for batch HMIWI
(Ib/day)
Maximum charge rate for intermittent and
continuous HMIWI (Ib/hr)
HMIWI size subcategory
Small
<200
<1,600
<200
Medium
>200 and <500
> 1,600 and <4,000
>200 and <500
Large
>500
>4,000
>500
For convenience, Table C-3 presents the range of primary chamber volumes for each
subcategory for batch and continuous/intermittent HMIWI. These primary chamber volumes
were obtained from the above equations for maximum design waste burning capacity for each
size subcategory.
Table C-3. Primary Chamber Volumes for Use in Determining
Maximum Design Waste Burning Capacity
HMIWI Type
Primary chamber volume for batch
HMIWI (ft3)
Primary chamber volume for intermittent
or continuous HMIWI (ft3)
Maximum design waste burning capacity (Ib/hr)
<200a
<356
< 113
>200 to < 500b
> 356 to < 889
> 1 13 to < 283
>500C
>889
>283
aSmall HMIWI size subcategory.
bMedium HMIWI size subcategory.
cLarge HMIWI size subcategory.
In cases where the maximum design waste burning capacity places an HMIWI in one size
subcategory and the maximum charge rate places the same HMIWI in a different size
subcategory, the maximum charge rate prevails. [62 FR 48367] Most HMIWI operate at around
two-thirds of their design capacity; very few HMIWI operate at their maximum design waste
burning capacity. The maximum design waste burning capacity of an HMIWI is fixed and
cannot be changed. The maximum charge rate, on the other hand, can be controlled by the
HMIWI operator. The EG allow an HMIWI used to burn less waste than its design capacity to
change its size category. For example, an HMIWI with a maximum design waste burning
capacity of 300 Ib/hr (e.g., a medium HMIWI by design), may only be used to burn 150 Ib/hr.
By virtue of the maximum charge rate, such an HMIWI could be considered as a small HMIWI
for purposes of the EG, and would be allowed to meet slightly less stringent emission limits.
C-16
-------
The HMIWI would be bound by the maximum charge rate in its state operating permit for
enforcement purposes.
Larger HMIWI which derate their capacities to be considered as smaller HMIWI need to
account for the 110 percent operating range specified in the EG when establishing their
permitted maximum charge rate. For example, a facility operating a 300 Ib/hr HMIWI needs to
ensure that the lowest 3-hour average charge rate does not exceed 182 Ib/hr if the HMIWI is to
be considered a small HMIWI. This is because the 110 percent operation applied to the 182
Ib/hr average charge rate will establish the maximum charge rate at 200 Ib/hr (i.e., the cutoff for
the small HMIWI size subcategory). Likewise, to fall into the medium subcategory, a facility
operating a large HMIWI needs to ensure that the lowest 3-hour average charge rate does not
exceed 455 Ib/hr because the 110 percent operation will establish the maximum charge rate at
500 Ib/hr (i.e., the cutoff for the medium HMIWI size subcategory).
C-17
-------
Appendix C3
Small Rural Criteria
-------
APPENDIX C3 - SMALL RURAL CRITERIA
The rural criteria in the EG state that the small HMIWI: (1) be located more than 50
miles (straight line distance) from the boundary of the nearest Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) and (2) burn less than 2,000 pounds per week (lb/wk)of hospital waste and
medical/infectious waste. [40 CFR 60.33e(b)]
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (now called simply Metropolitan Statistical
Areas [MS As]) are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For the purposes
of the EG, the SMSAs are based on the OMB June 30, 1993 listing of SMSAs [40 CFR 60.3 le],
which is available on the TTN Air Toxics Website for HMIWI at the following address:
http ://www. epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/hmi wi/rihmi wi .html.
C-19
-------
Appendix D
HMIWI Implementation Timeline
-------
10/6/2009
Revised Rule
Promulgated1
4/6/2011
EPA Approves/
Disapproves
State Plans3
4/6/2012
Compliance Due5
10/6/2014
"Backstop"
Compliance
Deadline
Compliance Window
t-
Increments of progress
required6
10/6/2010
State Plans
Due2
10/6/2011
Federal Plan
Published4
174FR51368.
2 Section 129(b)(2) requires State Plans be submitted not later than one year after promulgation of the rule.
3 Section 129(b)(2) requires EPA to approve or disapprove a State Plan within 180 days of submission.
4 Section 129(b)(3) requires EPA to develop a Federal Plan within 2 years of rule promulgation (if necessary).
5 Due 12 months after EPA approval of State Plan under section 60.39e of subpart Ce unless the State has granted an extension to a source (up to 3 years after
approval of State Plan but not less than 5 years after promulgation). Note: Section 129(f)(2) requires expeditious compliance.
6 Section 60.24(e)(1) of subpart B requires legally enforceable increments of progress for any compliance schedule extending beyond 12 months from State Plan
approval. Section 60.39e(c)(1)-(9) of subpart Ce and section 60.21 of subpart B list suggested increments of progress, and section 60.21 of subpart B contains five
required increments of progress.
Notes:
Subpart B
Subpart Ce
General requirements for all section 111(d) State Plans. Amended 12/19/95 to allow subsequent subparts (e.g., subpart Ce) to
supersede subpart B.
Emission Guidelines for HMIWI.
Figure D-l. HMIWI Implementation Timeline.
D-l
-------
Appendix E
EPA Regional and State/Local Agency Contacts
El EPA Regional HMIWI Rule Contacts
E2 State Contacts
-------
Appendix El
EPA Regional HMIWI Rule Contacts
-------
EPA REGIONAL HMIWI RULE CONTACTS
Regional Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Region I
(Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont)
Contact: Ian Cohen
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Mail Code: OEP05-2
Boston, MA 02109-3912
(617)918-1655
cohen.ian@epa.gov
Region II
(New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands)
Contact: Ted Gardella
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3892
gardella. anthony@epa. gov
Region III
(Virginia, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia)
Contact: James B. Topsale
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3AP10
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
(215)814-2190
topsale.iim@epa.gov
Region IV
(Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee)
Contacts: Donnette Sturdivant
Daniel Garver
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Mail Code: 9T25
Atlanta, GA 30303
Sturdivant:
(404)562-9431
Garver:
(404) 562-9839
sturdivant.donnette@epa.gov
garver.daniel@epa.gov
Region V
(Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio)
Contact: Margaret Sieffert
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Mail Code: AT-18J
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-1151
sieffert.margaret@epa.gov
Region VI
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas)
Contact: Steve Thompson
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Mail Code: 6EN
(214) 665-2769
thompson.steve@epa.gov
E-l
-------
Regional Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Region VII
(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
Contact: Lisa Hanlon
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VII
901 N. 5th St.
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7599
hanlon.lisa@epa.gov
Region VIII
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
Contact: Christopher Razzazian
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8P-AR
Denver, CO 80202-1129
(303)312-6648
razzazian.christopher@epa.gov
Region IX
(Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada)
Contact: Joseph Lapka
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code: AIR-5
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)947-4226
Lapka.Joseph@epa.gov
Region X
(Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
Contact: Heather Valdez
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Mail Code: AWT-107
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6220
valdez.heather@epa.gov
E-2
-------
Appendix E2
State Contacts
-------
STATE CONTACTS
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Alabama
Contact: Geraline Handsome
City of Huntsville
Contact: Danny Shea
Jefferson County
Contact: Corey Masuca
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Air Division
1751 Congressman W.L. Dickenson Way
Montgomery, AL 36109-2608
City of Huntsville Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Management
305 Church Street
Huntsville, AL 3 5801
Jefferson County Department of Health
P.O. Box 2648
1400 Sixth Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35202-2648
(334)271-7700
gh@adem. state.al.us
(256) 427-5750
danny. shea@hsvcity. com
(205)930-1595
corey. masuca@i cdh.org
Alaska
Contact: Krista Thieman
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Air Quality - Air Permits Program
619 E. Ship Creek, Ste. 249
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907)269-471
krista.thieman@alaska.gov
Arizona
Contact: Thomas Luch
Final County
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
3033 North Central Avenue
5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Final County Air Quality Control District
(602) 771-4480
"Thomas C. Luch"
Luch. Thomas@azdeq. gov
" Scott DiBiase"
E-4
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Contact: Scott Dibiase
Maricopa County
Contact: Doug Erwin
P.O. Box 987
Florence, AZ 85132
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
1001 N. Central Ave., Suite 400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(520) 866-6969
(602) 372-3033
scott.dibiase@pinalcountyaz.gov
Douglas Erwin - AQDX
Arkansas
Contact: MikePorta
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
5301 Northshore Drive
North Little Rock, AR 72118-5317
501-682-0752
porta@adeq. state, ar.us
California
Contact: Michelle Komlenic
California Air Resources Board
1000"!" Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 322-3926
mkomleni@arb.ca.gov
Colorado
Contact: Dena Wojtach
Air Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment
43 00 Cherry Creek Dr. S.
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
(303)692-3147
dena.wojtach@state.co.us
Connecticut
Contact: Merrily Gere
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Air Management
79 Elm Street, 5th floor
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860)424-3416
merrily.gere@po. state.ct.us
Delaware
Contact: James Sneed
Delaware Division of Air & Waste Management
715 Grantham Lane
Newcastle, DEI 9702
(302) 739-9402
James.snead@state.de.us
District of Columbia
Contact: Stephen Ours
District of Columbia Department of Consumer
and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Regulation Administration
Air Resources Management Division
(202)535-1747
Stephen.ours@dc.gov
E-5
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
2100 MLK Avenue, SE, Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020-5732
Florida
Contacts: Larry George
John Glunn
Lynn Scearce
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Air Resources Management Division
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(850) 921-9509
(850)921-9551
larry.george@dep.state.fl.us
john.glunn@dep.state.fl.us
lvnn.scearce@dep.state.fl.us
Georgia
Contact: Susan Jenkins
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Air Protection Branch
4244 International Parkway, Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 362-4598
susan.jenkins@dnr.state.ga.us
Hawaii
Contact: Nolan Hirai
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Air Branch
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808)586-4200
"Hirai, Nolan S"
nolan.hirai@doh.hawaii.gov
Idaho
Contact: Carl Brown
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706-1290
(208)373-0206
carl.brown@deq.idaho.gov
Illinois
Contact: Edwin C. Bakowski
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-2113
ed.bakowski@illinois.gov
Indiana
Contact: Susan Bern
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
100 North Senate Avenue
Mail Code 61-50
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251
(317)233-5697
sbem@idem.in.gov
E-6
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Iowa
Contact: Christine Paulson
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality Bureau
7900 Hickman Rd., Suite 1
Windsor Heights,, IA 50324
(515)242-5154
Christine.Paulson@dnr.iowa.gov
Kansas
Contact: Miles Stotts
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Bureau of Air and Radiation
1000 SW Jackson St, Suite 310
Topeka, KS 66612-1366
(785)296-1615
mstotts@kdheks. gov
Kentucky
Contact:
Sreenivas (Sree) Kesaraju
Jefferson County
Contact: Paul Aud
Kentucky Natural Resources & Environmental
Protection Cabinet
Division for Air Quality
803 Schenkel Lane
Frankfort, KY 40601
Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson
County
850 Barrett Avenue, Suite 200
Louisville, KY 40204-1745
(502) 564-3999 x4408
(502) 574-7234
sreenivas.kesaraiu@ky.gov
paul.aud@louisvilleky.gov
Louisiana
Contact: Michael Vince
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135
(225)219-3482
Michael. Vince@LA. GOV
Maine
Contact: Lisa Higgins
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0017
(207) 287-7023
Lisa.Higgins@maine.gov
Maryland
Contact: Husain Waheed
Maryland Department of the Environment
Air and Radiation Management Administration
Regulation Development Division
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 537-3238
hwaheed@mde.state.md.us
E-7
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Massachusetts
Contact: Marc Wolman
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Air Quality Control
One Winter Street, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5915
Marc.Wolman@state.ma.us
Michigan
Contact: Mary Charley
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and
Environment
P.O. Box 30473
Lansing, MI 48909
(517)373-7080
charleym@michigan.gov
Minnesota
Contact: Anne Jackson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651)757-2460
anne.jackson@state.mn.us
Mississippi
Contact: Danny Jackson
Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality
Air Division
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5225
danny jackson@deq.state.ms.us
Missouri
Contact: Paul Jeffery
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
Air Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573)751-4817
Paul.Jeffery@dnr.mo.gov
Montana
Contact: Debbie Skibicki
Air and Waste Management Bureau
Air Permitting
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
(406)444-1472
dskibicki@mt.gov
Nebraska
Contact: Stephenie Moyer
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Air and Waste Management Division
1200 N Street, Suite 400
Box 98922
(402)471-0019
stepheni e. moyer@neb raska.gov
E-8
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Nevada
Contact: Adele Mai one
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality Planning
901 S. Stewart St., Suite 4001
Carson City, NV 89701
(775) 687-9356
amal one@ndep.nv.gov
New Hampshire
Contact: Barbara Hoffman
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services
Air Resources Division
29 Hazen Drive
PO Box 95
Concord, NH 03302-0095
(603)271-7874
barbara.hoffman@des.nh.gov
New Jersey
Contact: Lisa Ehrlich
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Technical Services
P.O. Box 27
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2450
lisa. ehrlich@dep. state, nj .us
New Mexico
Contact: Steve Dubyk
New Mexico Environment Department,
Environmental Protection Division, Air Quality
Bureau
Harold Runnels Building, Room S2100
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
(505) 955-8025
Steve.Dubyk@state.nm.us
New York
Contact: Mark Lanzafame
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Air Resources
50 Wolf Road (Room 108)
Albany, NY 12233-3254
(518)402-8403
mrlanzaf@gw. dec, state, ny. us
E-9
-------
State Contact
North Carolina
Contact: Paul Grable
Mike Abraczinskas
Forsyth County
Contact: Keith Tart
Mecklenburg County
Contact: Joan Liu
Western NC
Contact: Ashley Feather stone
North Dakota
Contact: Casey Mutzenberger
Ohio
Contact: Dana Thompson
Address
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality
P.O. Box 29580
Raleigh, NC 27626-0580
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs
Department
537 North Spruce Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection
700 North Tryon Road, Suite 205
Charlotte, NC 28202-2236
Western NC Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency
49 Mt. Carmel Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Division of Air Quality
North Dakota Department of Health
Gold Seal Center - 918 E. Divide
Bismark,ND 58501-1947
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216-1049
Phone #
(919)733-1468
(919)715-3743
(336) 703-2428
(828) 250-6777
(701)328-5188
(614) 644-3701
E-mail
paul . grable@ncdenr. gov
michael.abraczinskas@ncdenr.gov
tartkf@co.forsyth.nc.us
Joan .Liu@Meckl enburgC ountyNC . gov
ashlev.featherstone@buncombecountv.org
cmutzenberger@nd. gov
dana.thompson@epa.state.oh.us
E-10
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Oklahoma
Contact: Cheryl Bradley
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
4545 North Lincoln Boulevard - Suite 250
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3483
405-702-4218
Cheryl.Bradley@deq.state.ok.us
Oregon
Contact: Jerry Ebersole
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
(503) 229-6974
ebersole.gerald@deq. state.or.us
Pennsylvania (excl.Alleg.
Co.)
Contact: Baldev Kohli
Philadelphia County
Contact: Edward Braun
Allegheny County
Contact: Jayme Graham
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Administration
Rachael Carson Office Building, 12th Floor.
400 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468
Philadelphia County Air Management Services
Department of Public Health
Spelman Building
321 University Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Allegheny County Health Department
Bureau of Environmental Quality
310 39th Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15201-1891
Kohli: (717) 772-3974
bkohli@state.pa.us
Braun: (215) 685-
9476
edward.braun@phila.gov
Graham: (412) 578-
8129
i graham@achd.net
Puerto Rico
Contact: Luis Sierra
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Air Programs Area
P.O.Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
(787) 767-8181, ext.
3247
luissierra@ica.gobierno.pr
E-ll
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Rhode Island
Contact: Gina Friedman
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
Office of Air Resources
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401)222-2808, ext
7016
gina.friedman@dem.ri.gov
South Carolina
Contact: Maeve Mason
Tony Lofton
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Bureau of Air Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 898-2230
(803)898-7217
masonmr@dhec.sc.gov
loftonat@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota
Contact: Marlys Heidt
Air Quality Program
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
Joe Foss Building , PMB 2020
523 East Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-3182
(605) 773-4213
marlys.heidt@state.sd.us
E-12
-------
State Contact
Tennessee
Contact: Lacey Hardin
Chattanooga-Hamilton
County
Contact: Errol Reksten
Knox County
Contact: Steve McDaniel
Memphis-Shelby County
Contact: Bob Rogers
Nashville-Davidson County
Contact: John Finke
Texas
Contact: Beryl Thatcher
Address
Tennessee Department of Conservation and
Environment
Division of Air Pollution Control
401 Church Street
L & C Annex, 9th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1531
Chattanooga-Hamilton County
Air Pollution Control Bureau
3511 Rossville Boulevard
Chattanooga, TN 37407
Knox County Department of Air Pollution
Control
400 Main Street
City/County Building, Room 437
Knoxville, TN 37902-2405
Pollution Control Section
Memphis- Shelby County Health Department
814 Jefferson Avenue, Room 437
Memphis, TN 38 105
Air Pollution Control Division
Nashville-Davidson County
3 1 1 23rd Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37203
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone #
(423) 643-5986
(865)215-5913
(901) 544-7587
(615)340-5653
(512)239-5314
E-mail
lacey.hardin@tn.gov
reksten e@chattanooga. gov
asmcdaniel@aqm.co.knox.tn.us
bob.rogers@shelbycountytn.gov
iohn.fmke@nashville.sov
BTHATCHER@tcea . state.tx.us
E-13
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Utah
Contact: Robert Grandy
Division of Air Quality
Utah Dept of Environmental Quality
PO Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
(801)536-4024
rgrandy@utah.gov
Vermont
Contact: Doug Elliott
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
Air Pollution Control Division
103 South Main Street
Building 3 South
Waterbury, VT 05671-0402
(802)241-3845
Doug.Elliott@state.vt.us
Virginia
Contact: Karen Sabasteanski
Virginia Department of Environmental Air
Quality
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4426
kgsabastea@deq. state.va.us
U.S. Virgin Islands
Contacts:
Dr. Nadine Noorhasan
Verline Marcellin
Virgin Islands Department of Planning and
Natural Resources
Wheatley Center II
St. Thomas, VI 00802
Noorhasan/Marcellin:
(340) 773-1082
or
(340) 774-3320
nadine.noorhasan@dpnr.gov.vi
verline.marcellin@dpnr.gov.vi
Washington State
Contact: Elena Guifoil
Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency Contact: Claude
Williams
Olympic Region Clean Air
Agency Contact: Mark
Goodin
Washington Department of Ecology
Engineering and Technical Services
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
1904 Third Avenue - Suite 105
Seattle, WA 98101
2940-B Limited Lane NW
Olympia, WA 98502
(360) 407-6855
egui461 @ecy. wa. gov
(206) 689-4066
(360)586-1044x108
claudew@pscleanair.org
mark.goodin@orcaa.org
E-14
-------
State Contact
Address
Phone #
E-mail
Southwest Clean Air Agency
Contact: John St Clair
Northwest Clean Air Agency
Contact: Mark Buford
Yakima Regional Clean Air
Authority Contact: Hasan
Tahat
Spokane County Air Pollution
Control Authority Contact:
April Wastby
Benton County Clean Air
Authority Contact: Robin
Priddy
11815 NE 99th Street, Suite 1294
Vancouver, WA 98682
1600 South Second Street
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
6 South 2nd Street, Rm 1016
Yakima, WA 98901
3104 E. Augusta Ave.
Spokane, WA 99207
114 Columbia Point Drive, Suite C
Richland, WA99352
(360) 574-3058 ext
127
(360)428-1617 ext
207
(509) 834-2050 ext 48
(509) 477-4727 ext
105
(509)783-1304
i ohn@ s wcl eanair. org
mark@nwcleanair. org
hasan@yrcaa.org
awestby@spokanecleanair.org
rpri@bcaa.net
West Virginia
Contact: Lucy Pontiveros
West Virginia Division of Environmental
Protection
Office of Air Quality
1558 Washington Street, East
Charleston, WV 25311-2599
(304) 926-0499
Lucia.S.Pontiveros@wv.gov
Wisconsin
Contact: Ralph Patterson
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
(608) 267-7546
ralph.patterson@wisconsin.gov
Wyoming
Contact: Lori Bocchino
Air Quality Division
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Herscher Building
(307) 777-8578
lbocch@wyo.gov
E-15
-------
State Contact
Address
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Phone #
E-mail
E-16
-------
Appendix F
HMIWI Emission Factors
-------
APPENDIX F-HMIWI EMISSION FACTORS
The pollutants emitted from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI)
include the following:
• metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury),
• particulate matter (PM),
• acid gases (hydrogen chloride, HC1, and sulfur dioxide, SO2),
• organic compounds (dioxins and furans),
• carbon monoxide (CO), and
• nitrogen oxides (NOX).
As noted in section 3 of this document, data from continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) and stack sampling results are preferred for estimating emissions for the
emission inventories included in states' section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans. However, where CEMS
and stack sampling results are missing, emission factors are an acceptable alternative. Emission
factors for each of the pollutants listed above are included in Table F-l. The emission factors
presented in Table F-l were generated based on test data used for development of the amended
Emission Guidelines for HMIWI. The test data used to develop the emission factors in Table
F-l was thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and reliability prior to use for the amended Emission
Guidelines. Therefore, the emission factors presented in Table F-l are appropriate emission
factors for use in developing the updated emission inventory to be submitted in states'
revised/amended or new section 11 l(d)/129 State Plans. The AP-42 emission factors may be
used as well.
F-l
-------
Table F-l. Emission Factors for FIMIWI
Pollutant
Total CDD/CDF
CDD/CDF TEQ
CO
PM
HC1
Pb
S02
Hg
Cd
NOX
Emission factors, Ib emitted per Ib waste charged
Combustion Control
1.90E-06
3.83E-08
Wet Scrubbers
2.66E-07
4.12E-09
Dry scrubbers
w/o carbon: 2.45E-07
w/ carbon: 9.46E-08
w/o carbon: 4.19E-09
w/ carbon: 2.96E-09
Dry/wet scrubbers
w/o carbon: 3.74E-07
w/ carbon: 6.84E-08
w/o carbon: 7.64E-09
w/ carbon: 7.78E-10
w/ 1-sec combustion: 1.09E-04
w/ 2-sec combustion: 7.08E-05
all FIMIWI (including unknown retention time): 9.47E-05
1.44E-03
4.34E-03
1.41E-05
1.03E-03
2.85E-06
2.37E-06
6.67E-04
6.79E-05
4.85E-06
2.12E-04
1.04E-06
4.16E-07
2.28E-04
5.77E-04
6.09E-07
2.84E-04
w/o carbon: 1.92E-06
w/ carbon: 4.95E-07
5.54E-08
5.46E-05
2.96E-04
5.27E-07
1.31E-04
w/o carbon: 9.11E-08
w/ carbon: 7.81E-08
2.44E-08
w/oNOx control: 3.69E-03
w/NOx control: 1.37E-03
Source: Memorandum from T. Holloway, RTI, to K. Patel, EPA. July 6, 2009. Revised Baseline Emissions and Emissions
Reductions for Existing and New FIMIWI.
F-2
-------
When estimating emissions from emission factors, the amount of waste burned per year
at a facility is simply multiplied by the pollutant emission factor. For example, to estimate the
annual Pb emissions (Ib/yr) for an HMIWI which burns Ib of medical/infectious waste per year
and is equipped with a wet scrubber, the following calculation is performed:
(424,000 Ib waste/yr) x (4.85E-06 Ib Pb/lb waste) = 2.06 Ib Pb/yr
When using the HMIWI emission factors to estimate emissions, keep in mind that they
are average values, and that emissions from HMIWI are greatly affected by the composition of
the waste and may vary from facility to facility. As stated previously, actual and reliable
facility-specific CEMS and stack sampling results should be used in place of emission factors
where available. The preferred hierarchy for estimating emissions is as follows: (1) CEMS data,
(2) stack sampling results, and (3) emission factors.
F-3
-------
Appendix G
Clean Air Act Section lll(d)
-------
APPENDIX G--CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 11 l(d)
Note: The State Plans for HMIWI must be developed to satisfy the requirements
of both Section 11 l(d) and Section 129. Where conflicts arise, Section 129 takes
precedent. Refer to Appendix H for the text of Section 129.
(d)(l) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar
to that provided by Section 110 under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan
which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i)
for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published
under Section 108(a) or 112(b)(l)(A) but (ii) to which a standard of performance under this
section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the
implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance. Regulations of the
Administrator under this paragraph shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance
to any particular source under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration,
among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard
applies.
(2) The Administrator shall have the same authority—
(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as
he would have under Section 110(c) in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan, and
(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them as he
would have under sections 113 and 114 with respect to an implementation plan. In promulgating
a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under this paragraph, the Administrator shall
take into consideration, among other factors, remaining useful lives of the sources in the
category of sources to which such standard applies.
G-2
-------
Appendix H
Clean Air Act Section 129
-------
APPENDIX H-SECTION 129 STATUTORY LANGUAGE
Note: The State Plans for HMIWI must be developed to satisfy the requirements
of both Section 11 l(d) and Section 129. Where conflicts arise, Section 129 takes
precedent. Refer to Appendix G for the text of Section 11 l(d).
SEC. 129. SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION.
(a) NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(1) IN GENERAL. — (A) The Administrator shall establish performance standards and other
requirements pursuant to Section 111 and this section for each category of solid waste
incineration units. Such standards shall include emissions limitations and other requirements
applicable to new units and guidelines (under Section 11 l(d) and this section) and other
requirements applicable to existing units.
(B) Standards under Section 111 and this section applicable to solid waste incineration units
with capacity greater than 250 tons per day combusting municipal waste shall be promulgated
not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Nothing in this subparagraph shall alter any schedule for the promulgation of standards
applicable to such units under Section 111 pursuant to any settlement and consent decree entered
by the Administrator before the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
provided that, such standards are subsequently modified pursuant to the schedule established in
this subparagraph to include each of the requirements of this section.
(C) Standards under Section 111 and this section applicable to solid waste incineration units
with capacity equal to or less than 250 tons per day combusting municipal waste and units
combusting hospital waste, medical waste and infectious waste shall be promulgated not later
than 24 months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
(D) Standards under Section 111 and this section applicable to solid waste incineration units
combusting commercial or industrial waste shall be proposed not later than 36 months after the
date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and promulgated not later than 48
months after such date of enactment.
(E) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, the Administrator shall publish a schedule for the promulgation of standards under
Section 111 and this section applicable to other categories of solid waste incineration units.
(2) EMISSIONS STANDARD. -- Standards applicable to solid waste incineration units
promulgated under Section 111 and this section shall reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4) that the Administrator, taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing
units in each category. The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types (including
mass-burn, refuse-derived fuel, modular and other types of units), and sizes of units within a
category in establishing such standards. The degree of reduction in emissions that is deemed
achievable for new units in a category shall not be less stringent than the emissions control that
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined by the Administrator.
Emissions standards for existing units in a category may be less stringent than standards for new
units in the same category but shall not be less stringent than the average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in the category (excluding units which first
H-2
-------
met lowest achievable emissions rates 18 months before the date such standards are proposed or
30 months before the date such standards are promulgated, whichever is later).
(3) CONTROL METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES. -- Standards under Section 111 and this
section applicable to solid waste incineration units shall be based on methods and technologies
for removal or destruction of pollutants before, during, or after combustion, and shall incorporate
for new units siting requirements that minimize, on a site specific basis, to the maximum extent
practicable, potential risks to public health or the environment.
(4) NUMERICAL EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS. -- The performance standards promulgated
under Section 111 and this section and applicable to solid waste incineration units shall specify
numerical emission limitations for the following substances or mixtures: particulate matter (total
and fine), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon
monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans. The Administrator may
promulgate numerical emissions limitations or provide for the monitoring of postcombustion
concentrations of surrogate substances, parameters or periods of residence time in excess of
stated temperatures with respect to pollutants other than those listed in this paragraph.
(5) REVIEW AND REVISION. -- Not later than 5 years following the initial promulgation of
any performance standards and other requirements under this section and Section 111 applicable
to a category of solid waste incineration units, and at 5 year intervals thereafter, the
Administrator shall review, and in accordance with this section and Section 111, revise such
standards and requirements.
(b) EXISTING UNITS.
(1) GUIDELINES. — Performance standards under this section and Section 111 for solid waste
incineration units shall include guidelines promulgated pursuant to Section 11 l(d) and this
section applicable to existing units. Such guidelines shall include, as provided in this section,
each of the elements required by subsection (a) (emissions limitations, notwithstanding any
restriction in Section 11 l(d) regarding issuance of such limitations), subsection (c) (monitoring),
subsection (d) (operator training), subsection (e) (permits), and subsection (h)(4) (residual risk).
(2) STATE PLANS. — Not later than 1 year after the Administrator promulgates guidelines for
a category of solid waste incineration units, each State in which units in the category are
operating shall submit to the Administrator a plan to implement and enforce the guidelines with
respect to such units. The State plan shall be at least as protective as the guidelines promulgated
by the Administrator and shall provide that each unit subject to the guidelines shall be in
compliance with all requirements of this section not later than 3 years after the State plan is
approved by the Administrator but not later than 5 years after the guidelines were promulgated.
The Administrator shall approve or disapprove any State plan within 180 days of the submission,
and if a plan is disapproved, the Administrator shall state the reasons for disapproval in writing.
Any State may modify and resubmit a plan which has been disapproved by the Administrator.
(3) FEDERAL PLAN. — The Administrator shall develop, implement and enforce a plan for
existing solid waste incineration units within any category located in any State which has not
submitted an approvable plan under this subsection with respect to units in such category within
2 years after the date on which the Administrator promulgated the relevant guidelines. Such plan
shall assure that each unit subject to the plan is in compliance with all provisions of the
guidelines not later than 5 years after the date the relevant guidelines are promulgated.
(c) MONITORING. — The Administrator shall, as part of each performance standard
promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) and Section 111, promulgate regulations requiring the
owner or operator of each solid waste incineration unit
H-3
-------
(1) to monitor emissions from the unit at the point at which such emissions are emitted into the
ambient air (or within the stack, combustion chamber or pollution control equipment, as
appropriate) and at such other points as necessary to protect public health and the environment;
(2) to monitor such other parameters relating to the operation of the unit and its pollution
control technology as the Administrator determines are appropriate; and
(3) to report the results of such monitoring. Such regulations shall contain provisions
regarding the frequency of monitoring, test methods and procedures validated on solid waste
incineration units, and the form and frequency of reports containing the results of monitoring and
shall require that any monitoring reports or test results indicating an exceedance of any standard
under this section shall be reported separately and in a manner that facilitates review for
purposes of enforcement actions. Such regulations shall require that copies of the results of such
monitoring be maintained on file at the facility concerned and that copies shall be made available
for inspection and copying by interested members of the public during business hours.
(d) OPERATOR TRAINING. -- Not later than 24 months after the enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, the Administrator shall develop and promote a model State program
for the training and certification of solid waste incineration unit operators and high-capacity
fossil fuel fired plant operators. The Administrator may authorize any State to implement a
model program for the training of solid waste incineration unit operators and high-capacity fossil
fuel fired plant operators, if the State has adopted a program which is at least as effective as the
model program developed by the Administrator. Beginning on the date 36 months after the date
on which performance standards and guidelines are promulgated under subsection (a) and
Section 111 for any category of solid waste incineration units it shall be unlawful to operate any
unit in the category unless each person with control over processes affecting emissions from
such unit has satisfactorily completed a training program meeting the requirements established
by the Administrator under this subsection.
(e) PERMITS. — Beginning (1) 36 months after the promulgation of a performance standard
under subsection (a) and Section 111 applicable to a category of solid waste incineration units,
or (2) the effective date of a permit program under title V in the State in which the unit is
located, whichever is later, each unit in the category shall operate pursuant to a permit issued
under this subsection and title V. Permits required by this subsection may be renewed according
to the provisions of title V. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, each permit for a
solid waste incineration unit combusting municipal waste issued under this Act shall be issued
for a period of up to 12 years and shall be reviewed every 5 years after date of issuance or
reissuance. Each permit shall continue in effect after the date of issuance until the date of
termination, unless the Administrator or State determines that the unit is not in compliance with
all standards and conditions contained in the permit. Such determination shall be made at
regular intervals during the term of the permit, such intervals not to exceed 5 years, and only
after public comment and public hearing. No permit for a solid waste incineration unit may be
issued under this Act by an agency, instrumentality or person that is also responsible, in whole or
part, for the design and construction or operation of the unit. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, the Administrator or the State shall require the owner or operator of
any unit to comply with emissions limitations or implement any other measures, if the
Administrator or the State determines that emissions in the absence of such limitations or
measures my reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or the environment. The
Administrator's determination under the preceding sentence is a discretionary decision.
(f) EFFECTIVE DATE AND ENFORCEMENT.
H-4
-------
(1) NEW UNITS. — Performance standards and other requirements promulgated pursuant to
this section and Section 111 and applicable to new solid waste incineration units shall be
effective as of the date 6 months after the date of promulgation.
(2) EXISTING UNITS. - Performance standards and other requirements promulgated
pursuant to this section and Section 111 and applicable to existing solid waste incineration units
shall be effective as expeditiously as practicable after approval of a State plan under subsection
(b)(2) (or promulgation of a plan by the Administrator under subsection (b)(3)) but in no event
later than 3 years after the State plan is approved or 5 years after the date such standards or
requirements are promulgated, whichever is earlier.
(3) PROHIBITION. — After the effective date of any performance standard, emission
limitation or other requirement promulgated pursuant to this section and Section 111, it shall be
unlawful for any owner or operator of any solid waste incineration unit to which such standard,
limitation or requirement applies to operate such unit in violation of such limitation, standard or
requirement or for any other person to violate an applicable requirement of this section.
(4) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES. -- For purposes of sections 11 l(e),
113, 114, 116, 120, 303, 304, 307 and other provisions for the enforcement of this Act, each
performance standard, emission limitation or other requirement established pursuant to this
section by the Administrator or a State or local government, shall be treated in the same manner
as a standard of performance under Section 111 which is an emission limitation.
(g) DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of Section 306 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
and this section only
(1) SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. - The term 'solid waste incineration unit' means
a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid waste material from
commercial or industrial establishments or the general public (including single and multiple
residences, hotels, and motels). Such term does not include incinerators or other units required
to have a permit under Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term 'solid waste
incineration unit' does not include (A) materials recovery facilities (including primary or
secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals, (B)
qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in Section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous waste (such as units
which burn tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric
energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste for the
production of electric energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used
for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators provided
that such incinerators only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air
curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator by
rule.
(2) NEW SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. -- The term 'new solid waste incineration
unit' means a solid waste incineration unit the construction of which is commenced after the
Administrator proposes requirements under this section establishing emissions standards or
other requirements which would be applicable to such unit or a modified solid waste incineration
unit.
(3) MODIFIED SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. - The term 'modified solid waste
incineration unit' means a solid waste incineration unit at which modifications have occurred
after the effective date of a standard under subsection (a) if (A) the cumulative cost of the
modifications, over the life of the unit, exceed 50 per centum of the original cost of construction
H-5
-------
and installation of the unit (not including the cost of any land purchased in connection with such
construction or installation) updated to current costs, or (B) the modification is a physical change
in or change in the method of operation of the unit which increases the amount of any air
pollutant emitted by the unit for which standards have been established under this section or
Section 111.
(4) EXISTING SOLID WASTE INCINERATION UNIT. - The term 'existing solid waste
incineration unit' means a solid waste unit which is not a new or modified solid waste
incineration unit.
(5) MUNICIPAL WASTE. — The term 'municipal waste' means refuse (and refuse-derived
fuel) collected from the general public and from residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial sources consisting of paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes, plastics, leather, rubber,
and other combustible materials and non-combustible materials such as metal, glass and rock,
provided that: (A) the term does not include industrial process wastes or medical wastes that are
segregated from such other wastes; and (B) an incineration unit shall not be considered to be
combusting municipal waste for purposes of Section 111 or this section if it combusts a fuel feed
stream, 30 percent or less of the weight of which is comprised, in aggregate, of municipal waste.
(6) OTHER TERMS. — The terms 'solid waste' and 'medical waste' shall have the meanings
established by the Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
(h) OTHER AUTHORITY.
(1) STATE AUTHORITY. — Nothing in this section shall preclude or deny the right of any
State or political subdivision thereof to adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, limitation
or standard relating to solid waste incineration units that is more stringent than a regulation,
requirement, limitation or standard in effect under this section or under any other provision of
this Act.
(2) OTHER AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ACT. - Nothing in this section shall diminish the
authority of the Administrator or a State to establish any other requirements applicable to solid
waste incineration units under any other authority of law, including the authority to establish for
any air pollutant a national ambient air quality standard, except that no solid waste incineration
unit subject to performance standards under this section and Section 111 shall be subject to
standards under Section 112(d) of this Act.
(3) RESIDUAL RISK. — The Administrator shall promulgate standards under Section 112(f)
for a category of solid waste incineration units, if promulgation of such standards is required
under Section 112(f). For purposes of this preceding sentence only
(A) the performance standards under subsection (a) and Section 111 applicable to a category of
solid waste incineration units shall be deemed standards under Section 112(d)(2), and
(B) the Administrator shall consider and regulate, if required, the pollutants listed under
subsection (a)(4) and no others.
(4) ACID RAIN. — A solid waste incineration unit shall not be utility unit as defined in title
IV: provided, that, more than 80 per centum of its annual average fuel consumption measured on
a Btu basis, during a period or periods to be determined by the Administrator, is from a fuel
(including any waste burned as a fuel) other than a fossil fuel.
(5) REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS C AND D. - No requirement of an applicable
implementation plan under Section 165 (relating to construction of facilities in regions identified
pursuant to Section 107(d)(l)(A)(ii) or (iii)) or under Section 172(c)(5) (relating to permits for
construction and operation in nonattainment areas) may be used to weaken the standards in effect
under this section.
-------
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT. - Section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act is amended by
striking "two hundred and" after "municipal incinerators capable of charging more than".
(c) REVIEW OF ACID GAS SCRUBBING REQUIREMENTS. -- Prior to the promulgation
of any performance standard for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal waste
under Section 111 or Section 129 of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator shall review the
availability of acid gas scrubbers as a pollution control technology for small new units and for
existing units (as defined in 54 Federal Register 52190 (December 20, 1989), taking into account
the provisions of subsection (a)(2) of Section 129 of the Clean Air Act.
H-7
-------
-------
Appendix I
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B
-------
APPENDIX I--40 CFR PART 60 SUBPART B
Note: CFR text for 40 CFR Part 60 subpart B accessed Apr. 22, 2010 at e-CFR web site:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
Subpart B — Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities
Source: 40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, unless otherwise noted
§ 60.20 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart apply to States upon publication of a final guideline document
under Section 60.22(a).
§ 60.21 Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this subpart shall have the meaning given them in the Act
and in subpart A:
(a) Designated pollutant means any air pollutant, the emissions of which are subject to a
standard of performance for new stationary sources, but for which air quality criteria have not
been issued and that is not included on a list published under section 108(a) of the Act.
Designated pollutant also means any air pollutant, the emissions of which are subject to a
standard of performance for new stationary sources, that is on the section 112(b)(l) list and is
emitted from a facility that is not part of a source category regulated under section 112.
Designated pollutant does not include pollutants on the section 112(b)(l) list that are emitted
from a facility that is part of a source category regulated under section 112.
(b) Designated facility means any existing facility (see §60.2(aa)) which emits a
designated pollutant and which would be subject to a standard of performance for that pollutant
if the existing facility were an affected facility (see §60.2(e)).
(c) Plan means a plan under section 11 l(d) of the Act which establishes emission
standards for designated pollutants from designated facilities and provides for the
implementation and enforcement of such emission standards.
(d) Applicable plan means the plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has been
approved under §60.27(b) or promulgated under §60.27(d).
(e) Emission guideline means a guideline set forth in subpart C of this part, or in a final
guideline document published under §60.22(a), which reflects the degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of such reduction) the Administrator has determined has been adequately
demonstrated for designated facilities.
(f) Emission standard means a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable
rate of emissions into the atmosphere, establishing an allowance system, or prescribing
equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.
(g) Compliance schedule means a legally enforceable schedule specifying a date or dates
by which a source or category of sources must comply with specific emission standards
contained in a plan or with any increments of progress to achieve such compliance.
(h) Increments of progress means steps to achieve compliance which must be taken by an
owner or operator of a designated facility, including:
(1) Submittal of a final control plan for the designated facility to the appropriate air
pollution control agency;
1-2
-------
(2) Awarding of contracts for emission control systems or for process modifications, or
issuance of orders for the purchase of component parts to accomplish emission control or process
modification;
(3) Initiation of on-site construction or installation of emission control equipment or
process change;
(4) Completion of on-site construction or installation of emission control equipment or
process change; and
(5) Final compliance.
(i) Region means an air quality control region designated under section 107 of the Act
and described in part 81 of this chapter.
(j) Local agency means any local governmental agency.
(k) Allowance system means a control program under which the owner or operator of
each designated facility is required to hold an authorization for each specified unit of a
designated pollutant emitted from that facility during a specified period and which limits the
total amount of such authorizations available to be held for a designated pollutant for a specified
period and allows the transfer of such authorizations not used to meet the authorization-holding
requirement.
[40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 70 FR 28649, May 18, 2005]
§ 60.22 Publication of guideline documents, emission guidelines, and final compliance times.
(a) Concurrently upon or after proposal of standards of performance for the control of a
designated pollutant from affected facilities, the Administrator will publish a draft guideline
document containing information pertinent to control of the designated pollutant form designated
facilities. Notice of the availability of the draft guideline document will be published in the
Federal Register and public comments on its contents will be invited. After consideration of
public comments and upon or after promulgation of standards of performance for control of a
designated pollutant from affected facilities, a final guideline document will be published and
notice of its availability will be published in the Federal Register.
(b) Guideline documents published under this section will provide information for the
development of State plans, such as:
(1) Information concerning known or suspected endangerment of public health or welfare
caused, or contributed to, by the designated pollutant.
(2) A description of systems of emission reduction which, in the judgment of the
Administrator, have been adequately demonstrated.
(3) Information on the degree of emission reduction which is achievable with each
system, together with information on the costs and environmental effects of applying each
system to designated facilities.
(4) Incremental periods of time normally expected to be necessary for the design,
installation, and startup of identified control systems.
(5) An emission guideline that reflects the application of the best system of emission
reduction (considering the cost of such reduction) that has been adequately demonstrated for
designated facilities, and the time within which compliance with emission standards of
equivalent stringency can be achieved. The Administrator will specify different emission
guidelines or compliance times or both for different sizes, types, and classes of designated
facilities when costs of control, physical limitations, geographical location, or similar factors
make subcategorization appropriate. (6) Such other available information as the Administrator
determines may contribute to the formulation of State plans.
1-3
-------
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(l) of this section, the emission guidelines and
compliance times referred to in paragraph (b)(5) of this section will be proposed for comment
upon publication of the draft guideline document, and after consideration of comments will be
promulgated in subpart C of this part with such modifications as may be appropriate.
(d)(l) If the Administrator determines that a designated pollutant may cause or contribute
to endangerment of public welfare, but that adverse effects on public health have not been
demonstrated, he will include the determination in the draft guideline document and in the
Federal Register notice of its availability. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section,
paragraph (c) of this section shall be inapplicable in such cases.
(2) If the Administrator determines at any time on the basis of new information that a
prior determination under paragraph (d)(l) of this section is incorrect or no longer correct, he
will publish notice of the determination in the Federal Register, revise the guideline document as
necessary under paragraph (a) of this section, and propose and promulgate emission guidelines
and compliance times under paragraph (c) of this section.
[40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 54 FR 52189, Dec. 20, 1989]
§ 60.23 Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings.
(a)(l) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart, within 9 months after notice
of the availability of a final guideline document is published under §60.22(a), each State shall
adopt and submit to the Administrator, in accordance with §60.4 of subpart A of this part, a plan
for the control of the designated pollutant to which the guideline document applies.
(2) Within nine months after notice of the availability of a final revised guideline
document is published as provided in §60.22(d)(2), each State shall adopt and submit to the
Administrator any plan revision necessary to meet the requirements of this subpart.
(b) If no designated facility is located within a State, the State shall submit a letter of
certification to that effect to the Administrator within the time specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such certification shall exempt the State from the requirements of this subpart for that
designated pollutant.
(c)(l) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, the State shall,
prior to the adoption of any plan or revision thereof, conduct one or more public hearings within
the State on such plan or plan revision.
(2) No hearing shall be required for any change to an increment of progress in an
approved compliance schedule unless the change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to
comply with the final compliance date in the schedule.
(3) No hearing shall be required on an emission standard in effect prior to the effective
date of this subpart if it was adopted after a public hearing and is at least as stringent as the
corresponding emission guideline specified in the applicable guideline document published
under §60.22(a).
(d) Any hearing required by paragraph (c) of this section shall be held only after
reasonable notice. Notice shall be given at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing and
shall include:
(1) Notification to the public by prominently advertising the date, time, and place of such
hearing in each region affected;
(2) Availability, at the time of public announcement, of each proposed plan or revision
thereof for public inspection in at least one location in each region to which it will apply;
(3) Notification to the Administrator;
1-4
-------
(4) Notification to each local air pollution control agency in each region to which the
plan or revision will apply; and
(5) In the case of an interstate region, notification to any other State included in the
region.
(e) The State shall prepare and retain, for a minimum of 2 years, a record of each hearing
for inspection by any interested party. The record shall contain, as a minimum, a list of witnesses
together with the text of each presentation.
(f) The State shall submit with the plan or revision:
(1) Certification that each hearing required by paragraph (c) of this section was held in
accordance with the notice required by paragraph (d) of this section; and
(2) A list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the
hearing and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission.
(g) Upon written application by a State agency (through the appropriate Regional Office),
the Administrator may approve State procedures designed to insure public participation in the
matters for which hearings are required and public notification of the opportunity to participate
if, in the judgment of the Administrator, the procedures, although different from the
requirements of this subpart, in fact provide for adequate notice to and participation of the
public. The Administrator may impose such conditions on his approval as he deems necessary.
Procedures approved under this section shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this
subpart regarding procedures for public hearings.
[40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995]
§ 60.24 Emission standards and compliance schedules.
(a) Each plan shall include emission standards and compliance schedules.
(b)(l) Emission standards shall either be based on an allowance system or prescribe
allowable rates of emissions except when it is clearly impracticable.
(2) Test methods and procedures for determining compliance with the emission standards
shall be specified in the plan. Methods other than those specified in appendix A to this part may
be specified in the plan if shown to be equivalent or alternative methods as defined in §60.2 (t)
and (u).
(3) Emission standards shall apply to all designated facilities within the State. A plan
may contain emission standards adopted by local jurisdictions provided that the standards are
enforceable by the State.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where the Administrator has
determined that a designated pollutant may cause or contribute to endangerment of public health,
emission standards shall be no less stringent than the corresponding emission guideline(s)
specified in subpart C of this part, and final compliance shall be required as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the compliance times specified in subpart C of this part.
(d) Where the Administrator has determined that a designated pollutant may cause or
contribute to endangerment of public welfare but that adverse effects on public health have not
been demonstrated, States may balance the emission guidelines, compliance times, and other
information provided in the applicable guideline document against other factors of public
concern in establishing emission standards, compliance schedules, and variances. Appropriate
consideration shall be given to the factors specified in §60.22(b) and to information presented at
the public hearing(s) conducted under §60.23(c).
(e)(l) Any compliance schedule extending more than 12 months from the date required
for submittal of the plan must include legally enforceable increments of progress to achieve
1-5
-------
compliance for each designated facility or category of facilities. Unless otherwise specified in
the applicable subpart, increments of progress must include, where practicable, each increment
of progress specified in §60.21(h) and must include such additional increments of progress as
may be necessary to permit close and effective supervision of progress toward final compliance.
(2) A plan may provide that compliance schedules for individual sources or categories of
sources will be formulated after plan submittal. Any such schedule shall be the subject of a
public hearing held according to §60.23 and shall be submitted to the Administrator within 60
days after the date of adoption of the schedule but in no case later than the date prescribed for
submittal of the first semiannual report required by §60.25(e).
(f) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on a case-by-case basis for
particular designated facilities or classes of facilities, States may provide for the application of
less stringent emissions standards or longer compliance schedules than those otherwise required
by paragraph (c) of this section, provided that the State demonstrates with respect to each such
facility (or class of facilities):
(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age, location, or basic process
design;
(2) Physical impossibility of installing necessary control equipment; or
(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or class of facilities) that make application of a
less stringent standard or final compliance time significantly more reasonable.
(g) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preclude any State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or enforcing (1) emission standards more stringent than
emission guidelines specified in subpart C of this part or in applicable guideline documents or
(2) compliance schedules requiring final compliance at earlier times than those specified in
subpart C or in applicable guideline documents.
(h) Each of the States identified in paragraph (h)(l) of this section shall be subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (h)(2) through (7) of this section.
(1) Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming,
and the District of Columbia shall each, and, if approved for treatment as a State under part 49 of
this chapter, the Navajo Nation and the Ute Indian Tribe may each, submit a State plan meeting
the requirements of paragraphs (h)(2) through (7) of this section and the other applicable
requirements for a State plan under this subpart.
(2) The State's State plan under paragraph (h)(l) of this section must be submitted to the
Administrator by no later than November 17, 2006. The State shall deliver five copies of the
State plan to the appropriate Regional Office, with a letter giving notice of such action.
(3) The State's State plan under paragraph (h)(l) of this section shall contain emission
standards and compliance schedules and demonstrate that they will result in compliance with the
State's annual electrical generating unit (EGU) mercury (Hg) budget for the appropriate periods.
The amount of the annual EGU Hg budget, in tons of Hg per year, shall be as follows, for the
indicated State for the indicated period:
1-6
-------
Annual ECU Hg budget
(tons)
State
2010-2017
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
Navajo Nation
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
0.010
1.289
0.516
0.454
0.041
0.706
0.053
0.072
1.232
1.227
0.024
0.727
1.594
2.097
0.723
1.525
0.601
0.172
0.490
0.001
1.303
0.695
1.393
0.291
0.377
0.600
1.133
1.564
0.421
0.063
0.153
0.299
0.285
2018 and
thereafter
0.004
0.509
0.204
0.179
0.016
0.279
0.021
0.028
0.487
0.484
0.009
0.287
0.629
0.828
0.285
0.602
0.237
0.068
0.193
0.001
0.514
0.274
0.550
0.115
0.149
0.237
0.447
0.617
0.166
0.025
0.060
0.118
0.112
1-7
-------
Annual ECU Hg budget
(tons)
2018 and
State 2010-2017 thereafter
New York 0.393 0.155
Ohio 2.056 0.812
Oklahoma 0.721 0.285
Oregon 0.076 0.030
Pennsylvania 1.779 0.702
South Carolina 0.580 0.229
South Dakota 0.072 0.029
Tennessee 0.944 0.373
Texas 4.656 1.838
Utah 0.506 0.200
Ute Indian Tribe 0.060 0.024
Virginia 0.592 0.234
Washington 0.198 0.078
Wisconsin 0.890 0.351
West Virginia 1.394 0.550
Wyoming 0.952 0.376
Total 38.000 15.000
(4) Each State plan under paragraph (h)(l) of this section shall require EGUs to comply
with the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting provisions of part 75 of this chapter with
regard to Hg mass emissions.
(5) In addition to meeting the requirements of §60.26, each State plan under paragraph
(h)(l) of this section must show that the State has legal authority to:
(i) Adopt emissions standards and compliance schedules necessary for attainment and
maintenance of the State's relevant annual EGU Hg budget under paragraph (h)(3) of this
section; and
(ii) Require owners or operators of EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, record
keeping, and reporting requirements described in paragraph (h)(4) of this section.
(6)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (h)(3) and (5)(i) of this section, if a
State adopts regulations substantively identical to subpart HHHH of this part (Hg Budget
Trading Program), incorporates such subpart by reference into its regulations, or adopts
regulations that differ substantively from such subpart only as set forth in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of
this section, then such allowance system in the State's State plan is automatically approved as
meeting the requirements of paragraph (h)(3) of this section, provided that the State
demonstrates that it has the legal authority to take such action and to implement its
responsibilities under such regulations. Before January 1, 2009, a State's regulations shall be
considered to be substantively identical to subpart HHHH of this part, or differing substantively
-------
only as set forth in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this section, regardless of whether the State's
regulations include the definition of "Biomass", paragraph (3) of the definition of "Cogeneration
unit", and the second sentence of the definition of "Total energy input" in §60.4102 of this
chapter promulgated on October 19, 2007, provided that the State timely submits to the
Administrator a State plan that revises the State's regulations to include such provisions.
Submission to the Administrator of a State plan that revises the State's regulations to include
such provisions shall be considered timely if the submission is made by January 1, 2010.
(ii) If a State adopts an allowance system that differs substantively from subpart HHHH
of this part only as follows, then the emissions trading program is approved as set forth in
paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section.
(A) The State may decline to adopt the allocation provisions set forth in §§60.4141 and
60.4142 and may instead adopt any methodology for allocating Hg allowances.
(B) The State's methodology under paragraph (h)(6)(ii)(A) of this section must not allow
the State to allocate Hg allowances for a year in excess of the amount in the State's annual EGU
Hg budget for such year under paragraph (h)(3) of this section;
(C) The State's methodology under paragraph (h)(6)(ii)(A) of this section must require
that, for EGUs commencing operation before January 1, 2001, the State will determine, and
notify the Administrator of, each unit's allocation of Hg allowances by November 17, 2006 for
2010, 2011, and 2012 and by October 31, 2009 and October 31 of each year thereafter for the
fourth year after the year of the notification deadline; and
(D) The State's methodology under paragraph (h)(6)(ii)(A) of this section must require
that, for EGUs commencing operation on or after January 1, 2001, the State will determine, and
notify the Administrator of, each unit's allocation of Hg allowances by October 31 of the year for
which the Hg allowances are allocated.
(7) If a State adopts an allowance system that differs substantively from subpart HHHH
of this part, other than as set forth in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this section, then such allowance
system is not automatically approved as set forth in paragraph (h)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section and
will be reviewed by the Administrator for approvability in accordance with the other provisions
of paragraphs (h)(2) through (5) of this section and the other applicable requirements for a State
plan under this subpart, provided that the Hg allowances issued under such allowance system
shall not, and the State plan under paragraph (h)(l) of this section shall state that such Hg
allowances shall not, qualify as Hg allowances under any allowance system approved under
paragraph (h)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(8) The terms used in this paragraph (h) shall have the following meanings:
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency or the Administrator's duly authorized representative.
Allocate or allocation means, with regard to Hg allowances, the determination of the
amount of Hg allowances to be initially credited to a source.
Biomass means—(1) Any organic material grown for the purpose of being converted to
energy;
(2) Any organic byproduct of agriculture that can be converted into energy; or
(3) Any material that can be converted into energy and is nonmerchantable for other
purposes, that is segregated from other nonmerchantable material, and that is;
(i) A forest-related organic resource, including mill residues, precommercial thinnings,
slash, brush, or byproduct from conversion of trees to merchantable material; or
1-9
-------
(ii) A wood material, including pallets, crates, dunnage, manufacturing and construction
materials (other than pressure-treated, chemically-treated, or painted wood products), and
landscape or right-of-way tree trimmings.
Boiler means an enclosed fossil-or other fuel-fired combustion device used to produce
heat and to transfer heat to recirculating water, steam, or other medium.
Bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit means a cogeneration unit in which the energy input
to the unit is first used to produce useful thermal energy and at least some of the reject heat from
the useful thermal energy application or process is then used for electricity production.
Coal means any solid fuel classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite
by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification for
Classification of Coals by Rank D388-77, 90, 91, 95, 98a, or 99 (Reapproved 2004)sl
(incorporated by reference, see §60.17).
Coal-derived fuel means any fuel (whether in a solid, liquid, or gaseous state) produced
by the mechanical, thermal, or chemical processing of coal.
Coal-fired means combusting any amount of coal or coal-derived fuel, alone or in
combination with any amount of any other fuel, during any year.
Cogeneration unit means a stationary, coal-fired boiler or stationary, coal-fired
combustion turbine:
(1) Having equipment used to produce electricity and useful thermal energy for
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes through the sequential use of energy; and
(2) Producing during the 12-month period starting on the date the unit first produces
electricity and during any calendar year after which the unit first produces electricity:
(i) For a topping-cycle cogeneration unit,
(A) Useful thermal energy not less than 5 percent of total energy output; and
(B) Useful power that, when added to one-half of useful thermal energy produced, is not
less then 42.5 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal energy produced is 15 percent or
more of total energy output, or not less than 45 percent of total energy input, if useful thermal
energy produced is less than 15 percent of total energy output.
(ii) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit, useful power not less than 45 percent of
total energy input;
(3) Provided that the total energy input under paragraphs (2)(i)(B) and (2)(ii) of this
definition shall equal the unit's total energy input from all fuel except biomass if the unit is a
boiler.
Combustion turbine means:
(1) An enclosed device comprising a compressor, a combustion, and a turbine and in
which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of fuel in the combustion passes through the
turbine, rotating the turbine; and
(2) If the enclosed device under paragraph (1) of this definition is combined cycle, any
associated heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine.
Commence operation means to have begun any mechanical, chemical, or electronic
process, including, with regard to a unit, start-up of a unit's combustion chamber.
Electric generating unit or EGU means:
(l)(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this definition, a stationary, coal-
fired boiler or stationary, coal-fired combustion turbine in the State serving at any time, since the
later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 megawatts electric (MWe) producing electricity for sale.
1-10
-------
(ii) If a stationary boiler or stationary combustion turbine that, under paragraph (l)(i) of
this definition, is not an electric generating unit begins to combust coal or coal-derived fuel or to
serve a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale,
the unit shall become an electric generating unit as provided in paragraph (l)(i) of this definition
on the first date on which it both combusts coal or coal-derived fuel and serves such generator.
(2) A unit that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (2)(i)(A) of this definition
shall not be an electric generating unit:
(i)(A) A unit that is an electric generating unit under paragraph (l)(i) or (ii) of this
definition:
(1) Qualifying as a cogeneration unit during the 12-month period starting on the date the
unit first produces electricity and continuing to qualify as a cogeneration unit; and
(2) Not serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the
unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe
supplying in any calendar year more than one-third of the unit's potential electric output capacity
or 219,000 megawatt-hours (MWh), whichever is greater, to any utility power distribution
system for sale.
(B) If a unit qualifies as a cogeneration unit during the 12-month period starting on the
date the unit first produces electricity and meets the requirements of paragraph (2)(i)(A) of this
definition for at least one calendar year, but subsequently no longer meets all such requirements,
the unit shall become an electric generating unit starting on the earlier of January 1 after the first
calendar year during which the unit first no longer qualifies as a cogeneration unit or January 1
after the first calendar year during which the unit no longer meets the requirements of paragraph
(2)(i)(A)(2) of this definition.
(3) A "solid waste incineration unit" as defined in Clean Air Act section 129(g)(l)
combusting "municipal waste" as defined in Clean Air Act section 129(g)(5) shall not be an
electric generating unit if it is subject to one of the following rules:
(i) An EPA-approved State plan for implementing subpart Cb of part 60 of this chapter,
"Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors That Are
Constructed On or Before September 20, 1994";
(ii) Subpart Eb of part 60 of this chapter, "Standards of Performance for Large Municipal
Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for
Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996";
(iii) Subpart AAAA of part 60 of this chapter, "Standards of Performance for Small
Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After August 30, 1999 or
for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 6, 2001";
(iv) An EPA-approved State Plan for implementing subpart BBBB of part 60 of this
chapter, "Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion
Units Constructed On or Before August 30, 1999";
(v) Subpart FFF of part 62 of this chapter, "Federal Plan Requirements for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed On or Before September 20, 1994; or
(vi) Subpart JJJ of 40 CFR part 62, "Federal Plan Requirements for Small Municipal
Waste Combustion Units Constructed On or Before August 30, 1999".
Generator means a device that produces electricity.
Gross electrical output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, electricity made
available for use, including any such electricity used in the power production process (which
process includes, but is not limited to, any on-site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at
the unit and any on-site emission controls).
1-11
-------
Gross thermal energy means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, useful thermal energy
output plus, where such output is made available for an industrial or commercial process, any
heat contained in condensate return or makeup water.
Heat input means, with regard to a specified period of time, the product (in million
British thermal units per unit time, MMBTU/time) of the gross calorific value of the fuel (in Btu
per pound, Btu/lb) divided by 1,000,000 Btu/MMBTU and multiplied by the fuel feed rate into a
combustion device (in Ib of fuel/time), as measured, recorded, and reported to the Administrator
by the Hg designated representative and determined by the Administrator in accordance with
§§60.4170 through 60.4176 and excluding the heat derived from preheated combustion air,
reticulated flue gases, or exhaust from other sources.
Hg allowance means a limited authorization issued by the permitting authority to emit
one ounce of Hg during a control period of the specified calendar year for which the
authorization is allocated or of any calendar year thereafter.
Life-of-the-unit, firm power contractual arrangement means a unit participation power
sales agreement under which a customer reserves, or is entitled to receive, a specified amount or
percentage of nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by any specified unit and pays
its proportional amount of such unit's total costs, pursuant to a contract:
(1) For the life of the unit;
(2) For a cumulative term of no less than 30 years, including contracts that permit an
election for early termination; or
(3) For a period no less than 25 years or 70 percent of the economic useful life of the unit
determined as of the time the unit is built, with option rights to purchase or release some portion
of the nameplate capacity and associated energy generated by the unit at the end of the period.
Maximum design heat input means, starting from the initial installation of a unit, the
maximum amount of fuel per hour (in Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of combusting on a steady-
state basis as specified by the manufacturer of the unit, or, starting from the completion of any
subsequent physical change in the unit resulting in a decrease in the maximum amount of fuel
per hour (in Btu per hour, Btu/hr) that a unit is capable of combusting on a steady-state basis,
such decreased maximum amount as specified by the person conducting the physical change.
Nameplate capacity means, starting from the initial installation of a generator, the
maximum electrical generating output (in MW) that the generator is capable of producing on a
steady-state basis and during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other
derates) as specified by the manufacturer of the generator or, starting from the completion of any
subsequent physical change in the generator resulting in an increase in the maximum electrical
generating output (in MW) that the generator is capable of producing on a steady-state basis and
during continuous operation (when not restricted by seasonal or other derates), such increased
maximum amount as specified by the person conducting the physical change.
Operator means any person who operates, controls, or supervises an EGU or a source that
includes an EGU and shall include, but not be limited to, any holding company, utility system, or
plant manager of such EGU or source.
Ounce means 2.84 x 107 micrograms.
Owner means any of the following persons:
(1) With regard to a Hg Budget source or a Hg Budget unit at a source, respectively:
(i) Any holder of any portion of the legal or equitable title in a Hg Budget unit at the
source or the Hg Budget unit;
(ii) Any holder of a leasehold interest in a Hg Budget unit at the source or the Hg Budget
unit; or
1-12
-------
(iii) Any purchaser of power from a Hg Budget unit at the source or the Hg Budget unit
under a life-of-the-unit, firm power contractual arrangement; provided that, unless expressly
provided for in a leasehold agreement, owner shall not include a passive lessor, or a person who
has an equitable interest through such lessor, whose rental payments are not based (either
directly or indirectly) on the revenues or income from such Hg Budget unit; or
(2) With regard to any general account, any person who has an ownership interest with
respect to the Hg allowances held in the general account and who is subject to the binding
agreement for the Hg authorized account representative to represent the person's ownership
interest with respect to Hg allowances.
Potential electrical output capacity means 33 percent of a unit's maximum design heat
input, divided by 3,413 Btu per kilowatt-hour (Btu/kWh), divided by 1,000 kWh per megawatt-
hour (kWh/MWh), and multiplied by 8,760 hr/yr.
Sequential use of energy means:
(1) For a topping-cycle cogeneration unit, the use of reject heat from electricity
production in a useful thermal energy application or process; or
(2) For a bottoming-cycle cogeneration unit, the use of reject heat from useful thermal
energy application or process in electricity production.
Source means all buildings, structures, or installations located in one or more contiguous
or adjacent properties under common control of the same person or persons.
State means:
(1) For purposes of referring to a governing entity, one of the States in the United States,
the District of Columbia, or, if approved for treatment as a State under part 49 of this chapter, the
Navajo Nation or Ute Indian Tribe that adopts the Hg Budget Trading Program pursuant to
§60.24(h)(6); or
(2) For purposes of referring to a geographic area, one of the States in the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Navajo Nation Indian country, or the Ute Tribe Indian country.
Topping-cycle cogeneration unit means a cogeneration unit in which the energy input to
the unit is first used to produce useful power, including electricity, and at least some of the reject
heat from the electricity production is then used to provide useful thermal energy.
Total energy input means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, total energy of all forms
supplied to the cogeneration unit, excluding energy produced by the cogeneration unit itself.
Each form of energy supplied shall be measured by the lower heating value of that form of
energy calculated as follows:
LHV = HHV - 10.55(W + 9H)
Where:
LHV = lower heating value of fuel in Btu/lb,
HHV = higher heating value of fuel in Btu/lb,
W = Weight % of moisture in fuel, and
H = Weight % of hydrogen in fuel.
Total energy output means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, the sum of useful power
and useful thermal energy produced by the cogeneration unit.
Unit means a stationary coal-fired boiler or a stationary coal-fired combustion turbine.
Useful power means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, electricity or mechanical energy
made available for use, excluding any such energy used in the power production process (which
1-13
-------
process includes, but is not limited to, any on-site processing or treatment of fuel combusted at
the unit and any on-site emission controls).
Useful thermal energy means, with regard to a cogeneration unit, thermal energy that is:
(1) Made available to an industrial or commercial process (not a power production
process), excluding any heat contained in condensate return or makeup water;
(2) Used in a heat application ( e.g., space heating or domestic hot water heating); or
(3) Used in a space cooling application (i.e., thermal energy used by an absorption
chiller).
Utility power distribution system means the portion of an electricity grid owned or
operated by a utility and dedicated to delivering electricity to customers.
[40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995; 65 FR 76384, Dec. 6,
2000; 70 FR 28649, May 18, 2005; 71 FR 33398, June 9, 2006; 72 FR 59204, Oct. 19, 2007]
§ 60.25 Emission inventories, source surveillance, reports.
(a) Each plan shall include an inventory of all designated facilities, including emission
data for the designated pollutants and information related to emissions as specified in appendix
D to this part. Such data shall be summarized in the plan, and emission rates of designated
pollutants from designated facilities shall be correlated with applicable emission standards. As
used in this subpart, "correlated" means presented in such a manner as to show the relationship
between measured or estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions
allowable under applicable emission standards.
(b) Each plan shall provide for monitoring the status of compliance with applicable
emission standards. Each plan shall, as a minimum, provide for:
(1) Legally enforceable procedures for requiring owners or operators of designated
facilities to maintain records and periodically report to the State information on the nature and
amount of emissions from such facilities, and/or such other information as may be necessary to
enable the State to determine whether such facilities are in compliance with applicable portions
of the plan. Submission of electronic documents shall comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 3—(Electronic reporting).
(2) Periodic inspection and, when applicable, testing of designated facilities.
(c) Each plan shall provide that information obtained by the State under paragraph (b) of
this section shall be correlated with applicable emission standards (see §60.25(a)) and made
available to the general public.
(d) The provisions referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall be
specifically identified. Copies of such provisions shall be submitted with the plan unless:
(1) They have been approved as portions of a preceding plan submitted under this subpart
or as portions of an implementation plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, and
(2) The State demonstrates:
(i) That the provisions are applicable to the designated pollutant(s) for which the plan is
submitted, and
(ii) That the requirements of §60.26 are met.
(e) The State shall submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to the Administrator
on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full report period after approval of
a plan or after promulgation of a plan by the Administrator. Information required under this
paragraph must be included in the annual report required by §51.321 of this chapter.
(f) Each progress report shall include:
1-14
-------
(1) Enforcement actions initiated against designated facilities during the reporting period,
under any emission standard or compliance schedule of the plan.
(2) Identification of the achievement of any increment of progress required by the
applicable plan during the reporting period.
(3) Identification of designated facilities that have ceased operation during the reporting
period.
(4) Submission of emission inventory data as described in paragraph (a) of this section
for designated facilities that were not in operation at the time of plan development but began
operation during the reporting period.
(5) Submission of additional data as necessary to update the information submitted under
paragraph (a) of this section or in previous progress reports.
(6) Submission of copies of technical reports on all performance testing on designated
facilities conducted under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, complete with concurrently recorded
process data.
[40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 44 FR 65071, Nov. 9, 1979; 70 FR 59887, Oct. 13,
2005]
§ 60.26 Legal authority.
(a) Each plan shall show that the State has legal authority to carry out the plan, including
authority to:
(1) Adopt emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to designated
facilities.
(2) Enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards, and compliance schedules, and seek
injunctive relief.
(3) Obtain information necessary to determine whether designated facilities are in
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, standards, and compliance schedules, including
authority to require recordkeeping and to make inspections and conduct tests of designated
facilities.
(4) Require owners or operators of designated facilities to install, maintain, and use
emission monitoring devices and to make periodic reports to the State on the nature and amounts
of emissions from such facilities; also authority for the State to make such data available to the
public as reported and as correlated with applicable emission standards.
(b) The provisions of law or regulations which the State determines provide the
authorities required by this section shall be specifically identified. Copies of such laws or
regulations shall be submitted with the plan unless:
(1) They have been approved as portions of a preceding plan submitted under this subpart
or as portions of an implementation plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, and
(2) The State demonstrates that the laws or regulations are applicable to the designated
pollutant(s) for which the plan is submitted.
(c) The plan shall show that the legal authorities specified in this section are available to
the State at the time of submission of the plan. Legal authority adequate to meet the requirements
of paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section may be delegated to the State under section 114 of the
Act.
(d) A State governmental agency other than the State air pollution control agency may be
assigned responsibility for carrying out a portion of a plan if the plan demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the State governmental agency has the legal authority necessary
to carry out that portion of the plan.
1-15
-------
(e) The State may authorize a local agency to carry out a plan, or portion thereof, within
the local agency's jurisdiction if the plan demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that the
local agency has the legal authority necessary to implement the plan or portion thereof, and that
the authorization does not relieve the State of responsibility under the Act for carrying out the
plan or portion thereof.
§ 60.27 Actions by the Administrator.
(a) The Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary, extend the period for
submission of any plan or plan revision or portion thereof.
(b) After receipt of a plan or plan revision, the Administrator will propose the plan or
revision for approval or disapproval. The Administrator will, within four months after the date
required for submission of a plan or plan revision, approve or disapprove such plan or revision or
each portion thereof.
(c) The Administrator will, after consideration of any State hearing record, promptly
prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth a plan, or portion thereof, for a State if:
(1) The State fails to submit a plan within the time prescribed;
(2) The State fails to submit a plan revision required by §60.23(a)(2) within the time
prescribed; or
(3) The Administrator disapproves the State plan or plan revision or any portion thereof,
as unsatisfactory because the requirements of this subpart have not been met.
(d) The Administrator will, within six months after the date required for submission of a
plan or plan revision, promulgate the regulations proposed under paragraph (c) of this section
with such modifications as may be appropriate unless, prior to such promulgation, the State has
adopted and submitted a plan or plan revision which the Administrator determines to be
approvable.
(e)(l) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, regulations proposed and
promulgated by the Administrator under this section will prescribe emission standards of the
same stringency as the corresponding emission guideline(s) specified in the final guideline
document published under §60.22(a) and will require final compliance with such standards as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the times specified in the guideline document.
(2) Upon application by the owner or operator of a designated facility to which
regulations proposed and promulgated under this section will apply, the Administrator may
provide for the application of less stringent emission standards or longer compliance schedules
than those otherwise required by this section in accordance with the criteria specified in
§60.24(f).
(f) Prior to promulgation of a plan under paragraph (d) of this section, the Administrator
will provide the opportunity for at least one public hearing in either:
(1) Each State that failed to hold a public hearing as required by §60.23(c); or
(2) Washington, DC or an alternate location specified in the Federal Register.
[40 FR 53346, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 65 FR 76384, Dec. 6, 2000]
§ 60.28 Plan revisions by the State.
(a) Plan revisions which have the effect of delaying compliance with applicable emission
standards or increments of progress or of establishing less stringent emission standards shall be
submitted to the Administrator within 60 days after adoption in accordance with the procedures
and requirements applicable to development and submission of the original plan.
1-16
-------
(b) More stringent emission standards, or orders which have the effect of accelerating
compliance, may be submitted to the Administrator as plan revisions in accordance with the
procedures and requirements applicable to development and submission of the original plan.
(c) A revision of a plan, or any portion thereof, shall not be considered part of an
applicable plan until approved by the Administrator in accordance with this subpart.
§ 60.29 Plan revisions by the Administrator.
After notice and opportunity for public hearing in each affected State, the Administrator
may revise any provision of an applicable plan if:
(a) The provision was promulgated by the Administrator, and
(b) The plan, as revised, will be consistent with the Act and with the requirements of this
subpart.
1-17
-------
-------
Appendix J
40CFRPart62SubpartA
-------
APPENDIX J--40 CFR PART 62 SUBPART A
Note: CFR text for 40 CFR Part 62 subpart A accessed Jul. 13, 2010 at e-CFR web site:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 62.01 Definitions.
As used in this part, all terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in
the Clean Air Act and in part 60 of this chapter.
§ 62.02 Introduction.
(a) This part sets forth the Administrator's approval and disapproval of State plans for the
control of pollutants and facilities under section lll(d), and section 129 as applicable, of the
Act, and the Administrator's promulgation of such plans or portions of plans thereof. Approval of
a plan or any portion of a plan is based on a determination by the Administrator that it meets the
requirements of section lll(d), and section 129 as applicable, of the Act and provisions of part
60 of this chapter.
(b)(l) If a State does not submit a complete, approvable plan, the Administrator may then
promulgate a substitute plan or part of a plan. The promulgated provision, plus the approved
parts of the State plan, constitute the applicable plan for purposes of the act.
(2) The part 60 subpart A of this chapter general provisions and appendices to part 60
apply to part 62, except as follows: 40 CFR 60.7(a)(l), 60.7(a)(3), and 60.8(a) and where special
provisions set forth under the applicable subpart of this part shall apply instead of any conflicting
provisions.
(c) The Administrator will promulgate substitute provisions for the disapproved
regulatory provisions only. If a nonregulatory provision is disapproved, however, it will be noted
in this part and a detailed explanation will be sent to the State.
(d) All approved regulatory provisions of each plan are incorporated by reference in this
part. Section 62.12 provides information on availability of applicable plans. The Administrator
and State and local agencies shall enforce (1) regulatory provisions of a plan approved or
promulgated by the Administrator, and (2) all permit conditions or denials issued in carrying out
the approved or promulgated regulations for the review of designated facilities.
(e) Each State's plan is dealt with in a separate subpart, with separate headings for
different pollutants and facilities. The plans shall include an introductory section identifying the
plan by name and the date of its submittal. Additional sections are included as necessary to
specifically identify disapproved provisions, to set forth reasons for disapproval, and to set forth
provisions of the plan promulgated by the Administrator. Except as otherwise specified, all
supplemental information submitted to the Administrator with respect to any plan has been
submitted by the Governor of the State.
(f) Revisions to applicable plans will be included in this part when approved or
promulgated by the Administrator.
(g) Substitute plans promulgated by the Administrator for States that do not have
approved plans are contained in separate subparts that appear after the subparts for States. These
J-2
-------
Federal plans include sections identifying the applicability of the plan, emission limits,
compliance schedules, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring
requirements.
[43 FR 51393, Nov. 3, 1978, as amended at 63 FR 63201, Nov. 12, 1998; 68 FR 5158, Jan. 31,
2003]
§ 62.03 Extensions.
The Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary, extend the period for
submission of any plan or plan revision or portion thereof.
§ 62.04 Approval status.
The approval status of each State's plan or portions thereof, are set forth in each subpart.
All plans are approved unless specifically disapproved in the appropriate subpart.
§ 62.05 Legal authority.
(a) The Administrator's determination of the absence or inadequacy of legal authority
required to be included in the plan is set forth in each subpart. This includes the legal authority
of local agencies and State governmental agencies other than an air pollution control agency if
such other agencies are assigned responsibility for carrying out a plan or portion thereof.
(b) No legal authority as such is promulgated by the Administrator. Where required
regulatory provisions are not included in the plan by the State because of inadequate authority,
substitute provisions are promulgated by the Administrator.
§ 62.06 Negative declarations.
A State may submit to the Administrator a letter certifying that no designated facilities
exist in the State if such is the case. The negative declaration will be in lieu of a plan.
§ 62.07 Emission standards, compliance schedules.
(a) In each subpart, emission standards and compliance schedules which have been
disapproved by the Administrator are identified, and those promulgated by the Administrator are
set forth.
(b) The Administrator's approval or promulgation of any compliance schedule shall not
affect the responsibility of the owner or operator to comply with any applicable emission
limitation on or after the date for final compliance specified in the applicable schedule.
§ 62.08 Emission inventories and source surveillance.
(a) Each subpart identifies the plan provisions for source surveillance which are
disapproved, and sets forth the Administrator's promulgation of necessary provisions for
requiring designated sources to maintain records, make reports, and submit information.
(b) The Administrator will not promulgate provisions for disapproved State or local
agency procedures for testing, inspection, investigation, or detection. However, detailed critiques
of such portions will be provided to the State.
§ 62.09 Revision of plans by Administrator.
After notice and opportunity for public hearing in each affected State, the Administrator
may revise any provision of an applicable plan if:
(a) The provision was promulgated by the Administrator and
J-3
-------
(b) The plan, as revised, will be consistent with the Act and with the requirements of part
60, subpart B of this chapter.
§ 62.10 Submission to Administrator.
Except as otherwise provided in §60.23 of this chapter, all requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to this part shall be
submitted in duplicate and addressed to the appropriate Regional Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to the attention of the Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
(Environmental Programs Division in Region II). The Regional Offices are as follows:
Region and jurisdiction covered
I — Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
II — New York, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands
III — Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia
IV — Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
V — Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
VI — Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
VII — Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
VIII — Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
IX — Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, Guam, American Samoa
X — Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Alaska
Address
JFK Federal Building, Boston, Mass. 02203.
Federal Office Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, N. Y.
10007.
Air Protection Division, Mail Code 3APOO, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1129.
345 Courtland NE., Atlanta, Ga. 30308.
Mail Code A-17J, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 11
60604-3590.
1st International Building, 1201 Elm St., Dallas, Tex.
75270.
Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas
City, KS 66101.
Director, Air Program, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129.
215 Fremont St., San Francisco, Calif. 94105.
1200 6th Ave., Seattle, Wash. 98101.
[43 FR 51393, Nov. 3, 1978, as amended at 62 FR 1834, Jan. 14, 1997; 68 FR 35729, June 17,
2003; 73 FR 24871, May 6, 2008; 74 FR 66923, Dec. 17, 2009]
§62.11 Severability.
The provisions promulgated in this part and the various applications thereof are distinct
and severable. If any provision of this part or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of
such provision to other persons or circumstances which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.
J-4
-------
§ 62.12 Availability of applicable plans.
Copies of the applicable plans will be available for public inspection at the following
locations:
(a) The offices of the Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions at EPA Regional
Offices I, III-X, and the Director, Environmental Programs Division at EPA Regional Office II.
The addresses and jurisdictions covered by these appear in §62.10.
(b) Public Information Reference Unit, Library Systems Branch, EPA (PM 213), 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
§ 62.13 Federal plans.
The Federal plans apply to owners and operators of affected facilities that are not covered
by an EPA approved and currently effective State or Tribal plan. This Federal plan, or portions
thereof, also applies to each affected facility located in any State or portion of Indian country
whose approved State or Tribal plan for that area is subsequently vacated in whole or in part.
Affected facilities are defined in each Federal plan.
(a) The substantive requirements of the municipal waste combustor Federal plan are
contained in subpart FFF of this part. These requirements include emission limits, compliance
schedules, testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(b) The substantive requirements of the municipal solid waste landfills Federal plan are
contained in subpart GGG of this part. These requirements include emission limits, compliance
schedules, testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(c) The substantive requirements of the hospital/ medical/infectious waste incinerator
Federal plan are contained in subpart HHH of this part. These requirements include emission
limits, compliance schedules, testing, monitoring and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(d) The substantive requirements of the commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration units Federal plan are contained in subpart III of this part. These requirements
include emission limits, compliance schedules, testing, monitoring, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
(e) The substantive requirements of the small municipal waste combustion unit Federal
plan are contained in subpart JJJ of this part. These requirements include emission limits,
compliance schedules, testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[63 FR 63201, Nov. 12, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 49881, Aug. 15, 2000; 68 FR 5158, Jan. 31,
2003; 68 FR 57539, Oct. 3, 2003]
J-5
-------
-------
Appendix K
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts Ce (EG) and EC (NSPS)
Kl 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ce
K2 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart EC
-------
Appendix Kl
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ce
-------
APPENDIX K1--40 CFR PART 60 SUBPART Ce
Note: CFR text for 40 CFR Part 60 subpart Ce accessed Apr. 30, 2010 at e-CFR web site:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
Subpart Ce—Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators
Source: 62 FR 48379, Sept. 15, 1997, unless otherwise noted.
§ 60.30e Scope.
This subpart contains emission guidelines and compliance times for the control of certain
designated pollutants from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator(s) (HMIWI) in
accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. The
provisions in these emission guidelines supersede the provisions of §60.24(f) of subpart B of this
part.
§60.31e Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this subpart have the meaning given them in the Clean Air
Act and in subparts A, B, and EC of this part.
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area or SMSA means any areas listed in OMB Bulletin
No. 93-17 entitled "Revised Statistical Definitions for Metropolitan Areas" dated June 30, 1993
(incorporated by reference, see §60.17).
§ 60.32e Designated facilities.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, the designated
facility to which the guidelines apply is each individual HMIWI:
(1) For which construction was commenced on or before June 20, 1996, or for which
modification was commenced on or before March 16, 1998.
(2) For which construction was commenced after June 20, 1996 but no later than
December 1, 2008, or for which modification is commenced after March 16, 1998 but no later
than April 6,2010.
(b) A combustor is not subject to this subpart during periods when only pathological
waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste (all defined in §60.51c) is
burned, provided the owner or operator of the combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim; and
(2) Keeps records on a calendar quarter basis of the periods of time when only
pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste is burned.
(c) Any co-fired combustor (defined in §60.51c) is not subject to this subpart if the owner
60.32or operator of the co-fired combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim;
(2) Provides an estimate of the relative weight of hospital waste, medical/infectious
waste, and other fuels and/or wastes to be combusted; and
(3) Keeps records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of hospital waste and
medical/infectious waste combusted, and the weight of all other fuels and wastes combusted at
the co-fired combustor.
(d) Any combustor required to have a permit under Section 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
K-3
-------
(e) Any combustor which meets the applicability requirements under subpart Cb, Ea, or
Eb of this part (standards or guidelines for certain municipal waste combustors) is not subject to
this subpart.
(f) Any pyrolysis unit (defined in §60.51c) is not subject to this subpart.
(g) Cement kilns firing hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste are not subject to
this subpart.
(h) Physical or operational changes made to an existing HMIWI unit solely for the
purpose of complying with emission guidelines under this subpart are not considered a
modification and do not result in an existing HMIWI unit becoming subject to the provisions of
subpart EC (see §60.50c).
(i) Beginning September 15, 2000, or on the effective date of an EPA approved operating
permit program under Clean Air Act title V and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR part
70 in the State in which the unit is located, whichever date is later, designated facilities subject to
this subpart shall operate pursuant to a permit issued under the EPA-approved operating permit
program.
(j) The requirements of this subpart as promulgated on September 15, 1997, shall apply
to the designated facilities defined in paragraph (a)(l) of this section until the applicable
compliance date of the requirements of this subpart, as amended on October 6, 2009. Upon the
compliance date of the requirements of this subpart, designated facilities as defined in paragraph
(a)(l) of this section are no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart, as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, but are subject to the requirements of this subpart, as amended on October
6, 2009.
[60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 51402, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.33e Emissions guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for emissions limits at least
as protective as the following requirements, as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, the requirements listed in Table 1A of this
subpart, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009, the requirements listed in Table IB of this subpart,
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(2), the more stringent of the
requirements listed in Table IB of this subpart and Table 1A of subpart EC of this part.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for emissions limits for any
small HMIWI constructed on or before June 20, 1996, which is located more than 50 miles from
the boundary of the nearest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (defined in §60.31e) and
which burns less than 2,000 pounds per week of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste that
are at least as protective as the requirements in paragraphs (b)(l) and (b)(2) of this section, as
applicable. The 2,000 Ib/week limitation does not apply during performance tests.
(1) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, the requirements listed in Table 2A of this
subpart.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009, the requirements listed in Table 2B of this subpart.
K-4
-------
(c) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for stack opacity at least as
protective as the following, as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, the requirements in §60.52c(b)(l) of subpart
EC of this part.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009 and a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(2),
the requirements in §60.52c(b)(2) of subpart EC of this part.
[74 FR 51403, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.34e Operator training and qualification guidelines.
For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for operator training and
qualification at least as protective as those requirements listed in §60.53c of subpart EC of this
part. The State plan shall require compliance with these requirements according to the schedule
specified in §60.39e(e).
§ 60.35e Waste management guidelines.
For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for a waste management plan at
least as protective as those requirements listed in §60.55c of subpart EC of this part.
§ 60.36e Inspection guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under §60.33e(b) and each FDVIIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2) and
(a)(3) to undergo an initial equipment inspection that is at least as protective as the following
within 1 year following approval of the State plan:
(1) At a minimum, an inspection shall include the following:
(i) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing devices for proper operation;
clean pilot flame sensor, as necessary;
(ii) Ensure proper adjustment of primary and secondary chamber combustion air, and
adjust as necessary;
(iii) Inspect hinges and door latches, and lubricate as necessary;
(iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
(v) Inspect HMIWI door and door gaskets for proper sealing;
(vi) Inspect motors for proper operation;
(vii) Inspect primary chamber refractory lining; clean and repair/replace lining as
necessary;
(viii) Inspect incinerator shell for corrosion and/or hot spots;
(ix) Inspect secondary/tertiary chamber and stack, clean as necessary;
(x) Inspect mechanical loader, including limit switches, for proper operation, if
applicable;
(xi) Visually inspect waste bed (grates), and repair/seal, as appropriate;
(xii) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that the incinerator is
operating properly and make any necessary adjustments;
(xiii) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation, if applicable;
(xiv) Inspect waste heat boiler systems to ensure proper operation, if applicable;
(xv) Inspect bypass stack components;
K-5
-------
(xvi) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed systems and any other
monitoring equipment; and
(xvii) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days following an equipment inspection all necessary repairs
shall be completed unless the owner or operator obtains written approval from the State agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated facility shall be completed.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under §60.33e(b) and each HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2) and
(a)(3) to undergo an equipment inspection annually (no more than 12 months following the
previous annual equipment inspection), as outlined in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under §60.33e(b)(2) and each HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2)
and (a)(3) to undergo an initial air pollution control device inspection, as applicable, that is at
least as protective as the following within 1 year following approval of the State plan:
(1) At a minimum, an inspection shall include the following:
(i) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation, if applicable;
(ii) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed systems, and any other
monitoring equipment; and
(iii) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control device inspection, all
necessary repairs shall be completed unless the owner or operator obtains written approval from
the State agency establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated facility shall
be completed.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under §60.33e(b)(2) and each HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2)
and (a)(3) to undergo an air pollution control device inspection, as applicable, annually (no more
than 12 months following the previous annual air pollution control device inspection), as
outlined in paragraph (c) of this section.
[60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 51403, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.37e Compliance, performance testing, and monitoring guidelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for approval, a State plan shall
include the requirements for compliance and performance testing listed in §60.56c of subpart EC
of this part, with the following exclusions:
(1) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions limits in
§60.33e(a)(l), the test methods listed in §60.56c(b)(7) and (8), the fugitive emissions testing
requirements under §60.56c(b)(14) and (c)(3), the CO CEMS requirements under §60.56c(c)(4),
and the compliance requirements for monitoring listed in §60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through (v), (c)(6),
(c)(7), (e)(6) through (10), (f)(7) through (10), (g)(6) through (10), and (h).
(2) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) and (a)(2) subject to the
emissions limits in §60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3), the annual fugitive emissions testing requirements
under §60.56c(c)(3), the CO CEMS requirements under §60.56c(c)(4), and the compliance
requirements for monitoring listed in §60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through (v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through
(10), (f)(7) through (10), and (g)(6) through (10). Sources subject to the emissions limits under
§60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) may, however, elect to use CO CEMS as specified under §60.56c(c)(4)
or bag leak detection systems as specified under §60.57c(h).
K-6
-------
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(l) and (b)(2) of this section, for approval, a
State plan shall require each small HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(b) to
meet the performance testing requirements listed in §60.56c of subpart EC of this part. The 2,000
Ib/week limitation under §60.33e(b) does not apply during performance tests.
(1) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions limits
under §60.33e(b)(l), the test methods listed in §60.56c(b)(7), (8), (12), (13) (Pb and Cd), and
(14), the annual PM, CO, and HC1 emissions testing requirements under §60.56c(c)(2), the
annual fugitive emissions testing requirements under §60.56c(c)(3), the CO CEMS requirements
under §60.56c(c)(4), and the compliance requirements for monitoring listed in §60.56c(c)(5)
through (7), and (d) through (k) do not apply.
(2) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(2) subject to the emissions limits
under §60.33e(b)(2), the annual fugitive emissions testing requirements under §60.56c(c)(3), the
CO CEMS requirements under §60.56c(c)(4), and the compliance requirements for monitoring
listed in §60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through (v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through (10), (f)(7) through (10), and
(g)(6) through (10) do not apply. Sources subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(b)(2)
may, however, elect to use CO CEMS as specified under §60.56c(c)(4) or bag leak detection
systems as specified under §60.57c(h).
(c) For approval, a State plan shall require each small HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under §60.33e(b) that is not equipped with an air pollution control device to meet the
following compliance and performance testing requirements:
(1) Establish maximum charge rate and minimum secondary chamber temperature as site-
specific operating parameters during the initial performance test to determine compliance with
applicable emission limits.
(2) Following the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, ensure that the designated facility does
not operate above the maximum charge rate or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature measured as 3-hour rolling averages (calculated each hour as the average of the
previous 3 operating hours) at all times. Operating parameter limits do not apply during
performance tests. Operation above the maximum charge rate or below the minimum secondary
chamber temperature shall constitute a violation of the established operating parameter(s).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, operation of the designated
facility above the maximum charge rate and below the minimum secondary chamber temperature
(each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the
PM, CO, and dioxin/furan emissions limits.
(4) The owner or operator of a designated facility may conduct a repeat performance test
within 30 days of violation of applicable operating parameter(s) to demonstrate that the
designated facility is not in violation of the applicable emissions limit(s). Repeat performance
tests conducted pursuant to this paragraph must be conducted under process and control device
operating conditions duplicating as nearly as possible those that indicated a violation under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall include the requirements for monitoring listed in
§60.57c of subpart EC of this part for FDVIIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)
and (b), except as provided for under paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) For approval, a State plan shall require small HMIWI subject to the emissions limits
under §60.33e(b) that are not equipped with an air pollution control device to meet the following
monitoring requirements:
K-7
-------
(1) Install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a device for
measuring and recording the temperature of the secondary chamber on a continuous basis, the
output of which shall be recorded, at a minimum, once every minute throughout operation.
(2) Install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a device
which automatically measures and records the date, time, and weight of each charge fed into the
HMIWI.
(3) The owner or operator of a designated facility shall obtain monitoring data at all times
during HMIWI operation except during periods of monitoring equipment malfunction,
calibration, or repair. At a minimum, valid monitoring data shall be obtained for 75 percent of
the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating hours per calendar quarter that the
designated facility is combusting hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste.
(f) The owner or operator of a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) or (a)(2)
subject to emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(2) may use the results of previous
emissions tests to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits, provided that the conditions
in paragraphs (f)(l) through (f)(3) of this section are met:
(1) The designated facility's previous emissions tests must have been conducted using the
applicable procedures and test methods listed in §60.56c(b) of subpart EC of this part. Previous
emissions test results obtained using EPA-accepted voluntary consensus standards are also
acceptable.
(2) The HMIWI at the designated facility shall currently be operated in a manner ( e.g.,
with charge rate, secondary chamber temperature, etc.) that would be expected to result in the
same or lower emissions than observed during the previous emissions test(s), and the HMIWI
may not have been modified such that emissions would be expected to exceed (notwithstanding
normal test-to-test variability) the results from previous emissions test(s).
(3) The previous emissions test(s) must have been conducted in 1996 or later.
[60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 51403, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.38e Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section, for approval, a State
plan shall include the reporting and recordkeeping requirements listed in §60.58c(b) through (g)
of subpart EC of this part.
(1) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) subject to emissions limits under
§60.33e(a)(l) or (b)(l), excluding §60.58c(b)(2)(ii) (fugitive emissions), (b)(2)(viii) (NOX
reagent), (b)(2)(xvii) (air pollution control device inspections), (b)(2)(xviii) (bag leak detection
system alarms), (b)(2)(xix) (CO CEMS data), and (b)(7) (siting documentation).
(2) For a designated facility as defined in §60.32e(a)(l) or (a)(2) subject to emissions
limits under §60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), or (b)(2), excluding §60.58c(b)(2)(xviii) (bag leak detection
system alarms), (b)(2)(xix) (CO CEMS data), and (b)(7) (siting documentation).
(b) For approval, a State plan shall require the owner or operator of each HMIWI subject
to the emissions limits under §60.33e to:
(1) As specified in §60.36e, maintain records of the annual equipment inspections that
are required for each HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b),
and the annual air pollution control device inspections that are required for each HMIWI subject
to the emissions limits under §60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b)(2), any required maintenance, and
any repairs not completed within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
State regulatory agency; and
K-8
-------
(2) Submit an annual report containing information recorded under paragraph (b)(l) of
this section no later than 60 days following the year in which data were collected. Subsequent
reports shall be sent no later than 12 calendar months following the previous report (once the
unit is subject to permitting requirements under Title V of the Act, the owner or operator must
submit these reports semiannually). The report shall be signed by the facilities manager.
[60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 51404, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.39e Compliance times.
(a) Each State in which a designated facility is operating shall submit to the
Administrator a plan to implement and enforce the emissions guidelines as specified in
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section:
(1) Not later than September 15, 1998, for the emissions guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997.
(2) Not later than October 6, 2010, for the emissions guidelines as amended on October
6, 2009.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, State plans shall provide
that designated facilities comply with all requirements of the State plan on or before the date 1
year after EPA approval of the State plan, regardless of whether a designated facility is identified
in the State plan inventory required by §60.25(a) of subpart B of this part.
(c) State plans that specify measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress
towards compliance for designated facilities planning to install the necessary air pollution
control equipment may allow compliance on or before the date 3 years after EPA approval of the
State plan (but not later than September 16, 2002), for the emissions guidelines as promulgated
on September 15, 1997, and on or before the date 3 years after approval of an amended State
plan (but not later than October 6, 2014), for the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009). Suggested measurable and enforceable activities to be included in State plans are:
(1) Date for submitting a petition for site-specific operating parameters under §60.56c(j)
of subpart EC of this part.
(2) Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering firm regarding the air
pollution control device(s);
(3) Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control device(s);
(4) Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s);
(5) Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution control device(s);
(6) Date for initiation of site preparation for installation of the air pollution control
device(s);
(7) Date for initiation of installation of the air pollution control device(s);
(8) Date for initial startup of the air pollution control device(s); and
(9) Date for initial compliance test(s) of the air pollution control device(s).
(d) State plans that include provisions allowing designated facilities to petition the State
for extensions beyond the compliance times required in paragraph (b) of this section shall:
(1) Require that the designated facility requesting an extension submit the following
information in time to allow the State adequate time to grant or deny the extension within 1 year
after EPA approval of the State plan:
(i) Documentation of the analyses undertaken to support the need for an extension,
including an explanation of why up to 3 years after EPA approval of the State plan is sufficient
time to comply with the State plan while 1 year after EPA approval of the State plan is not
sufficient. The documentation shall also include an evaluation of the option to transport the
K-9
-------
waste offsite to a commercial medical waste treatment and disposal facility on a temporary or
permanent basis; and
(ii) Documentation of measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress to be
taken towards compliance with the emission guidelines.
(2) Include procedures for granting or denying the extension; and
(3) If an extension is granted, require compliance with the emissions guidelines on or
before the date 3 years after EPA approval of the State plan (but not later than September 16,
2002), for the emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and on or before the
date 3 years after EPA approval of an amended State plan (but not later than October 6, 2014),
for the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009.
(e) For approval, a State plan shall require compliance with §60.34e—Operator training
and qualification guidelines and §60.36e—Inspection guidelines by the date 1 year after EPA
approval of a State plan.
(f) The Administrator shall develop, implement, and enforce a plan for existing HMIWI
located in any State that has not submitted an approvable plan within 2 years after September 15,
1997, for the emissions guidelines as promulgated on September 15, 1997, and within 2 years
after October 6, 2009 for the emissions guidelines as amended on October 6, 2009. Such plans
shall ensure that each designated facility is in compliance with the provisions of this subpart no
later than 5 years after September 15, 1997, for the emissions guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, and no later than 5 years after October 6, 2009 for the emissions guidelines
as amended on October 6, 2009.
[60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 51404, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table 1A to Subpart Ce of Part 60—Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at
Designated Facilities as Defined in §60.32e(a)(l)
Emissions limits
Units
(7 percent oxygen, dry HMIWI size
Pollutant basis) Small Medium Large
Paniculate Milligrams per dry standard 115 69(0.03)
matter cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.05)
(grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf))
Averaging
34
(0.015)
Carbon Parts per million by volume
monoxide (ppmv)
40
40
Dioxins/furans Nanograms per dry standard 125
Hydrogen
chloride
cubic meter total
dioxins/furans (ng/dscm)
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet
(gr/109dscf)) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/109dscf)
ppmv
(55) or
2.3
(1.0)
100 or
93%
125 (55)
or 2.3
(1.0)
100 or
93%
time
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
40 3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
125 (55) 3-run average
or 2.3
(1.0)
100 or
93%
(4-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 5
of appendix A-3 of part
60, or EPA Reference
Method 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
10 or 1 OB of appendix
A-4ofpart60.
EPA Reference Method
23 of appendix A-7 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
26 or 26 A of appendix
A-8 of part 60.
K-10
-------
Pollutant
Units
(7 percent oxygen, dry
basis)
Sulfur dioxide ppmv
Nitrogen
oxides
Lead
ppmv
mg/dscm (grains per
thousand dry standard cubic
feet (gr/103dscf))
Cadmium mg/dscm (gr/103dscf)
Mercury
mg/dscm (gr/103dscf)
Emissions limits
HMIWI size
Averaging
Small
55
250
1.2
(0.52)
or 70%
0.16
(0.07)
or 65%
0.55
(0.24)
or 85%
Medium
55
250
1.2 (0.52)
or 70%
0.16
(0.07) or
65%
0.55
(0.24) or
85%
Large
55
250
1.2
(0.52)
or 70%
0.16
(0.07)
or 65%
0.55
(0.24)
or 85%
time1
per run)
3 -run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3 -run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3 -run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3 -run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3 -run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 6
or 6C of appendix A-4 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method 7
or 7E of appendix A-4 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[60 FR 65414, Dec. 19, 1995, as amended at 74 FR 51405, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table IB to Subpart Ce of Part 60—Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large FtMIWI at
Designated Facilities as Defined in §60.32e(a)(l) and (a)(2)
Emissions limits
HMIWI size
Small Medium Large
66 46(0.020) 25
(0.029) (0.011)
Pollutant
Paniculate
matter
Carbon
monoxide
Units
(7 percent oxygen, dry
basis)
Milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter
Averaging
time1
(mg/dscm) (grains per dry
standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf))
Parts per million by 20
volume (ppmv)
5.5
11
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method
5 of appendix A-3 of
part 60, or EPA
Reference Method 26A
or 29 of appendix A-8
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
10 or 1 OB of appendix
A-4 of part 60.
K-ll
-------
Units
(7 percent oxygen, dry
Pollutant basis) Small
Dioxins/furans Nanograms per dry 16 (7.0)
standard cubic meter total or 0.013
dioxins/furans (ng/dscm) (0.0057)
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet
Emissions limits
HMIWI size
Medium Large
0.85 9.3(4.1)
(0.37) or or 0.054
0.020 (0.024)
(0.0087)
Hydrogen
chloride
(gr/10 dscf)) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/109dscf)
ppmv
44
7.7
6.6
Sulfur dioxide ppmv
4.2
4.2
9.0
Nitrogen ppmv
oxides
190
190
140
Lead
Cadmium
mg/dscm (grains per 0.31 0.018 0.036
thousand dry standard (0.14) (0.0079) (0.016)
cubic feet (gr/103dscf))
mg/dscm (gr/103dscf) 0.017 0.013 0.0092
(0.0074) (0.0057) (0.0040)
Mercury mg/dscm (gr/103dscf) 0.014 0.025 0.018
(0.0061) (0.011) (0.0079)
Averaging
time1
3-run average
(4-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method
23 of appendix A-7 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
26 or 26A of appendix
A-8ofpart60.
EPA Reference Method
6 or 6C of appendix A-
4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
7 or 7E of appendix A-
4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[74 FR 51406, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table 2A to Subpart Ceof Part 60—Emissions Limits for Small HMIWI Which Meet the Criteria
Under §60.33e(b)(l)
Units HMIWI
(7 percent oxygen, dry emissions Method for demonstrating
Pollutant basis) limits Averaging time1 compliance2
Paniculate mg/dscm (gr/dscf) 197(0.086) 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 5 of
K-12
-------
Pollutant
matter
Carbon
monoxide
Units HMIWI
(7 percent oxygen, dry emissions
basis)
ppmv
Dioxins/furans ng/dscm total
dioxins/furans
(gr/109dscf) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/109dscf)
Hydrogen ppmv
chloride
Sulfur dioxide ppmv
Nitrogen
oxides
Lead
ppmv
,100
mg/dscm (gr/103dscf) 10 (4.4)
Cadmium mg/dscm (gr/103dscf) 4(1.7)
Method for demonstrating
limits Averaging time1 compliance2
hour minimum appendix A-3 of part 60, or EPA
sample time per Reference Method 26A or 29 of
run) appendix A-8 of part 60.
40 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 10 or 1 OB of
hour minimum appendix A-4 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
800 (350) or 3-run average (4- EPA Reference Method 23 of
15 (6.6) hour minimum appendix A-7 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A of
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C of
hour minimum appendix A-4 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of
hour minimum appendix A-4 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 29 of
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 29 of
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
55
250
Mercury
mg/dscm (gr/103dscf) 7.5 (3.3)
3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 29 of
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[74 FR 51407, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table 2B to Subpart Ceof Part 60—Emissions Limits for Small HMIWI Which Meet the Criteria
Under §60.33e(b)(2)
Units HMIWI
(7 percent oxygen, dry Emissions Method for demonstrating
Pollutant basis) limits Averaging time1 compliance2
Paniculate mg/dscm (gr/dscf) 87(0.038) 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 5 of
matter hour minimum appendix A-3 of part 60, or EPA
sample time per Reference Method 26A or 29 of
K-13
-------
Units HMIWI
(7 percent oxygen, dry Emissions
Pollutant
Carbon
monoxide
basis)
ppmv
Dioxins/furans ng/dscm total
dioxins/furans
(gr/109dscf) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/109dscf)
Hydrogen ppmv
chloride
Sulfur dioxide ppmv
Method for demonstrating
limits Averaging time1 compliance2
run) appendix A-8 of part 60.
20 3 -run average (1 - EPA Reference Method 10 or 1 OB of
hour minimum appendix A-4 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
240 (100) or 3-run average (4- EPA Reference Method 23 of
5.1 (2.2) hour minimum appendix A-7 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
810 3 -run average (1 - EPA Reference Method 26or26Aof
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
55 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C of
hour minimum appendix A-4 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
130 3 -run average (1 - EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of
hour minimum appendix A-4 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
0.50 (0.22) 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 29 of
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
0.11 (0.048) 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 29 of
hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
0.0051 3-run average (1- EPA Reference Method 29 of
(0.0022) hour minimum appendix A-8 of part 60.
sample time per
run)
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[74 FR 51407, Oct. 6, 2009]
Nitrogen
oxides
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
ppmv
mg/dscm (gr/10 dscf)
mg/dscm (gr/103dscf)
mg/dscm (gr/103dscf)
K-14
-------
Appendix K2
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart EC
-------
APPENDIX K2-40 CFR PART 60 SUBPART EC
Note: CFR text for 40 CFR Part 60 subpart EC accessed Jun. 11, 2010 at e-CFR web site:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
Subpart EC—Standards of Performance for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators for
Which Construction is Commenced After June 20, 1996
Source: 62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, unless otherwise noted.
§ 60.50c Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, the affected facility
to which this subpart applies is each individual hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator
(HMIWI):
(1) For which construction is commenced after June 20, 1996 but no later than December
1, 2008; or
(2) For which modification is commenced after March 16, 1998 but no later than April 6,
2010.
(3) For which construction is commenced after December 1, 2008; or
(4) For which modification is commenced after April 6, 2010.
(b) A combustor is not subject to this subpart during periods when only pathological
waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste (all defined in §60.51c) is
burned, provided the owner or operator of the combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim; and
(2) Keeps records on a calendar quarter basis of the periods of time when only
pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste and/or chemotherapeutic waste is burned.
(c) Any co-fired combustor (defined in §60.51c) is not subject to this subpart if the owner
or operator of the co-fired combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim;
(2) Provides an estimate of the relative amounts of hospital waste, medical/infectious
waste, and other fuels and wastes to be combusted; and
(3) Keeps records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of hospital waste and
medical/infectious waste combusted, and the weight of all other fuels and wastes combusted at
the co-fired combustor.
(d) Any combustor required to have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
(e) Any combustor which meets the applicability requirements under subpart Cb, Ea, or
Eb of this part (standards or guidelines for certain municipal waste combustors) is not subject to
this subpart.
(f) Any pyrolysis unit (defined in §60.51c) is not subject to this subpart.
(g) Cement kilns firing hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste are not subject to
this subpart.
(h) Physical or operational changes made to an existing HMIWI solely for the purpose of
complying with emission guidelines under subpart Ce are not considered a modification and do
not result in an existing HMIWI becoming subject to this subpart.
(i) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State under section
11 l(c) of the Clean Air Act, the following authorities shall be retained by the Administrator and
not transferred to a State:
K-16
-------
(1) The requirements of § 60.56c(i) establishing operating parameters when using
controls other than those listed in § 60.56c(d).
(2) Approval of alternative methods of demonstrating compliance under §60.8 including:
(i) Approval of CEMS for PM, HC1, multi-metals, and Hg where used for purposes of
demonstrating compliance,
(ii) Approval of continuous automated sampling systems for dioxin/furan and Hg where
used for purposes of demonstrating compliance, and
(iii) Approval of major alternatives to test methods;
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring;
(4) Waiver of recordkeeping requirements; and
(5) Performance test and data reduction waivers under §60.8(b).
(j) Affected facilities subject to this subpart are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 64.
(k) The requirements of this subpart shall become effective March 16, 1998
(1) Beginning September 15, 2000, or on the effective date of an EPA-approved operating
permit program under Clean Air Act title V and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR part
70 in the State in which the unit is located, whichever date is later, affected facilities subject to
this subpart shall operate pursuant to a permit issued under the EPA approved State operating
permit program.
(m) The requirements of this subpart as promulgated on September 15, 1997, shall apply
to the affected facilities defined in paragraph (a)(l) and (2) of this section until the applicable
compliance date of the requirements of subpart Ce of this part, as amended on October 6, 2009.
Upon the compliance date of the requirements of the amended subpart Ce of this part, affected
facilities as defined in paragraph (a) of this section are no longer subject to the requirements of
this subpart, but are subject to the requirements of subpart Ce of this part, as amended on
October 6, 2009, except where the emissions limits of this subpart as promulgated on September
15, 1997 are more stringent than the emissions limits of the amended subpart Ce of this part.
Compliance with subpart Ce of this part, as amended on October 6, 2009 is required on or before
the date 3 years after EPA approval of the State plan for States in which an affected facility as
defined in paragraph (a) of this section is located (but not later than the date 5 years after
promulgation of the amended subpart).
(n) The requirements of this subpart, as amended on October 6, 2009, shall become
effective April 6, 2010.
[62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, as amended at 74 FR 51408, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.51c Definitions.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring PM
loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection
system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative PM loadings.
Batch FDVIIWI means an FDVIIWI that is designed such that neither waste charging nor
ash removal can occur during combustion.
Biologicals means preparations made from living organisms and their products, including
vaccines, cultures, etc., intended for use in diagnosing, immunizing, or treating humans or
animals or in research pertaining thereto.
K-17
-------
Blood products means any product derived from human blood, including but not limited
to blood plasma, platelets, red or white blood corpuscles, and other derived licensed products,
such as interferon, etc.
Body fluids means liquid emanating or derived from humans and limited to blood;
dialysate; amniotic, cerebrospinal, synovial, pleural, peritoneal and pericardial fluids; and semen
and vaginal secretions.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases to avoid severe
damage to the air pollution control device or other equipment.
Chemotherapeutic waste means waste material resulting from the production or use of
antineoplastic agents used for the purpose of stopping or reversing the growth of malignant cells.
Co-fired combustor means a unit combusting hospital waste and/or medical/infectious
waste with other fuels or wastes (e.g., coal, municipal solid waste) and subject to an enforceable
requirement limiting the unit to combusting a fuel feed stream, 10 percent or less of the weight
of which is comprised, in aggregate, of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste as measured
on a calendar quarter basis. For purposes of this definition, pathological waste, chemotherapeutic
waste, and low-level radioactive waste are considered "other" wastes when calculating the
percentage of hospital waste and medical/infectious waste combusted.
Commercial HMIWI means a HMIWI which offers incineration services for
hospital/medical/infectious waste generated offsite by firms unrelated to the firm that owns the
HMIWI.
Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means a monitoring system for
continuously measuring and recording the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility.
Continuous HMIWI means an HMIWI that is designed to allow waste charging and ash
removal during combustion.
Dioxins/furans means the combined emissions of tetra-through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-
para-dioxins and dibenzofurans, as measured by EPA Reference Method 23.
Dry scrubber means an add-on air pollution control system that injects dry alkaline
sorbent (dry injection) or sprays an alkaline sorbent (spray dryer) to react with and neutralize
acid gases in the HMIWI exhaust stream forming a dry powder material.
Fabric filter or baghouse means an add-on air pollution control system that removes
particulate matter (PM) and nonvaporous metals emissions by passing flue gas through filter
bags.
Facilities manager means the individual in charge of purchasing, maintaining, and
operating the HMIWI or the owner's or operator's representative responsible for the management
of the HMIWI. Alternative titles may include director of facilities or vice president of support
services.
High-air phase means the stage of the batch operating cycle when the primary chamber
reaches and maintains maximum operating temperatures.
Hospital means any facility which has an organized medical staff, maintains at least six
inpatient beds, and where the primary function of the institution is to provide diagnostic and
therapeutic patient services and continuous nursing care primarily to human inpatients who are
not related and who stay on average in excess of 24 hours per admission. This definition does not
include facilities maintained for the sole purpose of providing nursing or convalescent care to
human patients who generally are not acutely ill but who require continuing medical supervision.
Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator or HMIWI or HMIWI unit means any
device that combusts any amount of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste.
K-18
-------
Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator operator or HMIWI operator means any
person who operates, controls or supervises the day-to-day operation of an HMIWI.
Hospital waste means discards generated at a hospital, except unused items returned to
the manufacturer. The definition of hospital waste does not include human corpses, remains, and
anatomical parts that are intended for interment or cremation.
Infectious agent means any organism (such as a virus or bacteria) that is capable of being
communicated by invasion and multiplication in body tissues and capable of causing disease or
adverse health impacts in humans.
Intermittent HMIWI means an HMIWI that is designed to allow waste charging, but not
ash removal, during combustion.
Large HMIWI means:
(1) Except as provided in (2);
(i) An HMIWI whose maximum design waste burning capacity is more than 500 pounds
per hour; or
(ii) A continuous or intermittent HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 500
pounds per hour; or
(iii) A batch HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 4,000 pounds per day.
(2) The following are not large HMIWI:
(i) A continuous or intermittent HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is less than or equal
to 500 pounds per hour; or
(ii) A batch HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is less than or equal to 4,000 pounds
per day.
Low-level radioactive waste means waste material which contains radioactive nuclides
emitting primarily beta or gamma radiation, or both, in concentrations or quantities that exceed
applicable federal or State standards for unrestricted release. Low-level radioactive waste is not
high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2)).
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual
manner. Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation are not
malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the operator shall operate within established
parameters as much as possible, and monitoring of all applicable operating parameters shall
continue until all waste has been combusted or until the malfunction ceases, whichever comes
first.
Maximum charge rate means:
(1) For continuous and intermittent HMIWI, 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average
charge rate measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all
applicable emission limits.
(2) For batch HMIWI, 110 percent of the lowest daily charge rate measured during the
most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.
Maximum design waste burning capacity means:
(1) For intermittent and continuous HMIWI,
C=PVx 15,000/8,500
Where:
C=HMIWI capacity, Ib/hr
K-19
-------
PV=primary chamber volume, ft3
15,000=primary chamber heat release rate factor, Btu/ft3 /hr
8,500=standard waste heating value, Btu/lb;
(2)ForbatchHMIWI,
C=PVx 4.5/8
Where:
C=HMIWI capacity, Ib/hr
PV=primary chamber volume, ft3
4.5=waste density, Ib/ft3
8=typical hours of operation of a batch HMIWI, hours.
Maximum fabric filter inlet temperature means 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average
temperature at the inlet to the fabric filter (taken, at a minimum, once every minute) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan
emission limit.
Maximum flue gas temperature means 110 percent of the lowest 3-hour average
temperature at the outlet from the wet scrubber (taken, at a minimum, once every minute)
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the mercury
(Hg) emission limit.
Medical/infectious waste means any waste generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or
immunization of human beings or animals, in research pertaining thereto, or in the production or
testing of biologicals that is listed in paragraphs (1) through (7) of this definition. The definition
of medical/infectious waste does not include hazardous waste identified or listed under the
regulations in part 261 of this chapter; household waste, as defined in §261.4(b)(l) of this
chapter; ash from incineration of medical/infectious waste, once the incineration process has
been completed; human corpses, remains, and anatomical parts that are intended for interment or
cremation; and domestic sewage materials identified in §261.4(a)(l) of this chapter.
(1) Cultures and stocks of infectious agents and associated biologicals, including:
cultures from medical and pathological laboratories; cultures and stocks of infectious agents
from research and industrial laboratories; wastes from the production of biologicals; discarded
live and attenuated vaccines; and culture dishes and devices used to transfer, inoculate, and mix
cultures.
(2) Human pathological waste, including tissues, organs, and body parts and body fluids
that are removed during surgery or autopsy, or other medical procedures, and specimens of body
fluids and their containers.
(3) Human blood and blood products including:
(i) Liquid waste human blood;
(ii) Products of blood;
(iii) Items saturated and/or dripping with human blood; or
(iv) Items that were saturated and/or dripping with human blood that are now caked with
dried human blood; including serum, plasma, and other blood components, and their containers,
which were used or intended for use in either patient care, testing and laboratory analysis or the
development of pharmaceuticals. Intravenous bags are also included in this category.
K-20
-------
(4) Sharps that have been used in animal or human patient care or treatment or in
medical, research, or industrial laboratories, including hypodermic needles, syringes (with or
without the attached needle), pasteur pipettes, scalpel blades, blood vials, needles with attached
tubing, and culture dishes (regardless of presence of infectious agents). Also included are other
types of broken or unbroken glassware that were in contact with infectious agents, such as used
slides and cover slips.
(5) Animal waste including contaminated animal carcasses, body parts, and bedding of
animals that were known to have been exposed to infectious agents during research (including
research in veterinary hospitals), production of biologicals or testing of pharmaceuticals.
(6) Isolation wastes including biological waste and discarded materials contaminated
with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions from humans who are isolated to protect others
from certain highly communicable diseases, or isolated animals known to be infected with highly
communicable diseases.
(7) Unused sharps including the following unused, discarded sharps: hypodermic needles,
suture needles, syringes, and scalpel blades.
Medium HMIWI means:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2);
(i) An HMIWI whose maximum design waste burning capacity is more than 200 pounds
per hour but less than or equal to 500 pounds per hour; or
(ii) A continuous or intermittent HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 200
pounds per hour but less than or equal to 500 pounds per hour; or
(iii) A batch HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 1,600 pounds per day but
less than or equal to 4,000 pounds per day.
(2) The following are not medium HMIWI:
(i) A continuous or intermittent HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is less than or equal
to 200 pounds per hour or more than 500 pounds per hour; or
(ii) A batch HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 4,000 pounds per day or
less than or equal to 1,600 pounds per day.
Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average
dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate (taken, at a minimum, once every hour) measured during the most
recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit.
Minimum Hg sorbent flow rate means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average Hg
sorbent flow rate (taken, at a minimum, once every hour) measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the Hg emission limit.
Minimum hydrogen chloride (HC1) sorbent flow rate means 90 percent of the highest 3-
hour average HC1 sorbent flow rate (taken, at a minimum, once every hour) measured during the
most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the HC1 emission limit.
Minimum horsepower or amperage means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average
horsepower or amperage to the wet scrubber (taken, at a minimum, once every minute) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limits.
Minimum pressure drop across the wet scrubber means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour
average pressure drop across the wet scrubber PM control device (taken, at a minimum, once
every minute) measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the PM emission limit.
Minimum reagent flow rate means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average reagent flow
rate at the inlet to the selective noncatalytic reduction technology (taken, at a minimum, once
K-21
-------
every minute) measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the NOx emissions limit.
Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average
liquor flow rate at the inlet to the wet scrubber (taken, at a minimum, once every minute)
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable
emission limits.
Minimum scrubber liquor pH means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour average liquor pH
at the inlet to the wet scrubber (taken, at a minimum, once every minute) measured during the
most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the HC1 emission limit.
Minimum secondary chamber temperature means 90 percent of the highest 3-hour
average secondary chamber temperature (taken, at a minimum, once every minute) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM, CO,
dioxin/furan, and NOx emissions limits.
Modification or Modified HMIWI means any change to an HMIWI unit after the
effective date of these standards such that:
(1) The cumulative costs of the modifications, over the life of the unit, exceed 50 per
centum of the original cost of the construction and installation of the unit (not including the cost
of any land purchased in connection with such construction or installation) updated to current
costs, or
(2) The change involves a physical change in or change in the method of operation of the
unit which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the unit for which standards have
been established under section 129 or section 111.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following
midnight during which any amount of hospital waste or medical/infectious waste is combusted at
any time in the HMIWI.
Operation means the period during which waste is combusted in the incinerator excluding
periods of startup or shutdown.
Particulate matter orPM means the total particulate matter emitted from an HMIWI as
measured by EPA Reference Method 5 or EPA Reference Method 29.
Pathological waste means waste material consisting of only human or animal remains,
anatomical parts, and/or tissue, the bags/containers used to collect and transport the waste
material, and animal bedding (if applicable).
Primary chamber means the chamber in an HMIWI that receives waste material, in which
the waste is ignited, and from which ash is removed.
Pyrolysis means the endothermic gasification of hospital waste and/or medical/infectious
waste using external energy.
Secondary chamber means a component of the HMIWI that receives combustion gases
from the primary chamber and in which the combustion process is completed.
Shutdown means the period of time after all waste has been combusted in the primary
chamber. For continuous HMIWI, shutdown shall commence no less than 2 hours after the last
charge to the incinerator. For intermittent HMIWI, shutdown shall commence no less than 4
hours after the last charge to the incinerator. For batch HMIWI, shutdown shall commence no
less than 5 hours after the high-air phase of combustion has been completed.
Small HMIWI means:
(1) Except as provided in (2);
(i) An HMIWI whose maximum design waste burning capacity is less than or equal to
200 pounds per hour; or
K-22
-------
(ii) A continuous or intermittent HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is less than or
equal to 200 pounds per hour; or
(iii) A batch HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is less than or equal to 1,600 pounds
per day.
(2) The following are not small HMIWI:
(i) A continuous or intermittent HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 200
pounds per hour;
(ii) A batch HMIWI whose maximum charge rate is more than 1,600 pounds per day.
Standard conditions means a temperature of 20 °C and a pressure of 101.3 kilopascals.
Startup means the period of time between the activation of the system and the first charge
to the unit. For batch HMIWI, startup means the period of time between activation of the system
and ignition of the waste.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that utilizes an alkaline
scrubbing liquor to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous metals and condensed
organics) and/or to absorb and neutralize acid gases.
[62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, as amended at 74 FR 51408, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.52c Emission limits.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required
to be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected
facility shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere:
(1) From an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2), any gases that contain
stack emissions in excess of the limits presented in Table 1A to this subpart.
(2) From an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), any gases that contain
stack emissions in excess of the limits presented in Table IB to this subpart.
(b) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required
to be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected
facility shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere:
(1) From an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2), any gases that exhibit
greater than 10 percent opacity (6-minute block average).
(2) From an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), any gases that exhibit
greater than 6 percent opacity (6-minute block average).
(c) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required
to be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, no owner or operator of an affected
facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2) and utilizing a large HMIWI, and in §60.50c(a)(3)
and (4), shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere visible emissions of combustion ash
from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) in excess of 5 percent of the
observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3-hour period), as determined by EPA Reference Method
22 of appendix A-l of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(d) The emission limit specified in paragraph (c) of this section does not cover visible
emissions discharged inside buildings or enclosures of ash conveying systems; however, the
emission limit does cover visible emissions discharged to the atmosphere from buildings or
enclosures of ash conveying systems.
(e) The provisions specified in paragraph (c) of this section do not apply during
maintenance and repair of ash conveying systems. Maintenance and/or repair shall not exceed 10
operating days per calendar quarter unless the owner or operator obtains written approval from
K-23
-------
the State agency establishing a date whereby all necessary maintenance and repairs of ash
conveying systems shall be completed.
[62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, as amended at 74 FR 51409, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.53c Operator training and qualification requirements.
(a) No owner or operator of an affected facility shall allow the affected facility to operate
at any time unless a fully trained and qualified HMIWI operator is accessible, either at the
facility or available within 1 hour. The trained and qualified HMIWI operator may operate the
HMIWI directly or be the direct supervisor of one or more HMIWI operators.
(b) Operator training and qualification shall be obtained through a State-approved
program or by completing the requirements included in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this
section.
(c) Training shall be obtained by completing an HMIWI operator training course that
includes, at a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) 24 hours of training on the following subjects:
(i) Environmental concerns, including pathogen destruction and types of emissions;
(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion;
(iii) Operation of the type of incinerator to be used by the operator, including proper
startup, waste charging, and shutdown procedures;
(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring;
(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors affecting performance (if
applicable);
(vi) Methods to monitor pollutants (continuous emission monitoring systems and
monitoring of HMIWI and air pollution control device operating parameters) and equipment
calibration procedures (where applicable);
(vii) Inspection and maintenance of the HMIWI, air pollution control devices, and
continuous emission monitoring systems;
(viii) Actions to correct malfunctions or conditions that may lead to malfunction;
(ix) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures;
(x) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations;
(xi) Work safety procedures;
(xii) Pre-startup inspections; and
(xiii) Recordkeeping requirements.
(2) An examination designed and administered by the instructor.
(3) Reference material distributed to the attendees covering the course topics.
(d) Qualification shall be obtained by:
(1) Completion of a training course that satisfies the criteria under paragraph (c) of this
section; and
(2) Either 6 months experience as an HMIWI operator, 6 months experience as a direct
supervisor of an HMIWI operator, or completion of at least two burn cycles under the
observation of two qualified HMIWI operators.
(e) Qualification is valid from the date on which the examination is passed or the
completion of the required experience, whichever is later.
(f) To maintain qualification, the trained and qualified HMIWI operator shall complete
and pass an annual review or refresher course of at least 4 hours covering, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Update of regulations;
K-24
-------
(2) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown procedures;
(3) Inspection and maintenance;
(4) Responses to malfunctions or conditions that may lead to malfunction; and
(5) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.
(g) A lapsed qualification shall be renewed by one of the following methods:
(1) For a lapse of less than 3 years, the HMIWI operator shall complete and pass a
standard annual refresher course described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) For a lapse of 3 years or more, the HMIWI operator shall complete and pass a training
course with the minimum criteria described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall maintain documentation at the
facility that address the following:
(1) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart;
(2) Description of basic combustion theory applicable to an HMIWI;
(3) Procedures for receiving, handling, and charging waste;
(4) HMIWI startup, shutdown, and malfunction procedures;
(5) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply levels;
(6) Procedures for operating the HMIWI and associated air pollution control systems
within the standards established under this subpart;
(7) Procedures for responding to periodic malfunction or conditions that may lead to
malfunction;
(8) Procedures for monitoring HMIWI emissions;
(9) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures; and
(10) Procedures for handling ash.
(i) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall establish a program for reviewing
the information listed in paragraph (h) of this section annually with each HMIWI operator
(defined in §60.5Ic).
(1) The initial review of the information listed in paragraph (h) of this section shall be
conducted within 6 months after the effective date of this subpart or prior to assumption of
responsibilities affecting HMIWI operation, whichever date is later.
(2) Subsequent reviews of the information listed in paragraph (h) of this section shall be
conducted annually.
(j) The information listed in paragraph (h) of this section shall be kept in a readily
accessible location for all HMIWI operators. This information, along with records of training
shall be available for inspection by the EPA or its delegated enforcement agent upon request.
§ 60.54c Siting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility for which construction is commenced
after September 15, 1997 shall prepare an analysis of the impacts of the affected facility. The
analysis shall consider air pollution control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to
the maximum extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the environment. In
considering such alternatives, the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, non-air
environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the practicability of the alternatives.
(b) Analyses of facility impacts prepared to comply with State, local, or other Federal
regulatory requirements may be used to satisfy the requirements of this section, as long as they
include the consideration of air pollution control alternatives specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
K-25
-------
(c) The owner or operator of the affected facility shall complete and submit the siting
requirements of this section as required under §60.58c(a)(l)(iii).
§ 60.55c Waste management plan.
The owner or operator of an affected facility shall prepare a waste management plan. The
waste management plan shall identify both the feasibility and the approach to separate certain
components of solid waste from the health care waste stream in order to reduce the amount of
toxic emissions from incinerated waste. A waste management plan may include, but is not
limited to, elements such as segregation and recycling of paper, cardboard, plastics, glass,
batteries, food waste, and metals ( e.g., aluminum cans, metals-containing devices); segregation
of non-recyclable wastes ( e.g., polychlorinated biphenyl-containing waste, pharmaceutical
waste, and mercury-containing waste, such as dental waste); and purchasing recycled or
recyclable products. A waste management plan may include different goals or approaches for
different areas or departments of the facility and need not include new waste management goals
for every waste stream. It should identify, where possible, reasonably available additional waste
management measures, taking into account the effectiveness of waste management measures
already in place, the costs of additional measures, the emissions reductions expected to be
achieved, and any other environmental or energy impacts they might have. The American
Hospital Association publication entitled "An Ounce of Prevention: Waste Reduction Strategies
for Health Care Facilities" (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) shall be considered in the
development of the waste management plan. The owner or operator of each commercial HMIWI
company shall conduct training and education programs in waste segregation for each of the
company's waste generator clients and ensure that each client prepares its own waste
management plan that includes, but is not limited to, the provisions listed previously in this
section.
[74 FR 51409, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.56c Compliance and performance testing.
(a) The emissions limits apply at all times.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2), shall
conduct an initial performance test as required under §60.8 to determine compliance with the
emissions limits using the procedures and test methods listed in paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(6)
and (b)(9) through (b)(14) of this section. The owner or operator of an affected facility as
defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), shall conduct an initial performance test as required under
§60.8 to determine compliance with the emissions limits using the procedures and test methods
listed in paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(14). The use of the bypass stack during a performance test
shall invalidate the performance test.
(1) All performance tests shall consist of a minimum of three test runs conducted under
representative operating conditions.
(2) The minimum sample time shall be 1 hour per test run unless otherwise indicated.
(3) EPA Reference Method 1 of appendix A of this part shall be used to select the
sampling location and number of traverse points.
(4) EPA Reference Method 3, 3 A, or 3B of appendix A-2 of this part shall be used for
gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen concentration. EPA Reference
Method 3, 3 A, or 3B of appendix A-2 of this part shall be used simultaneously with each of the
other EPA reference methods. As an alternative to EPA Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC-19-
10-1981-Part 10 may be used (incorporated by reference, see §60.17).
K-26
-------
(5) The pollutant concentrations shall be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using the
following equation:
Cadj=CmeaS(20.9-7)/(20.9-%02)
where:
Cadj=pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent oxygen;
Cmeas=pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis (20.9-7)=20.9 percent oxygen—7 percent
oxygen (defined oxygen correction basis);
20.9=oxygen concentration in air, percent; and
%C>2=oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, percent.
(6) EPA Reference Method 5 of appendix A-3 or Method 26A or Method 29 of appendix
A-8 of this part shall be used to measure the particulate matter emissions. As an alternative, PM
CEMS may be used as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(7) EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to measure
NOx emissions.
(8) EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to measure
SC>2 emissions.
(9) EPA Reference Method 9 of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to measure stack
opacity. As an alternative, demonstration of compliance with the PM standards using bag leak
detection systems as specified in §60.57c(h) or PM CEMS as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section is considered demonstrative of compliance with the opacity requirements.
(10) EPA Reference Method 10 or 10B of appendix A-4 of this part shall be used to
measure the CO emissions. As specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, use of CO CEMS are
required for affected facilities under §60.50c(a)(3) and (4).
(11) EPA Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of this part shall be used to measure
total dioxin/furan emissions. As an alternative, an owner or operator may elect to sample
dioxins/furans by installing, calibrating, maintaining, and operating a continuous automated
sampling system for monitoring dioxin/furan emissions as specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section. For Method 23 of appendix A-7 sampling, the minimum sample time shall be 4 hours
per test run. If the affected facility has selected the toxic equivalency standards for
dioxins/furans, under §60.52c, the following procedures shall be used to determine compliance:
(i) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through octa-congener emitted
using EPA Reference Method 23.
(ii) For each dioxin/furan congener measured in accordance with paragraph (b)(9)(i) of
this section, multiply the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in table 2 of this subpart.
(iii) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(9)(ii) of this section to
obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(12) EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A of appendix A-8 of this part shall be used to
measure HC1 emissions. As an alternative, HC1 CEMS may be used as specified in paragraph
(c)(5) of this section.
(13) EPA Reference Method 29 of appendix A-8 of this part shall be used to measure Pb,
Cd, and Hg emissions. As an alternative, Hg emissions may be measured using ASTM D6784-
02 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17). As an alternative for Pb, Cd, and Hg, multi-metals
CEMS or Hg CEMS, may be used as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this section. As an
K-27
-------
alternative, an owner or operator may elect to sample Hg by installing, calibrating, maintaining,
and operating a continuous automated sampling system for monitoring Hg emissions as specified
in paragraph (c)(7) of this section.
(14) The EPA Reference Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part shall be used to
determine compliance with the fugitive ash emissions limit under §60.52c(c). The minimum
observation time shall be a series of three 1-hour observations.
(c) Following the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, the owner or operator of an affected
facility shall:
(1) Determine compliance with the opacity limit by conducting an annual performance
test (no more than 12 months following the previous performance test) using the applicable
procedures and test methods listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section, determine
compliance with the PM, CO, and HC1 emissions limits by conducting an annual performance
test (no more than 12 months following the previous performance test) using the applicable
procedures and test methods listed in paragraph (b) of this section. If all three performance tests
over a 3-year period indicate compliance with the emissions limit for a pollutant (PM, CO, or
HC1), the owner or operator may forego a performance test for that pollutant for the subsequent 2
years. At a minimum, a performance test for PM, CO, and HC1 shall be conducted every third
year (no more than 36 months following the previous performance test). If a performance test
conducted every third year indicates compliance with the emissions limit for a pollutant (PM,
CO, or HC1), the owner or operator may forego a performance test for that pollutant for an
additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates noncompliance with the respective
emissions limit, a performance test for that pollutant shall be conducted annually until all annual
performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with the emissions limit. The use of
the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate the performance test.
(3) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2) and utilizing a large
HMIWI, and in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), determine compliance with the visible emissions limits for
fugitive emissions from flyash/bottom ash storage and handling by conducting a performance
test using EPA Reference Method 22 of appendix A-7 on an annual basis (no more than 12
months following the previous performance test).
(4) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), determine compliance
with the CO emissions limit using a CO CEMS according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through
(c)(4)(iii) of this section:
(i) Determine compliance with the CO emissions limit using a 24-hour block average,
calculated as specified in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this
part.
(ii) Operate the CO CEMS in accordance with the applicable procedures under
appendices B and F of this part.
(iii) Use of a CO CEMS may be substituted for the CO annual performance test and
minimum secondary chamber temperature to demonstrate compliance with the CO emissions
limit.
(5) Facilities using CEMS to demonstrate compliance with any of the emissions limits
under §60.52c shall:
(i) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2), determine compliance with
the appropriate emissions limit(s) using a 12-hour rolling average, calculated each hour as the
average of the previous 12 operating hours.
K-28
-------
(ii) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), determine compliance
with the appropriate emissions limit(s) using a 24-hour block average, calculated as specified in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(iii) Operate all CEMS in accordance with the applicable procedures under appendices B
and F of this part. For those CEMS for which performance specifications have not yet been
promulgated (HC1, multi-metals), this option for an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3)
and (4) takes effect on the date a final performance specification is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan.
(iv) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), be allowed to substitute
use of an HC1 CEMS for the HC1 annual performance test, minimum HC1 sorbent flow rate, and
minimum scrubber liquor pH to demonstrate compliance with the HC1 emissions limit.
(v) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), be allowed to substitute
use of a PM CEMS for the PM annual performance test and minimum pressure drop across the
wet scrubber, if applicable, to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit.
(6) An affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) using a continuous automated
sampling system to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan emissions limits under
§60.52c shall record the output of the system and analyze the sample according to EPA
Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of this part. This option to use a continuous automated
sampling system takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to
dioxin/furan from monitors is published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
§60.50c(a)(3) and (4) who elects to continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions instead of
sampling and testing using EPA Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system and shall comply with the
requirements specified in §60.58b(p) and (q) of subpart Eb of this part.
(7) An affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) using a continuous automated
sampling system to demonstrate compliance with the Hg emissions limits under §60.52c shall
record the output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any suitable
determinative technique that can meet appropriate performance criteria. This option to use a
continuous automated sampling system takes effect on the date a final performance specification
applicable to Hg from monitors is published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of a
site-specific monitoring plan. The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in
§60.50c(a)(3) and (4) who elects to continuously sample Hg emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Reference Method 29 of appendix A-8 of this part, or an approved alternative
method for measuring Hg emissions, shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and shall comply with the requirements specified in §60.58b(p) and
(q) of subpart Eb of this part.
(d) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(7) of this section, the owner or
operator of an affected facility equipped with a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter, a wet
scrubber, or a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter and wet scrubber shall:
(1) Establish the appropriate maximum and minimum operating parameters, indicated in
table 3 of this subpart for each control system, as site specific operating parameters during the
initial performance test to determine compliance with the emission limits; and
(2) Following the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not
operate above any of the applicable maximum operating parameters or below any of the
applicable minimum operating parameters listed in table 3 of this subpart and measured as 3-
K-29
-------
hour rolling averages (calculated each hour as the average of the previous 3 operating hours) at
all times except during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. Operating parameter limits
do not apply during performance tests. Operation above the established maximum or below the
established minimum operating parameter(s) shall constitute a violation of established operating
parameter(s).
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for affected facilities equipped
with a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter:
(1) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum secondary chamber temperature (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average)
simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the CO emission limit.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum fabric filter inlet temperature,
above the maximum charge rate, and below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate (each
measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the
dioxin/furan emission limit.
(3) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum HC1 sorbent flow rate (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously
shall constitute a violation of the HC1 emission limit.
(4) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum Hg sorbent flow rate (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall
constitute a violation of the Hg emission limit.
(5) Use of the bypass stack shall constitute a violation of the PM, dioxin/furan, HC1, Pb,
Cd and Hg emissions limits.
(6) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO
emissions limit as measured by the CO CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall
constitute a violation of the CO emissions limit.
(7) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), failure to initiate
corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm; or failure to operate and
maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period shall constitute a violation of the PM
emissions limit. If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is
required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is
counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. If the bag leak detection
system is used to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit, this would also constitute a
violation of the opacity emissions limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the PM,
HC1, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg emissions limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5)
of this section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the
dioxin/furan emissions limit as measured by the continuous automated sampling system
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section shall constitute a violation of the dioxin/furan
emissions limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg
emissions limit as measured by the continuous automated sampling system specified in
paragraph (c)(7) of this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for affected facilities equipped
with a wet scrubber:
K-30
-------
(1) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum pressure drop across the wet scrubber or below the minimum horsepower or amperage
to the system (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall constitute a
violation of the PM emission limit.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum secondary chamber temperature (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average)
simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the CO emission limit.
(3) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate, below the
minimum secondary chamber temperature, and below the minimum scrubber liquor flow rate
(each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the
dioxin/furan emission limit.
(4) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum scrubber liquor pH (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall
constitute a violation of the HC1 emission limit.
(5) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum flue gas temperature and above
the maximum charge rate (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall
constitute a violation of the Hg emission limit.
(6) Use of the bypass stack shall constitute a violation of the PM, dioxin/furan, HC1, Pb,
Cd and Hg emissions limits.
(7) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO
emissions limit as measured by the CO CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall
constitute a violation of the CO emissions limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the PM,
HC1, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg emissions limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5)
of this section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the
dioxin/furan emissions limit as measured by the continuous automated sampling system
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section shall constitute a violation of the dioxin/furan
emissions limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg
emissions limit as measured by the continuous automated sampling system specified in
paragraph (c)(7) of this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, for affected facilities equipped
with a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter and a wet scrubber:
(1) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum secondary chamber temperature (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average)
simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the CO emission limit.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum fabric filter inlet temperature,
above the maximum charge rate, and below the minimum dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate (each
measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the
dioxin/furan emission limit.
(3) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum scrubber liquor pH (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall
constitute a violation of the HC1 emission limit.
(4) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge rate and below the
minimum Hg sorbent flow rate (each measured on a 3-hour rolling average) simultaneously shall
constitute a violation of the Hg emission limit.
K-31
-------
(5) Use of the bypass stack shall constitute a violation of the PM, dioxin/furan, HC1, Pb,
Cd and Hg emissions limits.
(6) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the CO
emissions limit as measured by the CO CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section shall
constitute a violation of the CO emissions limit.
(7) For an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), failure to initiate
corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm; or failure to operate and
maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period shall constitute a violation of the PM
emissions limit. If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is
required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time is
counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. If the bag leak detection
system is used to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit, this would also constitute a
violation of the opacity emissions limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the PM,
HC1, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg emissions limit as measured by the CEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5)
of this section shall constitute a violation of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the
dioxin/furan emissions limit as measured by the continuous automated sampling system
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section shall constitute a violation of the dioxin/furan
emissions limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above the Hg
emissions limit as measured by the continuous automated sampling system specified in
paragraph (c)(7) of this section shall constitute a violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
equipped with selective noncatalytic reduction technology shall:
(1) Establish the maximum charge rate, the minimum secondary chamber temperature,
and the minimum reagent flow rate as site specific operating parameters during the initial
performance test to determine compliance with the emissions limits;
(2) Following the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required to
be completed under §60.8, whichever date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not
operate above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber temperature
or the minimum reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour rolling averages (calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 3 operating hours) at all times. Operating parameter limits do not
apply during performance tests.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, operation of the affected facility
above the maximum charge rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature, and
below the minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously shall constitute a violation of the NOX
emissions limit.
(i) The owner or operator of an affected facility may conduct a repeat performance test
within 30 days of violation of applicable operating parameter(s) to demonstrate that the affected
facility is not in violation of the applicable emissions limit(s). Repeat performance tests
conducted pursuant to this paragraph shall be conducted using the identical operating parameters
that indicated a violation under paragraph (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this section.
(j) The owner or operator of an affected facility using an air pollution control device
other than a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter, a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber followed by a
K-32
-------
fabric filter and a wet scrubber, or selective noncatalytic reduction technology to comply with
the emissions limits under §60.52c shall petition the Administrator for other site-specific
operating parameters to be established during the initial performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter. The owner or operator shall not conduct the initial performance test until
after the petition has been approved by the Administrator.
(k) The owner or operator of an affected facility may conduct a repeat performance test at
any time to establish new values for the operating parameters. The Administrator may request a
repeat performance test at any time.
[62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 61753, Oct. 17, 2000; 74 FR 51409, Oct. 6,
2009]
§ 60.57c Monitoring requirements.
(a) Except as provided in §60.56c(c)(4) through (c)(7), the owner or operator of an
affected facility shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate
devices (or establish methods) for monitoring the applicable maximum and minimum operating
parameters listed in Table 3 to this subpart (unless CEMS are used as a substitute for certain
parameters as specified) such that these devices (or methods) measure and record values for
these operating parameters at the frequencies indicated in Table 3 of this subpart at all times.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that
uses selective noncatalytic reduction technology shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate devices (or establish methods) for monitoring the
operating parameters listed in §60.56c(h) such that the devices (or methods) measure and record
values for the operating parameters at all times. Operating parameter values shall be measured
and recorded at the following minimum frequencies:
(1) Maximum charge rate shall be measured continuously and recorded once each hour;
(2) Minimum secondary chamber temperature shall be measured continuously and
recorded once each minute; and
(3) Minimum reagent flow rate shall be measured hourly and recorded once each hour.
(c) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time, and duration.
(d) The owner or operator of an affected facility using an air pollution control device
other than a dry scrubber followed by a fabric filter, a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber followed by a
fabric filter and a wet scrubber, or selective noncatalytic reduction technology to comply with
the emissions limits under §60.52c shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications),
maintain, and operate the equipment necessary to monitor the site-specific operating parameters
developed pursuant to §60.56c(j).
(e) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall obtain monitoring data at all times
during HMIWI operation except during periods of monitoring equipment malfunction,
calibration, or repair. At a minimum, valid monitoring data shall be obtained for 75 percent of
the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that the
affected facility is combusting hospital waste and/or medical/infectious waste.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) shall
ensure that each FDVIIWI subject to the emissions limits in §60.52c undergoes an initial air
pollution control device inspection that is at least as protective as the following:
(1) At a minimum, an inspection shall include the following:
(i) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation, if applicable;
K-33
-------
(ii) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed systems, and any other
monitoring equipment; and
(iii) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control device inspection, all
necessary repairs shall be completed unless the owner or operator obtains written approval from
the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated facility
shall be completed.
(g) The owner or operator of an affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) shall
ensure that each HMIWI subject to the emissions limits under §60.52c undergoes an air pollution
control device inspection annually (no more than 12 months following the previous annual air
pollution control device inspection), as outlined in paragraphs (f)(l) and (f)(2) of this section.
(h) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that use an air pollution
control device that includes a fabric filter and are not demonstrating compliance using PM
CEMS, determine compliance with the PM emissions limit using a bag leak detection system and
meet the requirements in paragraphs (h)(l) through (h)(12) of this section for each bag leak
detection system.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system may be installed, calibrated, operated,
and maintained according to the "Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance," (EPA-454/R-98-
015, September 1997). This document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs
Division; Measurement Policy Group (D-243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This
document is also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emissions
Measurement Center Continuous Emissions Monitoring. Other types of bag leak detection
systems shall be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system shall be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system sensor shall provide an output of relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with a device to continuously record
the output signal from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an audible alarm system that
will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is
detected. The alarm shall be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detector shall be installed in
each baghouse compartment or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector shall be
installed downstream of the fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be
shared among detectors.
(9) The baseline output shall be established by adjusting the range and the averaging
period of the device and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time according to
section 5.0 of the "Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance."
(10) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or range, averaging
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted. In no case may the sensitivity
be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period
K-34
-------
unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that demonstrates that the
fabric filter is in good operating condition. Each adjustment shall be recorded.
(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check.
(12) Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm; operate
and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. If inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action
is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective action, the alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate
corrective action.
[62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, as amended at 74 FR 51412, Oct. 6, 2009]
§ 60.58c Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit notifications, as provided by
§60.7. In addition, the owner or operator shall submit the following information:
(1) Prior to commencement of construction;
(i) A statement of intent to construct;
(ii) The anticipated date of commencement of construction; and
(iii) All documentation produced as a result of the siting requirements of §60.54c.
(2) Prior to initial startup;
(i) The type(s) of waste to be combusted;
(ii) The maximum design waste burning capacity;
(iii) The anticipated maximum charge rate; and
(iv) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating parameters under §60.56c(j).
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall maintain the following information
(as applicable) for a period of at least 5 years:
(1) Calendar date of each record;
(2) Records of the following data:
(i) Concentrations of any pollutant listed in §60.52c or measurements of opacity as
determined by the continuous emission monitoring system (if applicable);
(ii) Results of fugitive emissions (by EPA Reference Method 22) tests, if applicable;
(iii) HMIWI charge dates, times, and weights and hourly charge rates;
(iv) Fabric filter inlet temperatures during each minute of operation, as applicable;
(v) Amount and type of dioxin/furan sorbent used during each hour of operation, as
applicable;
(vi) Amount and type of Hg sorbent used during each hour of operation, as applicable;
(vii) Amount and type of HC1 sorbent used during each hour of operation, as applicable;
(viii) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), amount and type of NOx
reagent used during each hour of operation, as applicable;
(ix) Secondary chamber temperatures recorded during each minute of operation;
(x) Liquor flow rate to the wet scrubber inlet during each minute of operation, as
applicable;
(xi) Horsepower or amperage to the wet scrubber during each minute of operation, as
applicable;
(xii) Pressure drop across the wet scrubber system during each minute of operation, as
applicable,
K-35
-------
(xiii) Temperature at the outlet from the wet scrubber during each minute of operation, as
applicable;
(xiv) pH at the inlet to the wet scrubber during each minute of operation, as applicable,
(xv) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations,
and
(xvi) For affected facilities complying with §60.56c(j) and §60.57c(d), the owner or
operator shall maintain all operating parameter data collected;
(xvii) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of the annual air
pollution control device inspections, any required maintenance, and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(xviii) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of each bag leak
detection system alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken, as
applicable.
(xix) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), concentrations of CO as
determined by the continuous emissions monitoring system.
(3) Identification of calendar days for which data on emission rates or operating
parameters specified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section have not been obtained, with an
identification of the emission rates or operating parameters not measured, reasons for not
obtaining the data, and a description of corrective actions taken.
(4) Identification of calendar days, times and durations of malfunctions, a description of
the malfunction and the corrective action taken.
(5) Identification of calendar days for which data on emission rates or operating
parameters specified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section exceeded the applicable limits, with a
description of the exceedances, reasons for such exceedances, and a description of corrective
actions taken.
(6) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent performance tests conducted to
determine compliance with the emissions limits and/or to establish or re-establish operating
parameters, as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating
parameters were established or re-established, if applicable.
(7) All documentation produced as a result of the siting requirements of §60.54c;
(8) Records showing the names of HMIWI operators who have completed review of the
information in §60.53c(h) as required by §60.53c(i), including the date of the initial review and
all subsequent annual reviews;
(9) Records showing the names of the HMIWI operators who have completed the
operator training requirements, including documentation of training and the dates of the training;
(10) Records showing the names of the HMIWI operators who have met the criteria for
qualification under §60.53c and the dates of their qualification; and
(11) Records of calibration of any monitoring devices as required under §60.57c(a)
through (d).
(c) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(l) through (c)(4) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial
performance test. All reports shall be signed by the facilities manager.
(1) The initial performance test data as recorded under §60.56c(b)(l) through (b)(14), as
applicable.
K-36
-------
(2) The values for the site-specific operating parameters established pursuant to
§60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how the
operating parameters were established during the initial performance test.
(3) The waste management plan as specified in §60.55c.
(4) For each affected facility as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that uses a bag leak
detection system, analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA
guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in §60.57c(h).
(d) An annual report shall be submitted 1 year following the submissions of the
information in paragraph (c) of this section and subsequent reports shall be submitted no more
than 12 months following the previous report (once the unit is subject to permitting requirements
under title V of the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of an affected facility must submit these
reports semi annually). The annual report shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(d)(l) through (11) of this section. All reports shall be signed by the facilities manager.
(1) The values for the site-specific operating parameters established pursuant to
§60.56(d), (h), or (j), as applicable.
(2) The highest maximum operating parameter and the lowest minimum operating
parameter, as applicable, for each operating parameter recorded for the calendar year being
reported, pursuant to §60.56(d), (h), or (j), as applicable.
(3) The highest maximum operating parameter and the lowest minimum operating
parameter, as applicable, for each operating parameter recorded pursuant to §60.56(d), (h), or (j)
for the calendar year preceding the year being reported, in order to provide the Administrator
with a summary of the performance of the affected facility over a 2-year period.
(4) Any information recorded under paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) of this section for
the calendar year being reported.
(5) Any information recorded under paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) of this section for
the calendar year preceding the year being reported, in order to provide the Administrator with a
summary of the performance of the affected facility over a 2-year period.
(6) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of that
test.
(7) If no exceedances or malfunctions were reported under paragraphs (b)(3) through
(b)(5) of this section for the calendar year being reported, a statement that no exceedances
occurred during the reporting period.
(8) Any use of the bypass stack, the duration, reason for malfunction, and corrective
action taken.
(9) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of the annual air
pollution control device inspection, any required maintenance, and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(10) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of each bag leak
detection system alarm, the time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken, as
applicable.
(11) For affected facilities as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), concentrations of CO as
determined by the continuous emissions monitoring system.
(e) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit semiannual reports
containing any information recorded under paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5) of this section no
later than 60 days following the reporting period. The first semiannual reporting period ends 6
months following the submission of information in paragraph (c) of this section. Subsequent
K-37
-------
reports shall be submitted no later than 6 calendar months following the previous report. All
reports shall be signed by the facilities manager.
(f) All records specified under paragraph (b) of this section shall be maintained onsite in
either paper copy or computer-readable format, unless an alternative format is approved by the
Administrator.
(g) For affected facilities, as defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), that choose to submit an
electronic copy of stack test reports to EPA's WebFIRE data base, as of December 31, 2011, the
owner or operator of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA's data base using the
Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
[62 FR 48382, Sept. 15, 1997, as amended at 74 FR 51413, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table 1A to Subpart EC of Part 60—Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at
Affected Facilities as Defined in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2)
Pollutant
Paniculate
matter
Emissions limits
Units (7 percent oxygen, dry HMIWI size
basis) Small Medium Large
Milligrams per dry standard 69 34 34
cubic meter (grains per dry (0.03) (0.015) (0.015)
standard cubic foot)
Carbon
monoxide
Parts per million by volume 40 40
40
Dioxins/furans Nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter total
dioxins/furans (grains per
billion dry standard cubic
feet) or nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter TEQ
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet)
125 25 (11) or 25 (11)
(55) or 0.6(0.26) or 0.6
2.3 (0.26)
(1.0)
Hydrogen
chloride
Parts per million by volume
15 or 15 or
99% 99%
Sulfur dioxide Parts per million by volume 55 55
15 or
99%5.1
55
Nitrogen
oxides
Parts per million by volume 250 250
250
Averaging
time1
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(4-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method
5 of appendix A-3 of
part 60, or EPA
Reference Method M
26A or 29 of appendix
A-8ofpart60.
EPA Reference Method
10 or 1 OB of appendix
A-4ofpart60.
EPA Reference Method
23 of appendix A-7 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
26 or 26A of appendix
A-8ofpart60.
EPA Reference Method
6 or 6C of appendix A-4
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
7 or 7E of appendix A-4
of part 60.
K-38
-------
Units (7 percent oxygen, dry
Pollutant basis)
Lead Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
thousand dry standard cubic
feet
Cadmium Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
thousand dry standard cubic
feet) or percent reduction
Mercury Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
thousand dry standard cubic
feet) or percent reduction
Emissions limits
HMIWI size
Small Medium Large
1.2 0.07 0.07
(0.52) (0.03) or (0.03) or
or 70% 98% 98%
Averaging
0.16 0.04 0.04
(0.07) (0.02) or (0.02) or
or 65% 90% 90%
0.55 0.55
(0.24) (0.24) or
or 85% 85%
0.55
(0.24) or
85%
time
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
3-run average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[74 FR 51414, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table IB to Subpart EC of Part 60—Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at
Affected Facilities as Defined in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
Units (7 percent oxygen,
Pollutant dry basis) Small
Paniculate Milligrams per dry 66
matter standard cubic meter (0.029)
(grains per dry standard
cubic foot)
Carbon Parts per million by 20
monoxide volume
Emissions limits
Method for
HMIWI size Averaging demonstrating
Medium Large time1 compliance2
22 18(0.0080) 3-run average EPA Reference
Dioxins/furans Nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter total
dioxins/furans (grains per
billion dry standard cubic
feet) or nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter TEQ
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet)
16 (7.0)
or 0.013
(0.0057)
Hydrogen
chloride
Parts per million by
volume
15
(0.0095)
0.47
(0.21) or
0.014
(0.0061)
7.7
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per run)
Method 5 of appendix
A-3 of part 60, or
EPA Reference
Method M 26A or 29
of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
11
3-run average EPA Reference
(1-hour Method 10 or 10B of
minimum appendix A-4 of part
sample time 60.
per run)
9.3 (4.1) or 3-run average EPA Reference
0.035 (4-hour Method 23 of
(0.015) minimum appendix A-7 of part
sample time 60.
per run)
5.1 3-run average EPA Reference
(1-hour Method 26 or 26A of
minimum appendix A-8 of part
K-39
-------
Pollutant
Units (7 percent oxygen,
dry basis)
Emissions limits
Small
1.4
67
0.31
(0.14)
0.017
(0.0074)
0.014
(0.0061)
HMIWI size Averaging
Medium Large time1
sample time
per ran)
1.4 1.6 3-ran average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per ran)
67 130 3 -ran average
(1-hour
minimum
sample time
per ran)
0.018 0.00069 3-ran average
(0.0079) (0.00030) (1-hour
minimum
sample time
per ran)
0.0098 0.00013 3-ran average
(0.0043) (0.000057) (1-hour
minimum
sample time
per ran)
0.0035 0.0013 3-ran average
(0.0015) (0.00057) (1-hour
minimum
sample time
per ran)
Method for
demonstrating
compliance2
60.
EPA Reference
Method 6 or 6C of
appendix A-4 of part
60.
EPA Reference
Method 7 or 7E of
appendix A-4 of part
60.
EPA Reference
Method 29 of
appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference
Method 29 of
appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference
Method 29 of
appendix A-8 of part
60.
Sulfur dioxide Parts per million by
volume
Nitrogen Parts per million by
oxides volume
Lead Milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter
(grains per thousand dry
standard cubic feet)
Cadmium Milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter
(grains per thousand dry
standard cubic feet) or
percent reduction
Mercury Milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter
(grains per thousand dry
standard cubic feet) or
percent reduction
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[74 FR 51414, Oct. 6, 2009]
Table 2 of Subpart EC to Part 60—Toxic Equivalency Factors
Dioxin/furan congener
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinateddibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
Toxic equivalency factor
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.1
0.5
0.05
0.1
K-40
-------
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinateddibenzofuran
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran
Octachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
Table 3 to Subpart EC of Part 60—Operating Parameters To Be Monitored and Minimum
Measurement and Recording Frequencies
Operating parameters to be
monitored
Minimum frequency
Data Data
measurement recording
Continuous
Continuous
Maximum operating parameters:
Maximum charge rate
Maximum fabric filter inlet
temperature
Maximum flue gas temperature Continuous
Minimum operating parameters:
Minimum secondary chamber
temperature
Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent TT ,
a t Hourly
flow rate
Minimum HCI sorbent flow rate Hourly
Minimum mercury (Hg) sorbent TT ,
_ J 6 Hourly
flow rate
Minimum pressure drop across
the wet scrubber or minimum
horsepower or amperage to wet
scrubber
Minimum scrubber liquor flow
rate
Minimum scrubber liquor pH
Continuous
Continuous
1 xhour
1 x minute
1 x minute
Continuous 1 xminute
1 xhour
1 xhour
1 xhour
Continuous 1 xminute
1 xminute
1 xminute
Dry scrubber
followed by
fabric filter
Control system
Dry scrubber
Wet followed by fabric
scrubber filter and wet
scrubber
K-41
-------
Appendix L
Federal Register Notice for Amended Emission Guidelines and NSPS
(40 CFR Part 60 Subparts Ce and EC)
-------
APPENDIX L- FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR AMENDED EMISSION GUIDELINES
AND NSPS (40 CFR PART 60 SUBPARTS Ce AND EC)
Tuesday,
October 6, 2009
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators;
Final Rule
L-2
-------
51368
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534; FRL-8959-9]
RIN 2060-A004
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Hospital/Medical/lnfectious Waste
Incinerators
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On September 15, 1997, EPA
adopted new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emissions
guidelines (EG) for hospital/medical/
infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI).
The NSPS and EG were established
under Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). In a response to
a suit filed by the Sierra Club and the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(Sierra Club), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
Court) remanded the HMIWI regulations
on March 2, 1999, for further
explanation of EPA's reasoning in
determining the minimum regulatory
"floors" for new and existing HMIWI.
The HMIWI regulations were not
vacated and were fully implemented by
September 2002. On February 6, 2007,
we published our proposed response to
the Court's remand. Following recent
court decisions and receipt of public
comments regarding the proposal, we
re-assessed our response to the remand,
and on December 1, 2008, we published
another proposed response and solicited
public comments. This action
promulgates our response to the Court's
remand and also satisfies the CAA
Section 129(a)(5) requirement to
conduct a review? of the standards every
5 years.
DATES: The amendments to 40 CFR
60.32e, 60.33e, 60.36e, 60.37e, 60.38e,
60.39e, Table 1A and IB to subpart Ce,
and Tables 2A and 2B to subpart Ce are
effective as of December 7, 2009. The
amendments to 40 CFR 60.17, 60.50c,
60.51C, 60.52c, 60.55C, 60.56c, 60.57c,
60.58c, and Tables 1A and IB to subpart
EC are effective as of April 6, 2010. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of April 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534 and
Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ketan D. Patel, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-
9736; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: patel.ketan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the Final Action Apply to Me?
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This
Document?
C. ludicial Review
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes
Since Proposal
A. Remand Response
B. Clean Air Act Section 129(a)(5) 5-Year
Review Response
C. Other Amendments
D. Implementation Schedule for Existing
Hospital/Medical/lnfectious Waste
Incinerators
E. Changes to the Applicability Date of the
1997 New Source Performance Standards
F. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Exemption
IV. Summary of Major Comments and
Responses
A. Applicability
B. Subcategorization
C. MACT Floor Approach
D. Emissions Limits
E. Monitoring
F. Emissions Testing
G. Alternatives to On-Site Incineration
H. Medical Waste Segregation
I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
}. Economic Impacts
V. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing
Units
A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste
Impacts?
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
D. What Are the Secondary Air Impacts?
E. What Are the Cost and Economic
Impacts?
VI. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units
A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste
Impacts?
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
D. What Are the Secondary Air Impacts?
E. What Are the Cost and Economic
Impacts?
VII. Relationship of the Final Action to
Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
}. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental lustice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does the Final Action Apply to Me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially affected by the final
action are those which operate hospital/
medical/infectious waste incinerators
(HMIWI). The new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emissions
guidelines (EG) for HMIWI affect the
following categories of sources:
Category
NAICS Code
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Industry
Federal Government
622110, 622310, 325411, 325412,
562213, 611310.
622110, 541710, 928110
Private hospitals, other health care facilities, commercial research
laboratories, commercial waste disposal companies, private univer-
sities.
Federal hospitals, other health care facilities, public health service,
armed services.
L-3
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51369
Category
State/local/Tribal Government
NAICS Code
622110 562213 611310
Examples of potentially regulated entities
State/local hospitals other health care facilities State/local waste dis-
posal services, State universities.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action. To
determine whether your facility would
be affected by the final action, you
should examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 60.50c of subpart EC
and 40 CFR 60.32e of subpart Ce. If you
have any questions regarding the
applicability of the final action to a
particular entity, contact the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This
Document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
Worldwide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the final
action will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in
various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act), judicial review of
this final rule is available only by filing
a petition for review? in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (the Court) by December 7, 2009.
Under Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to this final rule that
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.
CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides
a mechanism for EPA to convene a
proceeding for reconsideration, "[i]f the
person raising an objection can
demonstrate to EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection
within [the period for public comment]
or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public
comment (but within the time specified
for judicial review?) and if such objection
is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule." Any person seeking to make
such a demonstration to us should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, with a copy to the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air
and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004. Moreover, under Section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
II. Background
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled
"Solid Waste Combustion," requires
EPA to develop and adopt new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
emissions guidelines (EG) for solid
waste incineration units pursuant to
CAA Sections 111 and 129. Sections
lll(b) and 129(a) of the CAA (NSPS
program) address emissions from new?
HMIWI, and CAA Sections lll(d) and
129(b) (EG program) address emissions
from existing HMIWI. The NSPS are
directly enforceable Federal regulations,
and under CAA Section 129(f)(l)
become effective 6 months after
promulgation. Under CAA Section
129(f)(2), the EG become effective and
enforceable as expeditiously as
practicable after EPA approves a State
plan implementing the EG but no later
than 3 years after such approval or 5
years after the date the EG are
promulgated, whichever is earlier.
A HMIWI is defined as any device
used to burn hospital waste or medical/
infectious waste. Hospital waste means
discards generated at a hospital, and
medical/infectious waste means any
waste generated in the diagnosis,
treatment, or immunization of human
beings or animals, in research pertaining
thereto, or in the production or testing
of biologicals (e.g., vaccines, cultures,
blood or blood products, human
pathological waste, sharps). As
explained in EPA's regulations,
hospital/medical/infectious waste does
not include household waste, hazardous
waste, or human and animal remains
not generated as medical waste. A
HMIWI typically is a small, dual-
chamber incinerator that burns on
average about 800 pounds per hour
(Ib/hr) of waste. Smaller units burn as
little as 15 Ib/hr while larger units burn
as much as 3,700 Ib/hr, on average.
Incineration of hospital/medical/
infectious waste causes the release of a
wide array of air pollutants, some of
which exist in the waste feed material
and are released unchanged during
combustion, and some of which are
generated as a result of the combustion
process itself. These pollutants include
particulate matter (PM); heavy metals,
including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and
mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/
dibenzofurans (CDD/CDF); carbon
monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOx);
and acid gases, including hydrogen
chloride (HC1) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
In addition to the use of pollution
prevention measures (i.e., waste
segregation) and good combustion
control practices, HMIWI are typically
controlled by wet scrubbers or dry
sorbent injection fabric filters (dry
scrubbers).
Waste segregation is the separation of
certain components of the waste stream
in order to reduce the amount of air
pollution emissions associated with that
waste when incinerated. The separated
waste may include paper, cardboard,
plastics, glass, batteries, aluminum cans,
food waste, or metals. Separation of
these types of wastes reduces the
amount of chlorine- and metal-
containing wastes being incinerated,
which results in lower potential
emissions of HC1, CDD/CDF, Hg, Cd,
and Pb.
Combustion control includes the
proper design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of HMIWI to destroy
or prevent the formation of air
pollutants prior to their release to the
atmosphere. Test data indicate that as
secondary chamber residence time and
temperature increase, emissions
decrease. Combustion control is most
effective in reducing CDD/CDF, PM, and
CO emissions. The 2-second combustion
level, which includes a minimum
secondary chamber temperature of
1800 °F and residence time of 2 seconds,
is considered to be the best level of
combustion control (i.e., good
combustion) that is applied to HMIWI.
Wet scrubbers and dry scrubbers
provide control of PM, CDD/CDF, HC1,
and metals, but do not influence CO or
NOx and have little impact on SO2 at
the low? concentrations emitted by
HMIWI. (See Legacy Docket ID No.
A-91-61, item II-A-111; 60 FR 10669,
10671-10677; and 61 FR 31742-31743.)
The CAA sets forth a two-stage
approach to regulating emissions from
L-4
-------
51370
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
incinerators. EPA has substantial
discretion to distinguish among classes,
types and sizes of incinerator units
within a category while setting
standards. In the first stage of setting
standards, CAA Section 129(a)(2)
requires EPA to establish technology-
based emissions standards that reflect
the maximum levels of control EPA
determines are achievable for new and
existing units, after considering costs,
non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements associated with the
implementation of the standards.
Section 129(a)(5) then directs EPA to
review those standards and revise them
as necessary every 5 years. In the second
stage, Section 129(h)(3) requires EPA to
determine whether further revisions of
the standards are necessary in order to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health or to prevent
(taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety and other relevant factors) an
adverse environmental effect. See, e.g.,
NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077,
1079-80 (DC Cir. 2008) (addressing the
similarly required two-stage approach
under CAA Sections 112(d) and (f), and
upholding EPA's implementation of
same).
In setting forth the methodology EPA
must use to establish the first-stage
technology-based NSPS and EG, CAA
Section 129(a)(2) provides that
standards "applicable to solid waste
incineration units promulgated under
Section 111 and this Section shall
reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of [certain listed
air pollutants] that the Administrator,
taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emissions reduction,
and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is achievable
for new and existing units in each
category." This level of control is
referred to as a "maximum achievable
control technology," or MACT,
standard.
In promulgating a MACT standard,
EPA must first calculate the minimum
stringency levels for new and existing
solid waste incineration units in a
category, generally based on levels of
emissions control achieved or required
to be achieved by the subject units. The
minimum level of stringency is called
the MACT "floor," and CAA Section
129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of
minimum stringency that EPA's
standards must achieve, based on
whether they regulate new and
reconstructed sources, or existing
sources. For new and reconstructed
sources, CAA Section 129(a)(2) provides
that the "degree of reduction in
emissions that is deemed achievable
[* * *] shall not be less stringent than
the emissions control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar
unit, as determined by the
Administrator." Emissions standards for
existing units may be less stringent than
standards for new units, but "shall not
be less stringent than the average
emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of units in
the category (excluding units which first
met lowest achievable emissions rates
18 months before the date such
standards are proposed or 30 months
before the date such standards are
promulgated, whichever is later)."
The MACT floors form the least
stringent regulatory option EPA may
consider in the determination of MACT
standards for a source category. EPA
must also determine whether to control
emissions "beyond-the-floor," after
considering the costs, non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements of such more
stringent control. EPA made such
MACT floor and beyond-the-floor
determinations and on September 15,
1997, adopted NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart EC) and EG (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Ce) using this approach for
entities which operate HMIWI. The
NSPS and EG are designed to reduce air
pollution emitted from new and existing
HMIWI, including HC1, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg,
PM, CDD/CDF (total, or 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin toxic
equivalent (TEQJ), NOX, SO2, and
opacity. The 1997 NSPS apply to
HMIWI for which construction began
after June 20, 1996, or for which
modification began after March 16,
1998. The 1997 NSPS became effective
on March 16, 1998, and apply as of that
date or at start-up of a HMIWI,
whichever is later. The 1997 EG apply
to HMIWI for which construction began
on or before June 20, 1996, and required
compliance by September 2002.
On November 14, 1997, the Sierra
Club and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (Sierra Club) filed suit in the
Court. The Sierra Club claimed that EPA
violated CAA Section 129 by setting
emissions standards for HMIWI that are
less stringent than required by Section
129(a)(2); that EPA violated Section 129
by not including pollution prevention or
waste minimization requirements; and
that EPA had not adequately considered
the non-air quality health and
environmental impacts of the standards.
On March 2, 1999, the Court issued its
opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
658 (DC Cir. 1999). While the Court
rejected the Sierra Club's statutory
arguments under CAA Section 129, the
Court remanded the rule to EPA for
further explanation regarding how EPA
derived the MACT floors for new and
existing HMIWI. Furthermore, the Court
did not vacate the regulations, and the
regulations have remained in effect
during the remand.
On February 6, 2007, EPA proposed a
response to the HMIWI remand. The
proposed response was based on a
reassessment of information and data
that were available at the time of
promulgation in 1997, in light of the
EPA's understanding of the Court's
rulings in the Sierra Club, National
Lime Association (NLA) II, Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition (CKRC) and other
cases discussed in our 2007 proposal
notice. The proposed response would
have revised some of the emissions
limits in both the NSPS and EG.
Relative to the NSPS, the emissions
limits for CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, and CDD/
CDF would have been revised. Relative
to the EG, the emissions limits for HC1,
Pb, Cd, and CDD/CDF would have been
revised. EPA believed that the revised
emissions limits proposed in February
2007 as a result of its response to the
remand could be achieved with the
same emissions control technology
currently used by HMIWI to meet the
1997 rule.
On December 1, 2008, EPA re-
proposed its response to the Court's
remand. EPA's decision to re-propose
was based on a number of factors,
including further rulings by the U.S.
Court of Appeals that were issued after
our 2007 proposal was published. In
addition, public comments regarding
the 2007 proposal raised issues that,
upon further consideration, we believed
would best be addressed through a re-
proposal. One issue regarded the use of
emissions limits included in State
regulations and State-issued permits as
surrogates for estimated actual
emissions limitations achieved. Another
issue regarded EPA's previous reliance
on control technology performance as
the sole indicator of HMIWI
performance in making MACT floor
determinations, which did not
necessarily account for other factors that
affect emissions (e.g., waste mix,
combustion conditions).
As mentioned above, every 5 years
after adopting a MACT standard under
Section 129, CAA Section 129(a)(5)
requires EPA to review and, if
appropriate, revise the incinerator
standards. In addition to responding to
the Court's remand, today's final action
constitutes the first 5-year review? of the
HMIWI standards.
L-5
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51371
III. Summary of the Final Rule and
Changes Since Proposal
A. Remand Response
Today's final response to the remand
revises the December 2008 proposed
emissions limits for both the NSPS and
EG. The emissions limits are being
revised in response to a public comment
on the December 2008 re-proposal,
which requested that EPA adjust the
statistical approach used to account for
variability in the data and consider the
distribution of the emissions data in
determining the MACT floor emissions
limits. The revised statistical approach
results in generally higher limits
compared to the December 2008 re-
proposal. (See section IV.C.6 of this
preamble for further information about
this revised approach.) We expect most
sources should be able to meet the
revised limits using control technology
already available to the industry (e.g.,
wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, or some
combination of these controls). (See
section IV.C.2 of this preamble for
further information.) Similar to the 2008
re-proposal, the emissions limits in
today's final action do not include
percent reduction alternative standards,
as discussed further in section IV.D.4 of
this preamble.
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes
the NSPS emissions limits being
promulgated in this action in response
to the Court remand for new HMIWI.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS LIMITS PROMULGATED IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND FOR NEW HMIWI
Pollutant (units)
Unit size1
Final remand
response
limit2
HCI(ppmv) L
M
S
CO (ppmv) L
M
S
Pb (mg/dscm) L
M
S
Cd (mg/dscm) L
M
S
Hg (mg/dscm) L
M
S
PM (gr/dscf) L
M
S
CDD/CDF, total (ng/dscm) L
M
S
CDD/CDF, TEQ (ng/dscm) L
M
S
NOX (ppmv) L
M, S
SO2 (ppmv) L
M, S
Opacity (%) L, M, S
1 L = Large (>500 Ib/hr of waste); M = Medium (>200 to <500 Ib/hr of waste); S = Small (<200 Ib/hr of waste).
2 All emissions limits are reported as corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
5.1
7.7
15
11
1.8
20
0.00069
0.018
0.31
0.00013
0.0098
0.017
0.0013
0.0035
0.014
0.0080
0.0095
0.029
9.3
0.47
16
0.035
0.014
0.013
130
67
1.6
1.4
6.0
Table 2 of this preamble summarizes
the emissions limits being promulgated
in this action in response to the Court
remand for existing HMIWI.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EG EMISSIONS LIMITS PROMULGATED IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND FOR EXISTING HMIWI
Pollutant (units)
Unit size1
Final remand
response
limit2
HCI (ppmv)
CO (ppmv)
Pb (mg/dscm)
Cd (mg/dscm)
L ...
M ..
S ...
SR
L ...
M
S, SR
L
M ..
S ...
SR
L ...
6.6
7.7
44
810
11
5.5
20
0.036
0.018
0.31
0.50
0.0092
L-6
-------
51372
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EG EMISSIONS LIMITS PROMULGATED IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND FOR EXISTING HMIWI—
Continued
Pollutant (units)
Hg (mg/dscm)
PM (gr/dscf)
CDD/CDF total (ng/dscm)
CDD/CDF TEQ (ng/dscm)
NO-y (DDmv)
SO? (ppmv)
Ooacitv (%)
Unit size1
M
S
SR
L
M
S
SR
L
M
S
SR
L
M
S
SR
L
M
S
SR
L
M S
SR
L
M S
SR
L. M. S. SR
Final remand
response
limit2
0 013
0.017
0.11
0 018
0 025
0.014
0.0051
0 011
0 020
0.029
0.038
9 3
085
16
240
0 054
0 020
0.013
5.1
140
190
130
9.0
4 2
55
6.0
1 L = Large (>500 Ib/hr of waste); M = Medium (>200 to <500 Ib/hr of waste); S = Small (<200 Ib/hr of waste); SR = Small Rural (Small HMIWI
>50 miles from boundary of nearest SMSA, burning <2,000 Ib/wk of waste).
2 All emissions limits are reported as corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
B. Clean Air Act Section 129(a)(5)
5-Year Review Response
We are promulgating our response to
the remand in Sierra Club such that the
revised MACT standards, reflecting
floor levels determined by actual
emissions data, would be more stringent
than what we proposed in 2007 for both
the remand response and the 5-year
review, with the exceptions noted and
discussed in sections IV.A. and IV.B of
this preamble. Consequently, we believe
that our obligation to conduct a 5-year
review based on implementation of the
1997 emissions standards will also be
fulfilled through this action's final
remand response, even as amended
compared to the 2008 re-proposed
standards. This is supported by the fact
that the revised MACT floor
determinations and emissions limits
associated with the remand response are
based on performance data for the 57
currently operating HMIWI that are
subject to the 1997 standards, and by
the final rule's accounting for non-
technology factors that affect HMIWI
emissions performance, which the 2007
proposed remand response and 5-year
review? did not fully consider. Thus, the
final remand response more than
addresses the technology review's goals
of assessing the performance efficiency
of the installed equipment and ensuring
that the emissions limits reflect the
performance of the technologies
required by the MACT standards. In
addition, the final remand response
addresses whether new technologies
and processes and improvements in
practices have been demonstrated at
sources subject to the emissions limits.
Accordingly, the remand response in
this final action fulfills EPA's
obligations regarding the first 5-year
review of the HMIWI standards and,
therefore, replaces the 2007 proposal's
5-year review? proposed revisions.
C. Other Amendments
This final action puts forward the
same changes based on information
received during implementation of the
HMIWI NSPS and EG that were
proposed in 2007 and 2008. The
changes proposed in 2007 included
provisions allowing existing sources to
use previous emissions test results to
demonstrate compliance with the
revised emissions limits; annual
inspections of air pollution control
devices (APCD); a one-time visible
emissions test of ash handling
operations; CO continuous emissions
monitoring systems (GEMS) and bag
leak detection systems for new sources;
and several approved monitoring
alternatives. The 2008 proposal
included changes regarding
requirements for NOX and SCh
emissions testing for all HMIWI;
performance testing requirements for
small rural HMIWI; monitoring
requirements for HMIWI that install
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
technology to reduce NOX emissions;
and procedures for test data submittal.
The changes included in this final
action include revised provisions
regarding waste segregation and removal
of exemptions regarding startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). The
removal of SSM exemptions is
discussed in section III.F of this
preamble. The performance testing and
monitoring amendments, electronic data
submittal provisions, waste segregation
amendments, and miscellaneous other
amendments are summarized in the
following sections.
1. Performance Testing and Monitoring
Amendments
The amendments require all HMIWI
to demonstrate initial compliance with
the revised NOX and SCh emissions
limits. The 1997 standards did not
require testing and demonstration of
compliance with the NOX and SO2
L-7
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51373
emissions limits. In addition to
demonstrating initial compliance with
the NOX and SC>2 emissions limits, small
rural HMIWI are required to
demonstrate initial compliance with the
other seven regulated pollutants'
emissions limits and the opacity
standard. Under the 1997 standards,
small rural HMIWI were required to
demonstrate only initial compliance
with the PM, CO, CDD/CDF, Hg, and
opacity standards. Small rural HMIWI
also are required to determine
compliance with the PM, CO, and HC1
emissions limits by conducting an
annual performance test. On an annual
basis, small rural HMIWI are required
by the 1997 standards to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit. The
amendments allow sources to use
results of their previous emissions tests
to demonstrate initial compliance with
the revised emissions limits as long as
the sources certify that the previous test
results are representative of current
operations. Only those sources who
could not so certify and/or whose
previous emissions tests do not
demonstrate compliance with one or
more revised emissions limits would be
required to conduct another emissions
test for those pollutants. (Note that most
sources were already required under the
1997 standards to test for HC1, CO, and
PM on an annual basis, and those
annual tests are still required.)
The amendments require, for existing
HMIWI, annual inspections of
scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air
pollution control devices that may be
used to meet the emissions limits. The
amendments require a visible emissions
test of the ash handling operations using
Method 22 in appendix A-7 of this part
to be conducted during the next
performance test. For new HMIWI, the
amendments require CO GEMS; bag leak
detection systems for fabric-filter
controlled units; annual inspections of
scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air
pollution control devices that may be
used to meet the emissions limits; and
Method 22 visible emissions testing of
the ash handling operations to be
conducted during each compliance test.
For existing HMIWI, use of CO GEMS is
an approved option, and specific
language with requirements for CO
GEMS is included in the amendments.
For new and existing HMIWI, use of
PM, HC1, multi-metals, and Hg GEMS,
and integrated sorbent trap Hg
monitoring and dioxin monitoring
(continuous sampling with periodic
sample analysis) also are approved
options, and specific language for those
options is included in the amendments.
HMIWI that install SNCR technology to
reduce NOx emissions are required to
monitor the reagent (e.g., ammonia or
urea) injection rate and secondary
chamber temperature.
2. Electronic Data Submittal
The EPA must have performance test
data to conduct effective 5-year reviews
of CAA Section 129 standards, as well
as for many other purposes, including
compliance determinations,
development of emissions factors, and
determining annual emissions rates. In
conducting 5-year reviews, EPA has
found it burdensome and time-
consuming to collect emissions test data
because of varied locations for data
storage and varied data storage methods.
One improvement that has occurred in
recent years is the availability of stack
test reports in electronic format as a
replacement for burdensome paper
copies.
In this action, we are taking a step to
improve data accessibility. HMIWI have
the option of submitting to an EPA
electronic database an electronic copy of
annual stack test reports. Data entry will
be through an electronic emissions test
report structure used by the staff as part
of the emissions testing project. The
electronic reporting tool (ERT) was
developed with input from stack testing
companies who generally collect and
compile performance test data
electronically. The ERT is currently
available, and access to direct data
submittal to EPA's electronic emissions
database (WebFIRE) will become
available December 31, 2011.a
Please note that the option to submit
source test data electronically to EPA
will not require any additional
performance testing. In addition, when
a facility elects to submit performance
test data to WebFIRE, there will be no
additional requirements for data
compilation. Instead, we believe
industry will benefit from development
of improved emissions factors, fewer
follow-up information requests, and
better regulation development, as
discussed below. The information to be
reported is already required in the
existing test methods and is necessary to
evaluate the conformance to the test
method. One major advantage of
electing to submit source test data
through the ERT is to provide a
standardized method to compile and
store all the documentation required to
be reported by this rule. Another
important benefit of submitting these
data to EPA at the time the source test
is conducted is that it will substantially
1 See http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/
index.cfm?action=fire.main, http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.htinl.
reduce the effort involved in data
collection activities in the future.
Specifically, because EPA would
already have adequate source category
data to conduct residual risk
assessments or technology reviews,
there would be fewer data collection
requests (e.g., CAA Section 114 letters).
This results in a reduced burden on
both affected facilities (in terms of
reduced manpower to respond to data
collection requests) and EPA (in terms
of preparing and distributing data
collection requests). Finally, another
benefit of electing to submit these data
to WebFIRE electronically is that these
data will greatly improve the overall
quality of the existing and new
emissions factors by supplementing the
pool of emissions test data upon which
the emissions factor is based and by
ensuring that data are more
representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common
complaint we hear from industry and
regulators is that emissions factors are
outdated or not representative of a
particular source category. Receiving
most performance tests will ensure that
emissions factors are updated and more
accurate. In summary, receiving test
data already collected for other
purposes and using them in the
emissions factors development program
will save industry, State/local/Tribal
agencies, and EPA time and money.
The electronic data base that will be
used is EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web
site accessible through EPA's TTN. The
WebFIRE Web site was constructed to
store emissions test data for use in
developing emissions factors. A
description of the WebFIRE data base
can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The ERT will be able to transmit the
electronic report through EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) network for
storage in the WebFIRE data base.
Although ERT is not the only electronic
interface that can be used to submit
source test data to the CDX for entry
into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of
data very straightforward and easy. A
description of the ERT can be found at
http ://www. epa .gov/ttn/chief/ert/
ert_tool.html. The ERT can be used to
document stack tests data for various
pollutants including PM (EPA Method 5
of appendix A-3), SO2 (EPA Method 6
or 6C of appendix A-4), NOX (EPA
Method 7 or 7E of appendix A-4), CO
(EPA Method 10 of appendix A-4), Cd
(EPA Method 29 of appendix A-8), Pb
(Method 29), Hg (Method 29), and HC1
(EPA Method 26A of appendix A-8).
Presently, the ERT does not handle
dioxin/furan stack test data (EPA
L-8
-------
51374
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
Method 23 of appendix A-7), but the
tool is being upgraded to handle dioxin/
furan stack test data. The ERT does not
currently accept opacity data or GEMS
data.
3. Waste Segregation
The amendments revise the waste
management plan provisions for new
and existing HMIWI. Commenters on
the 2008 re-proposal recommended that
EPA minimize or eliminate from the
HMIWI waste stream any plastic wastes,
Hg and other hazardous wastes (e.g., Hg-
containing dental waste, Hg-containing
devices), pharmaceuticals, and
confidential documents and other paper
products that could be shredded and
recycled. One commenter recommended
that EPA take action to regulate
emissions of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and polycyclic organic matter
(POM) from HMIWI. To address the
various commenters' concerns, the
waste management plan provisions in
§§ 60.35e and 60.55c are revised to
promote the segregation of the
aforementioned wastes. (See section
IV.H of this preamble for further
information about the change to waste
management plan provisions.)
5. Miscellaneous Other Amendments
The amendments revise the definition
of "Minimum secondary chamber
temperature" to read "Minimum
secondary chamber temperature means
90 percent of the highest 3-hour average
secondary chamber temperature (taken,
at a minimum, once every minute)
measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating
compliance with the PM, CO, and
dioxin/furan emissions limits."
The amendments add definitions for
"Bag leak detection system,"
"commercial HMIWI," and "minimum
reagent flow rate." "Bag leak detection
system" is defined to mean "an
instrument that is capable of monitoring
PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter in order to detect bag failures,"
and examples of such a system are
provided. " Commercial HMIWI" is
defined to mean "a HMIWI which offers
incineration services for hospital/
medical/infectious waste generated
offsite by firms unrelated to the firm
that owns the HMIWI." "Minimum
reagent flow rate" is defined to mean
"90 percent of the highest 3-hour
average reagent flow rate at the inlet to
the selective noncatalytic reduction
technology (taken, at a minimum, once
every minute) measured during the most
recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the NOx emissions
limit."
The amendments require HMIWI to
submit, along with each test report, a
description, including sample
calculations, of how operating
parameters are established during the
initial performance test and, if
applicable, re-established during
subsequent performance tests.
To provide greater clarity, the
amendments also include averaging
times and EPA reference test methods in
the emissions limit tables for existing
and new sources. It should be noted that
the averaging times and EPA reference
test methods added to the emissions
limits tables are not new requirements
but simply a restating of requirements
presented elsewhere in the HMIWI
regulations. Also, the inclusion of these
additional table columns should not be
interpreted as reopening the 1997
standards themselves.
The amendments also incorporate by
reference two alternatives to EPA
reference test methods (ASME PTC
19.10-1981 and ASTM D6784-02) to
provide HMIWI with greater flexibility
in demonstrating compliance. These
alternative methods are described in
greater detail in section VIII.I of this
preamble and were first presented in the
preamble to the December 1, 2008 re-
proposal.
D. Implementation Schedule for Existing
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators
Under the amendments to the EG, and
consistent with CAA Section 129,
revised State plans containing the
revised existing source emissions limits
and other requirements in the
amendments will be due within 1 year
after promulgation of the amendments.
That is, revised State plans have to be
submitted to EPA on October 6, 2010.
The amendments to the EG then allow
existing HMIWI to demonstrate
compliance with the amended standards
as expeditiously as practicable after
approval of a State plan, but no later
than 3 years from the date of such
approval or 5 years after promulgation
of the revised standards, whichever is
earlier. Because many HMIWI will find
it necessary to retrofit existing
emissions control equipment and/or
install additional emissions control
equipment in order to meet the revised
limits, States may wish to consider
providing the maximum compliance
period allowed by CAA Section
129(f)(2).
In revising the emissions limits in a
State plan, a State has two options.
First, it could include both the current
and the new emissions limits in its
revised State plan, which would allow
a phased approach in applying the new
limits. That is, the State plan would
make it clear that the 1997 emissions
limits remain in force and apply until
the date the revised existing source
emissions limits are effective (as defined
in the State plan). States whose existing
HMIWI do not find it necessary to
improve their performance in order to
meet the revised emissions limits may
want to consider a second approach,
where the State would insert the revised
emissions limits in place of the 1997
emissions limits, follow? procedures in
40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and submit
a revised State plan to EPA for approval.
If the revised State plan contains only
the revised emissions limits (i.e., the
1997 emissions limits are not retained),
then the revised emissions limits must
become effective immediately, since the
1997 limits would be removed from the
State plan.
EPA will revise the existing Federal
plan to incorporate the changes to
existing source emissions limits and
other requirements that EPA is
promulgating. The Federal plan applies
to HMIWI in any State without an
approved State plan. The amendments
to the Federal plan for the EG would
require existing HMIWI demonstrate
compliance with the amended standards
not later than 5 years after today's final
rule, as required by CAA Section
129(b)(3).
E. Changes to the Applicability Date of
the 1997 New Source Performance
Standards
HMIWI are treated differently under
the amended standards than they were
under the 1997 standards in terms of
whether they are "existing" or "new"
sources, and there are new dates
defining what are "new" sources and
imposing compliance deadlines
regarding the amended standards. All
HMIWI that complied with the NSPS as
promulgated in 1997 are "existing"
sources under the amended standards
and are required to meet the emissions
limits under the revised EG or the 1997
NSPS, whichever is more stringent, by
the applicable compliance date for the
revised EG. (Note that the HC1 emissions
limit for small HMIWI and the PM
emissions limit for medium HMIWI are
more stringent under the 1997 NSPS
than under the revised EG, and HMIWI
that complied with those 1997 NSPS are
required to continue to do so.) In the
interim, those sources will continue to
be subject to the NSPS as promulgated
in 1997 until the date for compliance
with the revised EG. Units for which
construction is commenced after the
December 1, 2008 proposal, or for which
modification is commenced on or after
the date 6 months after today's
L-9
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51375
promulgation of the amended NSPS, are
"new" units subject to more stringent
revised NSPS emissions limits.
Thus, under these specific
amendments, units that commenced
construction after lune 20, 1996, and on
or before December 1, 2008, or that are
modified before the date 6 months after
the date of promulgation of the revised
final NSPS, continue to be or would
become subject to the 40 CFR part 60,
subpart EC NSPS emissions limits that
were promulgated in 1997 until the
applicable compliance date for the
revised EG, at which time those units
must comply with the amended
"existing" source EG or 1997 NSPS,
whichever is more stringent for each
pollutant. Similarly, HMIWI that met
the 1997 EG must meet the revised EG
by the applicable compliance date for
the revised EG. HMIWI that commence
construction after December 1, 2008 or
that are modified 6 months or more after
the date of promulgation of the revised
NSPS must meet the revised NSPS
emissions limits being added to the
subpart EC NSPS within 6 months after
the promulgation date of the
amendments or upon startup, whichever
is later.
This approach is justified because
most HMIWI will have to install
additional emissions controls to comply
with the revised standards. CAA
Sections 129(g)(2) and (3) define "new
solid waste incineration unit" and
"modified solid waste incineration
unit" based on whether construction of
the new unit commences after the date
of proposed standards under Section
129 and on whether modification occurs
after the effective date of a Section 129
standard, respectively. While these
definitions might be read as referring to
the dates EPA first proposes standards
for the source category as a whole and
on which such standards first become
effective for the source category, we are
interpreting and applying them in this
rulemaking to refer to the proposal and
effective dates for standards under this
new rulemaking record. The evident
intent of the definitions plus the
substantive new unit and modified unit
provisions is that it is technically more
challenging and potentially more costly
to retrofit a control system to an existing
unit than to incorporate controls when
a unit is initially designed.
F. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Exemption
The 1997 standards included
provisions in 40 CFR 60.56c and 60.37e
that exempted HMIWI from the
standards during periods of SSM,
provided that no hospital waste or
medical/infectious waste is charged to
the unit during those SSM periods.
Neither our 2007 proposal nor our 2008
re-proposal would have changed these
provisions. However, soon after the date
of our re-proposal, the U.S. Court of
Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019 (DC Cir. 2008), vacated provisions
in EPA's CAA Section 112 regulations
governing emissions of hazardous air
pollutants during SSM periods.
Specifically, the Court vacated 40 CFR
63.6(f)(l) and 63.6(h)(l), which, when
incorporated into CAA Section 112(d)
standards for specific source categories,
exempt sources from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable
Section 112(d) standards during periods
of SSM. While the Court's vacatur did
not have a direct impact on source
category-specific SSM exemptions such
as those contained in the 1997 HMIWI
standards, one commenter on the 2008
re-proposal stressed that the legality of
SSM exemptions such as those in the
1997 standards is questionable, and
urged EPA to remove the exemptions in
the final rule. For the reasons set forth
later in this notice responding to
comments, today's final rule removes
the SSM exemption from the HMIWI
standards, such that the emissions
limits under these subparts apply at all
times.
IV. Summary of Major Comments and
Responses
A total of 22 separate sets of public
comments were received on the
December 1, 2008 re-proposal. (One
additional comment, received after the
deadline for public comments, was an
addendum to an earlier comment. See
http://www.regulations.gov, docket ID
no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534, for the
complete public comments.) The
comment period ended on February 17,
2009. In addition to the comment
letters, speaker comments from a
lanuary 15, 2009, public hearing on the
re-proposal were recorded, and a
transcript of the hearing was placed in
the project docket (document no. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0534-0361). The
following sections summarize the major
public comments received on the re-
proposal and present EPA's responses to
those comments. The major comment
topics are applicability;
subcategorization; MACT floor
approach; emissions limits; monitoring;
emissions testing; alternatives to on-site
incineration; medical waste segregation;
startup, shutdown, and malfunction;
and economic impacts.
A. Applicability
Comment: While this issue was not
raised in our re-proposal, one
commenter stated that subpart EC
should be amended to exempt units
already complying with subpart
AAAA—the NSPS for new small
municipal waste combustors (MWCs)—
or subpart BBBB—the EG for existing
small MWCs—consistent with the
exemptions provided to MWCs in the
1997 HMIWI rule.
Response: We are aware of two
HMIWI at one facility that are currently
subject to rules for both HMIWI and
small MWCs. We have considered the
appropriateness of exempting the two
units from the HMIWI rule or creating
a separate HMIWI subcategory for the
units, and have concluded that
exemptions and creation of a separate
subcategory are not warranted. One
issue is the technological feasibility for
the facility to meet both the HMIWI and
small MWC rules if there is the
possibility that the facility would have
to implement different control strategies
to meet the limits in both rules. (Note
that we do not currently have any
information to suggest that the facility
would find it technically impossible to
meet both the revised HMIWI standards
and the small MWC standards.) For
example, if the HMIWI rule were to
include stringent CO limits and the
small MWC rule were to include
stringent NOx limits, it may be
challenging for the facility to meet the
limits of both rules simultaneously by
controlling secondary chamber
temperature; increasing the temperature
to reduce CO emissions would
invariably increase NOx emissions.
However, by choosing to burn both
types of waste and operate as both a
small MWC and a HMIWI, the facility
has the responsibility to meet whatever
set of rules that applies based on its
operating scenario and could avoid this
situation by choosing to burn one type
of waste or the other exclusively, or at
least reducing the other type of waste to
co-fired levels. Also, the facility already
employs additional control strategies
besides combustion control for reducing
NOx emissions (urea injection).
The facility typically burns 50 percent
hospital/medical/infectious (HMI) waste
and 50 percent municipal waste in its
two units. If we were to grant an
exemption to the HMIWI rule for this
facility due to it being subject to the
small MWC rule and the facility were to
increase the amount of HMI waste
burned to 70 percent and reduce the
amount of municipal waste burned to 30
percent, we could create a total
compliance loophole for the facility,
given that the small MWC rule includes
a co-fired exemption for units burning
30 percent or less of municipal waste.
This would be an unacceptable
outcome.
L-10
-------
51376
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
Another option to address this
situation would be to create a hybrid
waste subcategory to include the two
units, based on the rationale that the
units are burning a unique mixture of
waste. However, we did not provide an
opportunity to comment on such an
option in the re-proposal, and have not
had the opportunity to develop a record
to support such a new approach or its
possibly unique regulatory framework.
Moreover, it is also not clear that such
a hybrid subcategory would fit within
the statutory divisions of incinerator
categories set forth in Section 129(a)(l)
of the CAA. Therefore, we decided not
to pursue that option for the final rule.
We believe it is reasonable for the
facility to be subject to both the HMIWI
and small MWC rules when switching
back and forth among the types of waste
burned, since this ensures that, when
the facility operates as either a HMIWI
or small MWC, it is regulated as such
and does not avoid compliance
obligations that all other incinerators
operating continuously as either HMIWI
or small MWC must meet. We do not
expect that continuing to require the
facility to comply with both rules will
be overly burdensome. The facility
should be able to control to the more
stringent of the two rules.
B. Subcategorization
Comment: Four commenters stated
that EPA's rationale for
Subcategorization does not reflect any
analysis of how the proposed
subcategories will help assure that what
has been "achieved" by better
performers in a proposed subcategory
results in a standard that is
"achievable" by other sources in that
subcategory. Two of the commenters
argued that, without this assessment,
the final subcategory decisions will be
arbitrary and may result in standards
that are unlawfully stringent. The
commenters urged EPA to provide the
necessary assessment and rationale for
its subcategory proposal. Another
commenter further urged EPA to
reconsider its decision to retain the
categories defined by the 1997 HMIWI
rule without defining additional
subcategories. The commenter suggested
that EPA could keep the relation
between "achieved" and "achievable"
by grouping existing units based on
control technology type and that EPA
could address variability by establishing
subcategories that take into account
non-technology factors that affect
emissions, as the commenter claimed is
required under Section 112(d)(3).2
Three commenters stated that EPA
must develop a new subcategory for
commercial facilities, based on the
claimed significant operational
differences between commercial and so-
called "captive" units that are attached
to HMI waste generators. The
commenters defined a captive unit as
one that is co-owned and co-operated by
the generator of the waste, while a
commercial operator is in business to
receive wastes from third parties. The
commenters stated that commercial
HMIWI, unlike operators of captive
units, cannot use alternative forms of
disposal (e.g., landfills), and claimed
that EPA views their only alternative to
the standards as closure. According to
the commenters, EPA not only has the
authority under Section 129(a)(2) to
further subcategorize HMIWI, but it is
also mandated to do so due to an overly
stringent standard that is not
"achievable" by commercial units. The
commenters claimed that wastes sent to
a commercial unit are more
heterogeneous than for captive units.
They also noted that the handling of
medical wastes is subject to numerous
Federal and State requirements related
to worker and public health and safety,
which the commenters claimed makes
segregation of wastes hazardous and
impractical for operators of commercial
facilities. Thus, the commenters argued
that waste segregation cannot be a
control "achieved in practice" that can
be used to determine floors for
commercial units.
The same three commenters also
argued that EPA provides no rationale
for its retention of the small rural class
in the re-proposed rule, and that its
prior rationale regarding the
unavailability of alternative means of
medical waste treatment beyond 50
miles from the nearest standard
metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) is
unsupported. According to the
commenters, EPA's proposed retention
of the small rural subcategory is
arbitrary and capricious.
Another commenter recommended
that EPA establish new size
classifications, claiming that the
distribution of HMIWI no longer
matches the three size categories EPA
identified in 1995 when the rule was
first being developed. The commenter
also noted that current standards are
based on subcategories defined in terms
of feed rates with no corresponding
heating value. According to the
commenter, a reference waste heating
2 While the commenter cited to CAA Section
112(d)(3), which does not literally apply to NSPS
and EG promulgated under Sections 111 and 129,
we assume the commenter was referring to factors
relevant to MACT floor analyses in general,
including those under Section 129(a)(2).
characteristic must be established to
adjust or rate incinerators, given that
there is currently no consistency or
basis for determining equivalent
charging rate.
The same commenter further
recommended that, based on its
facility's unique attributes—extremely
large processing capacity, customer
generated waste material variability,
waste mix, waste-to-energy heat
recovery technology, GEMS, 2+ second
combustion gas retention time, and high
British thermal unit (BTU) waste
content—EPA should place its facility
in a separate subcategory for extra-large
HMIWI. The commenter provided a list
of suggested standards for such a
subcategory, based on upper confidence
limits (UCLs) calculated using EPA's
methodology, that indicate 7 of the 11
promulgated standards applicable to it
could be tightened. The commenter
noted that residual risk analyses
conducted under Maryland's stringent
air toxics regulations (provided in the
commenter's public comments) show
that the resulting ambient emissions
would meet all applicable requirements.
Response: Regarding the commenters'
argument that EPA must show how the
proposed subcategories will result in a
standard that is "achievable," we do not
believe that the CAA requires such an
analysis. In facing a similar claim, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
recently rejected the argument that a
facility's claimed differences between
itself and other members of a source
category in the plywood and composite
wood products (PCWP) MACT rule
compels EPA to set a unique standard
that is achievable for that source. In
NRDCv. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (DC Cir.
2007), Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (L-P)
objected to EPA's refusal to establish a
separate subcategory for its wet/wet
press process apart from the subcategory
of all other press processes, claiming
that, at L-P's plant, EPA's identified
MACT floor control technology was not
feasible and that L-P would experience
greater costs in complying with the
MACT floor compared to other press
operators. Id., at 1375-76. The Court
denied L-P's claims, explaining that
"cost is not a factor that EPA may
permissibly consider in setting a MACT
floor. [* * *] To the extent that L-P
maintains that it cannot comply with
the MACT floor based on complete
enclosure and capture of emissions
because it cannot enclose its presses,
L—P also relies on an incorrect premise
that the MACT level of emissions
reduction is invalid if it is based on
control technology that a source cannot
install. The 2004 rule does not require
a source to use any particular method to
L-ll
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51377
achieve compliance: If L-P cannot use
enclosure and capture, it may utilize
other compliance techniques. Hence,
L-P fails to show that EPA was arbitrary
or capricious in refusing to create a
subcategory for it." Id. at 1376. The
option provided by one commenter to
subcategorize based on control
technology type is inappropriate, as it
would essentially endorse the type of
unique treatment that L-P demanded in
the PCWP rule and that the Court
rejected. Moreover, we are unaware of
any situations in the HMIWI industry
where one type of control would be
technically applicable, but not another,
such that subcategorizing based on the
ability to use certain controls would be
justified.
We evaluated three different
subcategory options to try and address
the concerns stated by the commenters.
The three options included: (1) Option
1—no change to existing size categories;
(2) Option 2—creating a commercial
subcategory (as suggested by three
commenters) and redistributing the size
categories for the captive HMIWI (as
suggested by another commenter); and
(3) Option 3—redistributing the existing
size categories to more evenly distribute
the number of HMIWI (also suggested by
the other commenter).
Under Option 1, the size distributions
would remain the same—large (>500 lb/
hr of waste), medium (>200 to <500 lb/
hr of waste), and small (<200 Ib/hr of
waste), with the latter category divided
into small rural and non-rural
subcategories based on distance from
the nearest SMSA.
Under Option 2, commercial HMIWI
would be categorized separately from
captive HMIWI, and the captive HMIWI
further subcategorized as follows—large
(>1,000 Ib/hr of waste), medium (>500
to <1,000 Ib/hr of waste), and small
(<500 of waste), with no further
subcategorization of the latter category.
Under Option 3, the sizes would be
redistributed as follows—large (>1,500
Ib/hr of waste), medium (>500 to <1,500
Ib/hr of waste), and small (<500 Ib/hr of
waste), with the latter category divided
into small rural and non-rural
subcategories as under Option 1.
We conducted MACT floor analyses
on all three options, using the following
methodology, which is described in
more detail later in this notice—(1)
Ranking the emissions data from lowest
to highest for each pollutant; (2)
determining the units in the MACT floor
for each pollutant; (3) determining the
distribution of test run data for the
MACT floor units; and (4) calculating a
99 percent UCL for each pollutant based
on that distribution, using Student's t-
test statistics. We developed floor-based
emissions limits based on these UCL
values, rounding up to two significant
figures. We compared the emissions
limits to average emissions estimates for
each HMIWI and determined whether
the HMIWI would meet the limits. We
estimated the number of HMIWI
expected to meet at least nine limits,
eight limits, seven limits, etc. under
each option. Based on our analysis,
Options 1,2, and 3 resulted in similar
numbers of HMIWI meeting the limits.
(For more detailed results, see 2009
memorandum entitled "Revised MACT
Floors, Data Variability Analysis, and
Emission Limits for Existing and New
HMIWI," which is included in the
docket for today's rulemaking.)
However, since we did not propose
any subcategorization option other than
the small, medium and large size
subcategories identified in the 1997
rule, and did not provide an
opportunity to comment on this issue in
the re-proposal, we have concluded that
it would not be appropriate at this time
to promulgate emissions limits based on
Options 2 and 3. Moreover, we do not
see a compelling need to make the
adjustments of Options 2 or 3, given that
similar numbers of HMIWI meet the
limits under all three options. Simply
re-adjusting the size thresholds to reflect
an even distribution of units post-MACT
compliance among the subcategories is
not necessarily reasonable, whereas the
size thresholds from the 1997 rule
continue to correspond to the basic
distinctions between the subcategories
of units as currently operated.
Therefore, we selected Option 1 (no
change to existing size subcategories) as
the best subcategory option on which to
base the emissions limits for
promulgation.
Two other subcategory options were
considered and rejected without further
analysis. The two options include (1) an
extra-large subcategory for one HMIWI
facility (as suggested by one
commenter), and (2) a mixed waste
subcategory for another HMIWI facility
(an outgrowth of a comment by another
commenter, as discussed in the previous
section). In addition to the fact that we
did not provide opportunity to comment
on this issue, we found no basis for
creating a new subcategory for this
particular rulemaking to fit a single
facility.
We disagree with the argument by
three commenters that EPA's retention
of the small rural subcategory is
unsupported by any rationale. As we
explained in the September 15, 1997
notice of final rulemaking (62 FR
48370), alternative means of medical
waste treatment may not be available to
some facilities that operate small
HMIWI in rural or remote locations.
Facilities that operate small HMIWI in
remote locations could be faced with
unique adverse impacts if required to
meet the more stringent emissions limits
associated with small non-rural HMIWI.
Therefore, we continue to support
subcategorizing facilities based on the
location of the facility and the amount
of waste burned, as allowed under
Section 129(a)(2). The only remaining
small rural units are in Alaska and
Hawaii, and the options are very limited
for alternative medical waste treatment
in those States. There are a very limited
number of landfills and MWC facilities
in those States, and there are no
commercial HMIWI. (The basis for this
information is a 2004 Chartwell
Information document entitled Directory
& Atlas of Solid Waste Facilities.)
C. MACT Floor Approach
1. MACT-on-MACT
Comment: Several commenters argued
that EPA's recalculation of the 1997
MACT floors using post-MACT
compliance data results in so-called
"MACT-on-MACT" standards that
cannot be achieved and are contrary to
the CAA and the intent of Congress.
Three of the commenters stated that the
CAA provides for a one-time setting of
the MACT floor based on what sources
achieved at the time of the initial
promulgation, not at the time of
subsequent revisions. According to
those three commenters, the proposed
standards would force the HMIWI
industry to shut down and prevent
installation of new HMIWI, without any
consideration of the costs of additional
reductions or whether the emissions
posed any risks to human health and the
environment. The commenters urged
EPA to use the population of pre-1997
HMIWI and their emissions data to
establish the revised MACT floors. One
commenter stated that new data should
only be used for those units that have
the same control equipment in place as
when EPA undertook the original
rulemaking.
Three of the commenters objected to
EPA's arguments for using the post-
MACT compliance data, namely that
EPA is no longer confident in the
regulatory limits used in 1997 (based on
a comparison of the regulatory limits
and emissions test data in the 1997
record) and that the EPA questions their
use as surrogates because they do not
account for non-technology factors
(based on waste segregation data EPA
received after the 2007 proposal).
Specifically, the three commenters
stated that EPA provides no justification
for its change in using the post-MACT
L-12
-------
51378
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
compliance data, noting that the Court,
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (DC
Cir. 1999), upheld EPA's data-gathering
for the 1997 rule, and did not dispute
that EPA could make estimates based on
the lack of data. The three commenters
further stated that EPA provides no
support for reassessing its determination
in 1997 that emissions controls
significantly impact emissions, which
the commenters indicated is a finding
that EPA continues to assert and that is
supported by the data.
Regarding EPA's claim that it reset the
floors in response to the remand of the
regulation in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167
F.3d 658 (DC Cir. 1999), the same three
commenters argued that the Court's
remand was limited and did not vacate
the 1997 floors. According to the
commenters, EPA cites no legal support
that subsequent case law invalidates a
promulgated regulation not at issue in
that case. The commenters stated that,
in the past, EPA has declined to account
for changes in law after its decision to
impose new regulatory obligations,
based in part on the general
presumption against law having a
retroactive effect. According to the
commenters, this approach is supported
by case law, which holds that agencies
are required to apply the law at the time
the decision is made. Aaacon Auto
Transport v. ICC, 792 F.2d 1156, 1161
(DC Cir. 1986). The commenters also
noted that the 2002 data used to set the
proposed standards would not have
been available had the EPA responded
to the 1999 remand in a more timely
manner.
The three commenters also argued
that new public comments raising issues
with the 1997 floors are out of time and
insufficient to require EPA to go beyond
the Court's remand order. The
commenters pointed out that Section
307(b) of the CAA requires any
challenges to regulations to be filed
within 60 days, which has been held up
in the relevant case law. According to
the commenters, any required revisions
to address the Court's limited remand
does not justify reopening the time
period for judicial challenge of the
floors. The commenters also argued that
another exception to the 60-day
jurisdictional bar, that there was a
substantive violation of the statute, does
not apply since the Court did not find
the 1997 floors in conflict with the
statute.
Response: First, we disagree with the
commenters' assertion that we are
employing a MACT-on-MACT approach
to set limits that are not achievable by
HMIWI. The purpose of this action is
not to force units who have complied
with a lawfully adopted MACT standard
to have to subsequently comply with
another round of updated MACT
standards, but to respond to the Court's
ruling that questioned the basis for the
1997 MACT standards and revise them
such that they are clearly compliant
with the Court's several
pronouncements of how MACT should
be set in the first instance. Moreover,
the actual emissions data upon which
the revised standards rely comes
directly from HMIWI that have in fact
achieved the resulting levels, which
necessarily belies the assertion that no
HMIWI can achieve them. Regarding the
commenters' argument that our
recalculation of the MACT floors was
contrary to the CAA and intent of
Congress, it is clear from the Court's
opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA that EPA
needed to revisit the MACT floors in
order to respond to the Court's concerns
about the MACT floor approach we used
in 1997, as noted in its remand of the
HMIWI regulations. The Court explicitly
"conclude[d] that there are serious
doubts about the reasonableness of
EPA's treatment of the floor
requirements, and remand[ed] the rule
for further explanation." 167 F.3d at
660. Regarding the existing source
floors, the Court even went so far as to
suggest that, based on its review of the
record for the 1997 rule, "EPA's method
looks hopelessly irrational." Id. at 664.
Ultimately, the Court ordered the case
"remanded to EPA for further
explanation of its reasoning in
determining the 'floors' for new and
existing [HMIWI]." Id. at 666. This
remedy squarely placed the
responsibility on EPA to either develop
an explanation for the MACT standards
derived from the 1997 data set that fully
addressed the Court's concerns, or
develop a different methodology and/or
data set that did so.
In the 2008 re-proposal, we decided to
use post-compliance data to recalculate
the MACT floors because, based on our
analysis, it became impossible to fully
address the Court's concerns about the
suitability of using regulatory limits and
uncontrolled emissions values from the
1997 data set in rationally explaining
the MACT floors for the 1997 rule. To
respond to those concerns, we
conducted an analysis comparing the
regulatory limits used in the 1997 data
set to actual emissions data for those
HMIWI, and we determined that the
regulatory limits used to establish the
MACT floors were not representative of
actual operation and did not account for
non-technology factors that affected
HMIWI emissions performance. (For
further information, see 2008
memorandum "Comparison of
Regulatory Limits with Emissions Test
Data," which is included in the docket.)
Since it was no longer possible to obtain
actual emissions data from the full set
of HMIWI that were operating at the
time of the 1997 rule's promulgation,
the most available alternative was to use
the actual emissions data we received
from sources who chose to remain in
operation and comply with the 1997
MACT standards. With such data, we
could actually identify the emissions
levels achieved by use of the MACT
technologies and control measures that
HMIWI employed in order to meet the
1997 standards—technology and
measures which we had at that time
assumed would be necessary to comply
with the standards. This verifying
approach was eminently reasonable,
since it relied upon data that HMIWI
recorded and reported specifically for
purposes of demonstrating compliance
with the 1997 HMIWI MACT standards,
and it addressed the Court's stated
concerns regarding the existing source
floors. Those concerns, namely, were
that permit levels might not accurately
estimate actual emissions performance
if sources are over-achieving the permit
limits (167 F.3d at 663), and that the
assumption that unpermitted HMIWI
did not deploy emissions controls of
any sort was not substantiated (Id. at
664).
While we agree with the commenters
that control technology has a major
impact on pollutant emissions from
HMIWI, we also acknowledge that
factors other than control technology
(e.g., waste mix, combustion conditions)
can affect pollutant emissions and
should be accounted for in the MACT
floor analysis. These non-control
technology factors, however, were not
considered or reflected by the permit
data and uncontrolled emissions values
data used in the 1997 rule. Therefore,
we needed to take further steps in order
to be able to account for these factors
and "provide a reasonable estimate of
the performance of the top 12 percent of
units." Id. at 662. It is true that the Court
in Sierra Club did not rule that EPA had
impermissibly ignored these factors. Id.
at 666. However, subsequent case law,
specifically National Lime Ass'n v. EPA,
233 F.3d 625 (DC Cir. 2000) (NLA II),
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA,
255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001) (CKRC), and
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC
Cir. 2007) (Brick MACT case), have
made it abundantly clear that, in any
MACT analysis, EPA is currently
expected by the Court to address non-
technology factors. Based on the actual
emissions data we received, which
necessarily reflects both the use of
L-13
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51379
control technologies and any non-
technology measures the best
performing sources happen to use, we
were able to provide the "reasonable
estimate" of the best performers'
emissions levels that the Court required
in its remand. Therefore, we stand by
the reassessment we presented in the re-
proposal, although, as discussed later in
this notice, we have made some
adjustments in our statistical analysis to
correct for errors in the 2008 re-
proposal.
Regarding the commenters' arguments
about the impact of subsequent case
law, we do not expect that we could
reasonably respond to the Court's 1999
remand of the HMIWI rule in a manner
that knowingly disregards other flaws in
EPA's prior MACT methodology that the
Court has since identified. In a recent
MACT ruling in which the Court found
that EPA had failed to follow? the rulings
issued in other MACT cases, the Court
admonished the EPA that if "[EPA]
disagrees with the Clean Air Act's
requirements for setting emissions
standards, it should take its concerns to
Congress. If EPA disagrees with this
court's interpretation of the Clean Air
Act, it should seek rehearing en bane or
file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In
the meantime, it must obey the Clean
Air Act as written by Congress and
interpreted by this court." 479 F.3d at
884. EPA takes this directive seriously
and acted consistently with the Court
decisions in preparing this response to
the remand. We do not believe that the
Court would view its own post-1999
MACT rulings as having changed "the
law" (namely, the MACT requirement of
Sections 112 and 129) such that
following those rulings' instructions
would reflect retroactive application of
"new" law. The commenters' reliance
on Aaacon Auto Transport v. ICC, 792
F.2d 1156 (DC Cir. 1986) is inapposite,
as that case addressed an entirely
different situation of retroactive
application of a new statutory provision;
here, instead, the governing statutory
requirements have not changed, EPA is
acting in response to a Court's ruling
that it had not adequately shown that it
had complied with those provisions,
and the Agency is acting subsequent to
further rulings that interpret those same
provisions and purport to set forth
general directions for EPA to follow? in
all cases.
As for the comment that EPA could
not have relied upon the 2002
compliance data if it had more swiftly
responded to the remand, this only
suggests that if EPA had acted earlier
the EPA would have been forced to take
additional steps to require the HMIWI
industry to supply emissions data. In no
way would this support EPA
disregarding the 2002 data we have in-
hand and allow us to continue to rely
upon data that does not reasonably
estimate emissions levels achieved by
the best performing units. Based on our
analysis of the record, we determined
that the 1997 floors did not in all cases
meet the requirements of the CAA as
interpreted by the DC Circuit. We
attempted to explain one set of revisions
to the 1997 floors in a subsequent
(February 2007) Federal Register notice
that relied upon the 1997 data set, and
received new public comments on that
notice and took account of new case law
that convinced us that a new approach
was required. Consequently, we have
chosen on our own to re-open the issues
addressed in the 2008 re-proposal.
Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA's approach to revising HMIWI
standards under CAA Section 129(a)(5)
is correct. The commenter said that
revising the MACT floors to reflect the
actual performance of the relevant best
units satisfies Section 129(a)(5).
However, four other commenters
objected to revising the floors under the
technology review? provisions of Section
129(a)(5). The commenters argued that
Section 129(a)(5) does not require
resetting the floors, but only requires
EPA to consider developments in
pollution control at the sources and
revise the standards based on our
evaluation of the costs and non-air
quality impacts. The commenters stated
that the use of new emissions data is
inconsistent with the reasoning EPA
presented in other contexts (e.g., in the
coke ovens residual risk/technology
review rulemaking) that MACT floors
need not be recalculated when the EPA
conducts its technology review under
CAA Section 112(d)(6). The commenters
also argued that this approach is
inconsistent with the Court's decision
on litigation challenging the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP (HON) residual risk/
technology review rule that there need
not be an "inexorable downward
ratcheting effect" for the MACT floors.
See NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d
1077, 1083-84 (DC Cir. 2008). One of
the commenters also claimed that EPA's
approach sets a precedent for all other
sources subject to Section 129 or
Section 112 MACT standards that could
have dire implications on the future
viability of rules covering other sources
(e.g., MWCs or waste-to-energy
facilities).
Response: Regarding the comment
from the first commenter, as noted in
the preamble to the December 2008 re-
proposal (73 FR 72971), we do not
interpret Section 129(a)(5), together
with Section 111, as generally requiring
EPA to recalculate MACT floors in
connection with this periodic review?
when such review? is not conducted
together with any other action requiring
EPA to reassess the MACT floor. See,
e.g., 71 FR 27324, 27327-28 (May 10,
2006) ("Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large
Municipal Waste Combustors; Final
Rule"); see also, NRDC and LEAN v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083-84 (DC Cir.
2008) (upholding EPA's interpretation
that the periodic review requirement in
CAA Section 112(d)(6) by itself does not
impose an obligation to recalculate
MACT floors). However, in the unique
case of HMIWI, MACT floor
recalculations for the 2008 re-proposal
were conducted in order to respond to
the Court's concerns stated in its
remand of the 1997 regulations, the
public comments received on the
February 2007 proposal, and recent
court decisions, specifically Sierra Club
v. EPA, 479 F.3d (DC Cir. 2007) (Brick
MACT). This recalculation would have
been necessary even if the periodic
review requirement of Section 129(a)(5)
did not exist. However, Section
129(a)(5) does exist, and EPA must, in
addition to responding to the Court's
remand, satisfy its requirements. As we
previously explained and continue to
believe, in this case, our obligation to
conduct a 5-year review based on
implementation of the 1997 emissions
standards is fulfilled through our
current remand response. This is
supported by the fact that the revised
MACT floor determinations and
emissions limits associated with the
current remand response are based on
performance data for the 57 currently
operating HMIWI that are subject to the
1997 standards, and by our accounting
for non-technology factors that affect
HMIWI emissions performance, which
the 2007 proposed remand response and
5-year review did not fully consider.
Thus, our current remand response
more than adequately addresses the
technology review's goals of assessing
the performance efficiency of the
installed equipment and ensuring that
the emissions limits reflect the
performance of the technologies
required by the MACT standards. In
addition, the current remand response
addresses whether new? technologies
and processes and improvements in
practices have been demonstrated at
sources subject to the emissions limits.
Accordingly, our current remand
response fulfills EPA's obligations
regarding the first 5-year review? of the
HMIWI standards and, therefore,
L-14
-------
51380
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
replaces the 2007 proposal's 5-year
review? proposed revisions.
2. Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach
Comment: Numerous commenters
objected to our continued use of the
EPA's longstanding pollutant-by-
pollutant approach to choosing the best
performing HMIWI. The commenters
argued that this approach essentially
created a hypothetical "super unit" and
resulted in the selection of a set of new
and existing MACT floors (and
standards) that no one existing source
has completely achieved and that
cannot be simultaneously achieved by
any of the best performing sources. The
commenters stated that the "best
performing" sources must be real
sources, not theoretical or hypothetical,
based on the statute and legislative
history. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st
Sess. 169 (1989). According to the
commenters, the proposed standards do
not reflect the performance of actual
sources, and as such, these proposed
standards are not legal under Section
129.
One commenter argued that Section
129(a)(2) (and the similar Section
112(d)(3)) does not speak in terms of the
best performing source for each listed
pollutant but the best existing source for
all pollutants and what these sources
can achieve on an overall basis. The
commenter claimed that Congress
abandoned Section 112's previous focus
on individual pollutant standards in the
1990 CAA Amendments and also
adopted the technology-based multi-
pollutant approach to regulating toxics
in use under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st
Cong., 1st Sess. 133-34 (1989). The
commenter concluded that if one source
can achieve a tight degree of control for
one pollutant but not for another, there
may be no justification for including it
in the set of sources from which the
floor is calculated. See, e.g., Tanners'
Council of America v. Train, 540 F.2d
1188, 1193 (4th Cir. 1976) (CWA
effluent limitations guidelines were
deemed not achievable where plants in
EPA's data base were "capable of
meeting the limitations for some, but
not all, of the pollutant parameters").
Two commenters stated that under
CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and 112(d)(2)
consideration of a higher level of control
than the average aggregate levels
achieved by the best sources (i.e., using
the pollutant-by-pollutant approach
instead of basing floors on levels of the
full set of pollutants achieved by
particular units) must be done only as
a "beyond-the-floor" assessment,
required to weigh economics and other
factors, and not be "hidden" in the floor
evaluation, in which costs may not be
considered.
Multiple commenters also questioned
the technical feasibility of EPA's
pollutant-by-pollutant approach.
According to the commenters,
establishing MACT standards based on
the best achievable emissions limits for
each type of pollution control
equipment assumes that the equipment
can be combined in the same system
and that the emissions limits of each
system are additive. The commenters
stated that, in practice, this outcome is
likely not achievable due to the
challenge of finding pollution control
equipment (e.g., fabric filters for PM
removal and wet scrubbers for HC1
removal) that can work in concert with
each other. The commenters said that
EPA should consider how the different
emissions controls may interfere with
each other if employed simultaneously.
As an example, one commenter noted
that employing a wet scrubber to control
HC1 would saturate the gas stream,
which would bind the bags in the fabric
filter used to control PM, thereby
compromising the filter's effectiveness.
Some of the commenters also noted that
the interrelationships between
pollutants must be considered in order
to ensure that the emissions control is
operating effectively for control of all of
the related pollutants, and not just a
single pollutant. For example,
commenters noted that improving
combustion to control CO may affect
NOX.
Multiple commenters suggested EPA
should revisit the MACT floors for
HMIWI and choose the best performing
sources on an overall basis, so that at
least one source can meet all of the new
source standards and a certain portion
of the existing sources can meet the
existing source standards. One
commenter suggested that EPA combine
the individual pollutants into a single
analysis to determine which control
provides the best overall control or
otherwise determine that the MACT
floor resulting from the analysis is
actually achieved by those sources
identified as the "best controlled."
According to various commenters, one
possible way for doing this would be to
establish rankings for how a HMIWI
performs for each of the regulated
pollutants and then sum the individual
pollutant rankings to determine the
overall ranking for the HMIWI.
Response: We disagree with the
commenters who object to setting
MACT floors on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis. We continue to interpret Section
129 as supporting the pollutant-by-
pollutant approach. Section 129(a)(4)
says that the standards promulgated
under Section 129 shall specify
numerical emissions limitations for
each pollutant enumerated in that
provision. Section 129(a)(2) requires
EPA to establish standards requiring
"maximum degree of reduction of
emissions." "Maximum degree of
reduction of emissions," in turn is
defined in Section 129(a)(2) as
including a minimum level of control
(the so-called MACT floor). EPA,
therefore, believes—and has long
believed—that the combination of
Section 129(a)(4), requiring numerical
standards for each enumerated
pollutant, and Section 129(a)(2),
requiring that each such standard be at
least as stringent as the MACT floor,
supports, if not requires, that floors be
derived for each pollutant based on the
emissions levels achieved for each
pollutant.
We also disagree with the commenters
who complain that there may not be any
operating unit that currently employs
the complete suite of MACT
technologies and meets the revised
limits. The suite of MACT floor controls
identified by the final rule approach
(specifically, the combination of dry and
wet control systems) is already used by
four existing HMIWI that meet most of
the MACT floor standards. For example,
one HMIWI, equipped with a high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filtering system, carbon bed adsorber,
and rotary atomizing wet scrubber, is
estimated to meet all nine revised
emissions limits in the final rule;
another HMIWI, equipped with a lime
injection system, powdered activated
carbon injection system, baghouse, and
vertical upflow two-stage multi-
microventuri scrubber system, is
estimated to meet eight of the nine
revised limits. Also, an estimated 42 of
the 57 HMIWI are estimated to meet
both the CO and NOx revised limits
simultaneously with existing
combustion controls. (See 2009
memorandum entitled "Revised
Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs
for Existing HMIWI," which is included
in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
The MACT control techniques for the
various pollutants are fully integratable
and compatible. There do not appear to
be any conflicts where meeting the
standard for one pollutant may
jeopardize the achievability of meeting
another pollutant's limit. This
conclusion is supported in part by a
review of available data and
information. As discussed above, there
are currently four units that are
achieving most, if not all, of the floor
standards (based on actual data for each
pollutant) using the complete suite of
L-15
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51381
MACT floor controls. Thus, we
conclude that our approach results in
compatible MACT controls. Further, an
evaluation of the emissions data from
units that have measured data for all
pollutants supports our conclusion. Our
analysis shows that 12 percent (7 of 57
units) simultaneously meet all of the
MACT floor emissions levels. (For
further information, see 2009
memorandum entitled "Revised
Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs
for Existing HMIWI," which is included
in the docket for today's rulemaking.)
We also disagree with commenters
claiming that it is inappropriate to
consider a suite of floor control
techniques that may not be currently in
use by the source category. There is no
reason not to consider emissions data
and controls in use at sources that may
be the best performers from some
pollutants but not for other pollutants.
The MACT floor controls applicable for
one pollutant do not preclude the use of
MACT floor controls for another
pollutant. Therefore, it is appropriate to
consider controls at sources employing
MACT controls for some pollutants, but
not all. For example, floor controls for
existing large HMIWI include wet
scrubbers for HC1 control, dry scrubbers
or combination dry/wet systems for PM
and metals control, activated carbon
injection for CDD/CDF control, and wet
scrubbers or dry scrubbers for SO2
control. As noted previously, wet and
dry systems are demonstrated to be
compatible, and it would be
inappropriate to exclude from the
MACT floor pool those units equipped
with wet or dry systems because some
of the control systems do better with
some pollutants (e.g., wet scrubbers
with HC1) than others (see previous
memorandum).
EPA disagrees strongly with
commenters arguing that Congress has
directly addressed the issue of whether
the MACT floor can be established on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. With
respect to the MACT floor mandate of
Section 112, there appears, rather, to be
a substantial ambiguity in the statutory
language about whether the MACT floor
is to be based on the performance of an
entire source or on the performance
achieved in controlling particular
hazardous air pollutants. The language
regarding best performing "sources" (or,
for new sources, "source") could apply
either to the sources' (or source's)
performance as a whole, or performance
as to a particular pollutant or pollutants.
The same is true of the definition of
"emission limitation" in Section 302(k),
which refers to "air pollutants," but
does not address whether the limitation
must apply to every pollutant emitted
by a source, or just some of them. (The
same is true of the reference to "air
pollutants" (in the plural) in Section
112(d)(2).) In this regard, we note that
commenters in other MACT
rulemakings have assumed that Section
129, which governs today's rule and
which uses language essentially
identical to Section 112 in mandating
MACT, requires a pollutant-by-pollutant
approach to establishing floors, because
EPA is commanded to establish
standards for enumerated pollutants
under Section 129(a)(4). We further note
that the DC Circuit, when reviewing the
floor determinations we made in 1997
for HMIWI under Section 129 in Sierra
Club v. EPA, noted that they were set
pollutant-by-pollutant and found no
error in this approach (see 167 F.3d at
660) (although this aspect of the rule
was not challenged specifically).
Indeed, the commenters who object so
vehemently to the pollutant-by-
pollutant approach in this rule raised no
such objection when the opportunity to
litigate the same approach in
establishing the 1997 HMIWI standards
was first presented.
EPA also believes that the
commenters' reference to basing MACT
floors on the performance of a
hypothetical or theoretical unit, so that
the limits are not based on those
achieved in practice, is not only wrong
factually (see above), but just re-begs the
question of what the language in
Sections 112(d)(3) and 129(a)(2) is
referring to. We did not base the
controls or emissions levels on
theoretical sources, but on the
performance of actual units in the
HMIWI source category. All of the
MACT floors are achieved in practice
(since they are based on actual
performance data). Moreover, the DC
Circuit has emphasized that EPA may
use any reasonable means to determine
what levels of performance are achieved
in practice. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
at 663, 665. The commenters' reliance
on cases that they claim preclude EPA's
use of a pollutant-by-pollutant approach
does not compel a unit-based approach,
and the issue is not critical to EPA's
position in any event, since the record
shows that some units are meeting all of
the floor limits and many are meeting
several of them. At the very least, the
CMA v. EPA decision under the CWA
supports the proposition that a
technology-based standard can be
considered achievable even if all limits
are not yet met by a single unit. Since
the floor standards are demonstrably
being achieved in practice by some
sources, this issue is largely academic.
In short, EPA is not persuaded that
the floors must be established on the
basis of a unit's performance for all
pollutants overall. We continue to
believe, as we explained in the 1997
final rule, that such a reading would
lead to results that are at odds with
evident congressional intent (and with
the Court's rulings in NLA II, CKRC and
Brick MACT). To argue that Congress
compelled this type of result is at odds
with both the language of Sections 112
and 129 and common sense. Indeed, it
would necessarily suggest that EPA
could continue to adopt floors that
reflect "no emissions reduction," even
after the DC Circuit so emphatically
forbade that approach in the Brick
MACT ruling (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479
F.3d875 (DCCir. 2007).
As we stated in the preamble to the
1997 regulation (62 FR 48363), we
recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant
approach for determining the MACT
floor can, as it does in this case, cause
the overall cost of the regulation to
increase compared to what would result
under a unit-based methodology. For
example, the pollutant-by-pollutant
approach for the HMIWI regulation
results in a stringent MACT floor for
HC1 based on control using a wet
scrubber, and stringent MACT floors for
PM and metals based on control using
a dry scrubber. We interpret Section 129
of the CAA to require that the MACT
floor be determined in this manner, and
we believe that Congress did in fact
intend that sources subject to
regulations developed under Section
129 meet emissions limits that are
achieved by the best controlled unit for
each pollutant, as long as the control
systems are compatible with each other.
To our knowledge, there is no technical
reason why these two air pollution
control systems cannot be combined.
(62 FR 48363-4) Combined dry/wet
scrubber systems are currently in
operation on several HMIWI. In
response to commenters' concerns
regarding the technical feasibility of
combined dry/wet systems, available
data on the performance of combined
dry/wet scrubber systems indicate that
the MACT floor emissions levels are
achievable and technically feasible. The
performance of dry scrubbers with
activated carbon injection and the
performance of wet scrubbers are well-
documented. The available data for
combination dry/wet systems provide
no indication of operational or
emissions problems that occur as a
result of combining dry and wet control
systems. Regarding the inverse
relationship between CO and NOx with
regard to combustion control, it is
incumbent upon the HMIWI facility to
determine whether combustion
L-16
-------
51382
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
conditions can be adjusted to meet both
standards and, if not, install add-on
NOx controls as necessary, e.g., SNCR
systems.
The MACT floor reflects the least
stringent emissions standards that EPA
may adopt in accordance with Section
129(a)(2) regardless of costs. Other
statutory provisions are relevant,
although they also do not decisively
address this issue. Section 129(a)(4)
requires MACT standards for, at a
minimum, PM, opacity, SO2, HC1, NOx,
CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, and CDD/CDF emitted
by HMIWI. This provision certainly
appears to direct maximum reduction of
each specified pollutant. Moreover,
although the provisions do not state
whether there is to be a separate floor
for each pollutant, the fact that Congress
singled out these pollutants suggests
that the floor level of control need not
be limited by the performance of
devices that only control some of these
pollutants well. (62 FR 48364)
Regarding the commenter's suggestion
that EPA choose the best performing
sources on an overall basis, so that at
least one source can meet all of the new
source standards and a certain portion
of the existing sources can meet the
existing source standards, we reviewed
this approach and found that the
suggested approach does not
consistently result in emissions limits
that are at least as stringent as would
have resulted in 1997 if we had actual
emissions data and used the correct
methodology. We estimate that four
emissions limits for large and small
non-rural HMIWI and five emissions
limits for medium and small rural
HMIWI calculated using the suggested
overall unit-based approach would be
higher than the 1997 emissions limits.
Further, because not all pollutants are
required to be tested (e.g., NOx and
SO2), a substantial fraction of available
emissions data would have to be
discarded in order to rank only those
HMIWI with a complete set of data for
all nine pollutants (PM, SO2, HC1, NOX,
CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, and CDD/CDF).
Specifically, we would have to discard
emissions data for 30 percent of large,
40 percent of medium, 100 percent of
small non-rural, and 50 percent of small
rural HMIWI in order to calculate
MACT floors using the suggested
approach. (See 2009 memorandum
entitled "Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission
Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,"
which is included in the docket for
today's rulemaking.)
A unit-based approach would tend to
result in least common denominator
floors where, as here, multiple
pollutants are emitted, whereby floors
would no longer be reflecting
performance by the best performing
sources for those pollutants. For
example, if the best performing 12
percent of units for HAP metals did not
control acid gases as well as a different
12 percent of units, the floors for acid
gases and metals would not reflect best
performance. Having separate floors for
metals and acid gases in this example
certainly promotes the stated purpose of
the floor to provide a minimum level of
control reflecting what best performing
units have demonstrated the ability to
do.
Similarly, a unit-based approach that
employs ranking of a weighted average
of pollutants would require EPA to
assume priority for certain pollutants
(one unit may have lower NOx
emissions but higher CDD/CDF, for
example). This approach would
similarly tend to require EPA to
disregard the factual levels reflecting the
best performers for individual
performers, but based on value
judgments regarding the risks presented
by various pollutants. Such
considerations are antithetical to strictly
performance-based analyses such as
MACT floor determinations. Indeed,
reviewing EPA's primary copper
smelters MACT standard, the DC Circuit
rejected the argument that risk-based
considerations have any place in the
MACT context (see Sierra Club v. EPA,
353 F.3d 976 (DC Cir. 2004).
3. Adequacy of Emissions Test Data
Comment: Multiple commenters
argued that the proposed standards are
flawed because EPA has not
demonstrated that the actual emissions
data on which the proposed rule is
based adequately represent the full
range of performance of tested facilities.
According to various commenters, the
emissions data were derived from
performance tests conducted under
"representative operating conditions,"
rather than the "worst reasonably
foreseeable circumstances"
contemplated by the case law. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 665
(DC Cir. 1999). Commenters stated that
the proposed emissions limits did not
adequately account for variability, and
said EPA should have sought out more
test data and specifically requested
continuous monitoring data to properly
characterize variability.
Another commenter specifically
recommended that EPA gather
additional data on emissions of medium
HMIWI such as theirs before finalizing
the rule to ensure each medium HMIWI
has data sufficiently accurate and
representative to properly set a MACT
standard in accordance with the CAA
Amendments. According to the
commenter, rigorous quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) procedures
should also be applied to the test data.
One commenter stated that, because
the new regulations are solely based on
previous stack testing, the actual
emissions tests need to be reviewed by
EPA for technical accuracy, as well as
consistency. Although there may have
been insufficient time under the court-
ordered schedule, the commenter
argued that proposed standards cannot
be defended technically in the absence
of such an analysis.
The same commenter also stated that
revisions to EPA's incinerator test
protocol are needed to ensure that the
unit is being tested at proper design
conditions. At a minimum, the
commenter said that incinerator
temperature, waste input rate and
constituents, auxiliary fuel
consumption, quench rates (air and
water), and chemical feed rates need to
be recorded during an incinerator test to
determine whether the operating and
testing conditions were representative of
the higher emissions rates that can be
experienced during normal operations.
Given that emissions are determined by
waste characteristics, the commenter
recommended that a standardized
realistic worst-case test waste be used,
which includes specific criteria
components, as well as moisture content
and heating value. Incinerators would
be tested with the standard waste and
the top 12 percent identified.
Response: First, in response to
industry commenters who claim we
should have gathered more data, we
note that nothing precluded them from
giving us more data to consider in
responding to the Court's remand, if
they felt that the data submitted to us
for purposes of showing compliance
with the 1997 standards was not
representative of their normal
operations. We have reasonably used
the data available to us at the time we
conducted this rulemaking, in the
absence of being provided with any
other data. We agree with the
commenters that emissions tests might
provide information on representative
operations only where owners and
operators conducting the tests have
endeavored to reflect such
representative operations at the time of
the tests. However, when conducting
tests to establish various parameters to
be monitored, owners and operators
may also endeavor to produce data for
a wide range of operating conditions.
Moreover, we have taken several steps
to try and account for the emissions and
operational variability, including (1)
obtaining additional emissions test data
L-17
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51383
from States and EPA Regions
representing all available annual test
results for each unit, (2) using
individual test run data for the best-
performing 12 percent of sources to
calculate UCL values, (3) using a
substantial confidence interval
(specifically, a 99 percent UCL value),
and (4) closely reviewing how the data
are distributed (e.g., normally,
lognormally). Also, EPA's own review? of
emissions factors shows that the
variability of emissions between
facilities is greater than the variability
within facilities.
We believe that the data quality
concerns expressed by the commenters
have been addressed in a number of
ways. First, EPA test methods
incorporate data quality assurance and
quality control steps and acceptance
criteria at several levels. These
provisions assure that the data produced
are of quality sufficient for decision
making, including compliance, when
the methods are followed and the
acceptance criteria are met. Second,
States further assure that testers adhere
to the test methods by providing third
party oversight and review of
compliance tests conducted by industry,
such as that being discussed here. The
States also implement the source testing
audit program when available, further
assuring the high quality of emissions
testing data. Third, through internal and
contractor support efforts for this
regulatory project, EPA conducted
additional review? of the initial
emissions test data to check for
completeness and appropriate
characterization of process operations.
Finally, EPA reviewed and accounted
for variability inherent in the emissions
data used in establishing the applicable
emissions limit including applying
statistical confidence intervals.
Regarding the comment about
revisions to EPA's incinerator test
protocol, the factors cited by the
commenter could be considered in
setting site-specific compliance
conditions. Such an approach may be
useful at the next technology review?.
The commenter's suggestion that EPA
use a standardized waste for testing is
questionable, unless EPA wanted to
establish a certification testing program
like the residential wood combustion
rule. However, such a program would be
cumbersome and could potentially
eliminate a majority of the industry.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that EPA did not consider the accuracy
and precision of the EPA test methods
in proposing the emissions limits for
new? and existing HMIWI. To support
their argument, the commenters
referenced the findings of the Reference
Method Accuracy and Precision
(ReMAP) program co-sponsored by the
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME). According to the
commenters, one of the main objectives
of the ReMAP project was to ensure
emissions limits would properly
consider the inherent accuracy and
precision limits of the test methods used
to demonstrate compliance, such that a
facility would not be in violation of a
limit as a result of this inherent
variability. The commenters noted that
the ReMAP program established
Precision Metrics for various reference
methods and corresponding pollutants
(e.g., +42 percent for CDD/CDF Method
23), and they compared these Precision
Metrics to actual stack concentrations
and proposed emissions limits for
several pollutants. Based on this
comparison, the commenters concluded
that EPA did not adequately address
these Precision Metrics in establishing
the proposed limits.
Response: As noted above, we already
took into account variability inherent in
the data representing emissions and
process operations in establishing the
emissions limit. By using UCLs to set
our emissions limits, we have
inherently accounted for measurement
precision. In fact, the adjustments we
made to the average stack
concentrations for the best-performing
12 percent of units to calculate the final
emissions limits more than account for
the Precision Metrics cited by the
commenters. Thus, any additional
adjustments of measurement to account
for method precision are unnecessary.
Comment: One commenter stated that
there are significant deficiencies in the
emissions data used to establish the
standards. Some of the standards are
based on data from a limited number of
stack tests. According to the commenter,
there needs to be a standard for the
minimum number of stack tests that
must be performed before its data can be
used as the basis for determining the top
12 percent performing incinerators.
Because of the waste characteristics and
variability, the commenter
recommended a minimum of four tests.
The commenter noted that some of the
units included in the top 12 percent are
specialty incinerators, which the
commenter said are not representative
of the subcategory as a whole. The
commenter also noted that another unit
incinerates municipal waste, which the
commenter argued should cause its data
to be invalid for the proposed HMIWI
standards. According to the commenter,
municipal waste would be expected to
have a makeup that produces
significantly lower emissions for some
pollutants (e.g., CDD/CDF, Cd). The
commenter recommended developing a
testing metric (e.g., heating value, flue
gas per pound of feed) and applying it
to the data used to indicate possible
flaws (e.g., variations and/or
abnormalities) which would spur
further investigation into the validity of
the data. Of the 45 emissions tests used
to develop emissions limits for the large
subcategory, the commenter concluded
that 38 of those tests could be
considered invalid because of too little
testing or the unrepresentative content
of the incinerated waste stream.
Response: Regarding the commenter's
argument about claimed deficiencies in
the emissions data used to establish the
standards, we do not believe that data
from high quality tests should be
dismissed simply because there are only
a few tests. As noted above, we have
reasonably relied upon the data we had
available to us, and we have already
taken steps to alleviate concerns about
the representativeness of the measured
data used to establish the emissions
limit, including calculating UCL
estimates using standard statistical
conventions.
Regarding the commenter's concerns
about the specialty incinerators and the
facility that also incinerates municipal
waste, we evaluated creating separate
subcategories for captive units (which
would include the specialty
incinerators) and a separate subcategory
for mixed waste units, but as noted
above, we ultimately rejected both
options because we did not provide an
opportunity to comment on the issue of
subcategorization in the December 2008
re-proposal or a record that would
justify such a significant change in
categorization. Another option to
address the facility incinerating
municipal waste would be to use only
the emissions data from those tests
conducted with 100 percent medical
waste, but that would limit the number
of tests for that facility. Also, we have
found a significant amount of overlap in
emissions (including CDD/CDF and Cd)
between the different test conditions at
the facility (e.g., 100 percent medical
waste, 50 percent medical waste, 20
percent medical waste, etc.), suggesting
that such a distinction in waste type is
not very meaningful in this case. (See
2008 memorandum entitled
"Documentation of HMIWI Test Data
Database," which is included in the
docket.)
Comment: Three commenters stated
that some emissions test data were
improperly excluded from the dataset,
including data deemed "non-
compliant," data collected at HMIWI
subsequently shut down, and data
collected under specific "test
L-18
-------
51384
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
conditions." The commenters argued
that emissions test data from
compliance tests that were conducted in
accordance with the applicable
reference test methods for affected
HMIWI should not be arbitrarily
excluded from the re-stated MACT
dataset, because that undermines the
entire data evaluation process. The
commenters stated that EPA provides no
rationale for arbitrarily including data in
some instances, and excluding them in
others. Thus, according to the
commenters, EPA's proposed standards
are arbitrary and capricious. The
commenters said that inclusion of all
valid test data provides a better
representation of the inherent variability
of the various test methods and source
operation. According to the
commenters, EPA's MACT floor dataset
was inconsistent, leading EPA to rely on
an unrepresentative set of data. The
commenters recommended that EPA
provide a clear description of
"representative HMIWI operation" so
that consistent criteria are applied to
evaluate whether valid emissions test
data were properly included or
excluded from the MACT floor dataset.
Response: Non-compliant emissions
data from the initial tests of HMIWI
were not included in the emissions
database used to establish the emissions
limits. At the time of the initial test,
operators were still in the process of
establishing their operating parameters
and tuning their emissions control
devices and operating conditions to
comply with the regulation. Any non-
compliant emissions data from the
initial test would be expected to trigger
a change in HMIWI operation in order
to come back into compliance with the
1997 standards. Consequently, the non-
compliant emissions data from these
tests would not be representative of the
typical operation of these HMIWI.
If non-compliant emissions data from
an annual test were substantially higher
than the emissions typically seen from
the facility or were substantially higher
than the emissions limit, this strongly
suggested that there was a problem
during the test and indicated that the
test results would not be representative
of the typical operation of the HMIWI.
Such data were excluded from the
pollutant averages for the particular
facility. (It should be noted that the data
that were excluded amount to less than
1 percent of the total set of emissions
data for the industry.) For example, the
emissions data from tests on one unit
did not meet the PM or Cd emissions
limit during an August 2006 annual test.
A subsequent retest of this unit for those
same pollutants in November 2006
showed PM emissions results less than
10 percent of those measured earlier,
and Cd emissions results about 0.1
percent of the previously measured
results. Consequently, we believe that
the August 2006 PM and Cd test results
were not representative of the typical
operation of the HMIWI, and they were
not included in the test data database.
The PM and Cd retest data from the
November 2006 retest were included
instead. (See previous memorandum.)
We also excluded test data if we
found errors in the calculations or the
test methods, or some important
elements of the data needed to calculate
emissions in the form of the standard
were missing. For example, we
excluded the TEQ emissions estimates
provided for a 2005 annual test at a
second HMIWI because the reported
TEQ estimates were greater than the
total CDD/CDF estimates provided, a
clearly incorrect result. The total CDD/
CDF estimates were believed to be the
correct values because they were well
within the applicable emissions limit,
while the TEQ estimates were a few
times higher than the applicable limit.
The 2001 annual test results for HC1 at
a third HMIWI were deemed invalid
because the HC1 sample train did not
meet the method's +95 percent sample
collection efficiency requirement. There
was believed to be some contamination
in the sample collection and/or recovery
during the 2005 Pb test at a fourth
HMIWI, so a retest in February 2006 was
conducted. The Pb results from the
February 2006 retest were included with
the results of the 2005 annual test in the
test data database, replacing the 2005 Pb
results. The first HC1 test run during a
2006 test at a fifth HMIWI was below
the detection limit, and the laboratory
that analyzed the samples did not
provide a detection limit for this test
run. In this case, we decided to delete
the results for this particular test run
and calculated the HC1 average for the
2006 test using the results from the
other two test runs. Similarly, the
second Hg test run during the 2003 test
at a sixth HMIWI was reported to be
below the detection limit, but the data
summary did not include the measured
Hg detection limit. Attempts to obtain
the detection limit for this test run from
the facility were unsuccessful.
Consequently, we decided to delete the
results for this test run and calculated
the Hg average for the 2003 test using
the results from the other two test runs.
(See previous memorandum.)
A couple of annual compliance tests
were excluded from the unit averages
because they were conducted under test
conditions (e.g., reduced emissions
control) that were not considered
representative of the typical operation of
the HMIWI. The exclusion of these tests
had little impact on most of the
pollutant averages for these HMIWI, and
it should be noted that these HMIWI are
not in the MACT floors of the pollutants
of interest. One HMIWI was unable to
meet the CDD/CDF emissions limit
during the 2003 and 2004 annual
compliance tests conducted without
activated carbon. Only when activated
carbon injection was included as a
second test condition during the 2004
annual compliance test was the facility
able to meet the CDD/CDF emissions
limit. Consequently, we determined that
the second test condition was more
representative of the typical, current
operation of the HMIWI. During a Hg
annual compliance test, another HMIWI
was unable to meet the Hg percent
reduction limit under the test condition
with a lower activated carbon injection
rate, but was able to meet the limit
under the test condition with a higher
activated carbon injection rate. The Hg
data meeting the limit were considered
representative of the typical operation of
the HMIWI, and the other Hg data were
rejected. (See previous memorandum.)
Regarding the argument that EPA
improperly excluded data available
from HMIWI that subsequently shut
down, we believe that it is appropriate
in this particular rulemaking to base the
MACT floor on emissions data from
facilities that are currently operating,
since those are the facilities that would
be complying with the rule.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that the treatment of individual "non-
detect" data points within the MACT
floor dataset should be consistent and
should represent the actual detection
level of the pollutant of concern. The
commenters noted that non-detect or
zero data provided as part of the latest
data request were considered equal to
the method detection limit, while CDD/
CDF test data already in EPA's project
files were calculated at one-half the
detection limit. While this approach
may be valid for total CDD/CDF, the
commenters argued that it could have a
profound effect on TEQ.
Response: In response to the
commenters, it should be noted that
section 9 of EPA Method 23 specifies
that "[a]ny PCDD's or PCDF's that are
reported as below the measurement
detection level (MDL) shall be counted
as zero for the purpose of calculating the
total concentration of PCDD's and
PCDF's in the sample." The CDD/CDF
results reported in the facilities' initial
test reports and provided by States and
EPA Regions in the annual test
summaries reflect this computation
approach. Consequently, by using one-
half the detection limit in our review of
L-19
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51385
CDD/CDF data in full test reports, we
were being conservative in our
estimation of CDD/CDF emissions.
Nonetheless, we looked at those HMIWI
in the MACT floor for total CDD/CDF
and TEQ to determine whether using
the full detection limit would make a
substantial difference. When we
averaged in the results with all other
CDD/CDF results for each facility, we
found on average essentially no
difference in total CDD/CDF emissions
estimates (less than 1 percent) and only
a small difference in TEQ emissions
estimates (0.1 to 20 percent) for the four
HMIWI size categories. (See 2009
memorandum entitled "Comparison of
CDD/CDF Non-Detect Data—Full
Detection Limit vs. Vz Detection Limit,"
which is included in the docket for
today's rulemaking.)
4. Non-Technology Factors
Comment: Numerous commenters
stated that the variability in non-
technology factors, such as the materials
and composition fed to combustion
devices, must be adequately addressed
in the rulemaking process in order to
promulgate a feasible rule, Sierra Club,
479 F.3d at 883 and Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d
855, 865 (DC Cir. 2001). According to
various commenters, EPA did not
identify the non-technology factors in
the proposed rule or quantify their effect
on actual emissions performance, but
instead claimed, without supporting
evidence, that using actual emissions
levels accurately reflects emissions
performance resulting from the use of
add-on controls and other emissions
reduction measures. Commenters
argued that the failure to make these
findings renders the proposed standards
arbitrary. Another commenter disagreed,
stating that EPA's proposed floor
approach for new and existing HMIWI
is generally correct and that EPA
correctly observed that the use of actual
emissions levels accounts for all
emissions reduction strategies.
Response: With regard to the
commenters' argument, the CAA does
not require EPA to quantify the
emissions reductions resulting from all
non-technology factors, but instead
focuses on identifying the emissions
levels achieved by best performing
sources no matter what means they use
to achieve them. This approach is
supported by the DC Circuit's decision
in the Brick MACT case, which stressed
the importance of identifying emissions
"levels" achieved by sources. There can
be no dispute that both the composition
and level of emissions exiting the
incinerator reflect both the add-on
control technologies used by a unit (e.g.,
dry scrubber, wet scrubber, activated
carbon) that control the emissions and
the non-technology factors (e.g., waste
material quantity and composition,
combustion conditions) that influence
the level and composition of emissions.
As the Sierra Club Court noted in 1999,
the less mercury fed into the waste
stream, the less mercury emissions will
be coming out of the stack. Whatever
combination of add-on controls and
non-technology measures a unit is
employing will, therefore, necessarily
affect the resulting emissions levels that
are reflected in the actual emissions
data upon which the revised floors are
set. It would be impossible for those
data to not reflect all those measures.
This situation is quite the opposite of
what was presented in the 1997
rulemaking, in which the floors were
primarily derived from permit and
regulatory levels that were not
necessarily reflective of actual
emissions performance but were
assumed to reflect levels achievable by
add-on control only. At that time, to
adjust floors downward to account for
non-technology factors, it might indeed
have been necessary to be able to
quantify additional emissions
reductions attributable to such
measures. Similarly, as the 2007
proposed remand response still in large
part relied upon the permit and
regulatory levels, not knowing the
quantified reductions achieved by non-
technology measures frustrated
estimating the emissions levels achieved
in practice by HMIWI. But this is simply
not an issue under a methodology that
depends upon the measured emissions
levels that result from whatever mix of
add-on or non-technology controls is
being used, as under the 2008 re-
proposal and today's final rule. The
non-technology factors cannot help but
affect the actual emissions data, and
they are, therefore, necessarily
accounted for in the actual emissions
data-based floors.
EPA's data gathering effort for this
rulemaking included not just initial and
annual emissions test data obtained
from EPA Regions, State/local
governments, and HMIWI facilities, but
also a waste segregation practices
questionnaire sent to nine
representative entities in the HMIWI
category (six hospitals, one
pharmaceutical facility, one university,
and one company that owns 8 of the 14
commercial HMIWI). (See 2008
memoranda entitled "Documentation of
HMIWI Test Data Database" and
"Summary of Industry Responses to
HMIWI Waste Segregation Information
Collection Request," which are included
in the docket.) While our analysis of the
emissions test data indicates a strong
relationship between add-on control
and emissions (e.g., wet scrubbers
achieve superior HC1 control, while dry
scrubbers achieve superior PM and
metals control), our review? of the
questionnaire responses indicates that
non-technology factors also play a role
in emissions reduction. All of the
survey respondents, except for the
commercial company, practice onsite
waste segregation to reduce the volume
of waste being incinerated. Most of the
respondents started the practice of
waste segregation in the 1980s and
1990s. Five respondents also accept
offsite waste and require the offsite
waste generators to employ waste
segregation practices. The commercial
company encourages waste segregation
from its waste generator clients through
a number of efforts, including a waste
management plan, contract
requirements and waste acceptance
protocols, a dental waste management
program, and educational programs and
supporting posters. All of the
respondents that practice onsite waste
segregation separate batteries and
fluorescent bulbs (i.e., mercury waste)
from the HMI waste stream. Eight
respondents separate paper and/or
cardboard, four separate glass, and three
separate plastics from the HMI waste
stream. Other materials that are
separated from the HMI waste stream
include hazardous waste, waste oil,
wood, construction debris, refrigerants,
and various metals and metals-
containing materials (e.g., aluminum,
copper, lead, mercury, steel, and
electronics). (For further information,
see 2008 memorandum "Summary of
Industry Responses to HMIWI Waste
Segregation Information Collection
Request," which is included in the
docket.) These waste segregation efforts
would certainly have an impact on the
emissions of CDD/CDF, mercury, and
other pollutants from these HMIWI and
would be reflected in the emissions
levels measured during their initial and
annual emissions tests and used in our
test data analysis. As noted previously,
the nine entities surveyed were believed
to be representative of the HMIWI
industry as a whole, so the conclusions
reached for the nine entities are also
expected to apply to the entire industry
as well.
5. Straight Emissions Approach
Comment: Two commenters argued
that the parenthetical language in the
Brick MACT decision equating the best
performers with "those with the lowest
emissions levels" (straight emissions
approach) was only a legal dictum to
L-20
-------
51386
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
which EPA is not bound, and which is
not cited in either the CKRC decision or
the CAA. The commenters cited Sierra
Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 880 (DC Cir.
2007) (Brick MACT), and Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d
855, 861 (DC Cir. 2001). In citing EPA's
justification for the MACT floor
approach used in the hazardous waste
combustor rulemaking, the commenters
stated EPA's position that the CAA does
not require the Agency to equate the
best performers with the lowest
emitters. The commenters specifically
cited EPA's statement that, "as a legal
matter, CAA Section 112(d)(3) does not
specifically address the question of
whether 'best performing' sources are
those with the lowest net emissions, or
those which control HAP emissions
most efficiently."
The commenters also noted that, since
the Brick MACT decision, EPA has
determined that there are other ways to
rank the best performing sources and set
the MACT floors than a straight
emissions approach, such as the
approach used in the hazardous waste
combustor rulemaking, which combined
the hazardous waste fed to the source
and the source's system removal
efficiency (SRE). According to the
commenters, the "SRE Feed"
methodology better identifies who the
lowest emitters will be over time, better
assesses their performance (i.e., how
much they will emit as they operate),
and better accounts for variability (e.g.,
non-technology factors).
Response: It is not necessary to adopt
a position regarding whether the Brick
MACT Court's references to "emissions
levels" is dictum or binding for
purposes of this rulemaking. In the 1999
HMIWI case, the Court very clearly
stated that EPA's duty here was to use
data that allowed the Agency to
reasonably estimate the emissions
performance of the best performing
units. We have discovered that the
permit and regulatory data upon which
the 1997 rule was based do not reliably
serve this purpose. Conversely, the
actual emissions data from HMIWI do
enable us to estimate the performance of
the best performers. We believe that the
use of actual emissions data,
appropriately adjusted for variability
using statistical methods, sufficiently
accounts for the performance and
variability of HMIWI operation.
Regarding the commenters' reference to
CAA Section 112(d)(3) to support their
argument regarding the definition of
"best performing" sources, we assume
the commenters also meant Section 129,
which governs this rule.
We do not think the SRE Feed
methodology can be successfully
adapted to determine MACT floors for
HMIWI. This is because the SRE Feed
approach requires knowledge of the
amount of hazardous materials fed into
the system and knowledge of the
system's removal efficiency for those
specific materials, neither of which is
known or measured in the HMIWI
industry. Such materials are mixed in
with other waste and cannot reasonably
be measured separately, especially given
the occupational safety regulations to
which HMIWI operators are subject.
6. Statistical Approach
Comment: Multiple commenters
stated that the statistical methodology
EPA used to establish MACT floors did
not properly account for underlying
non-technology factors such as feed
material quantity or composition or for
normal operational variability within
and across unit operations, which led to
unattainable emissions limits.
Three of those commenters supported
the conditional use of the 99.9 percent
UCL to quantify "emissions limitation
achieved" as it applies to variability
above average emissions. However, the
three commenters had concerns about
EPA's methods used to calculate
statistical parameters. The commenters
stated that EPA should characterize
emissions data distributions before
calculating statistics, instead of
assuming all data are normally
distributed. Otherwise, according to the
commenters, it is difficult to determine
if the statistics are valid. When data are
not normally distributed, the
commenters recommended that EPA
transform the data prior to conducting
its statistical calculations. The
commenters noted that EPA used the
NORMSINV function in Microsoft Excel
to calculate the 99.9 percent UCL,
which assumes that the actual mean and
variance of a data set is known.
According to the commenters, when the
mean and variance are estimated from
random samples or a small subset of the
total population, such as stack test runs,
the 99.9 percent UCL should be
calculated with the Student t-statistic
using the TINV function in Excel, not
normal statistics.
Two other commenters objected to the
use of the 99.9 percent UCL to account
for variability in determining emissions
limits. One of the commenters argued
that EPA provides insufficient
explanation or justification of its use of
the 99.9 percent UCL. According to the
commenter, if the performance of the
best performing HMIWI, on average, is
estimated to meet the emissions limit
99.9 percent of the time, then it would
be expected to exceed the emissions
limit 8.76 hours per year, which does
not comply with the requirement that
each source must meet the specified
floor every day and under all operating
conditions. Therefore, the commenter
argued that the 99.9 percent UCL
procedure used by EPA is deficient and
must be revised.
The other commenter stated that
EPA's use of a 99.9 percent UCL to
estimate individual units' variability
marks a sharp departure from EPA's
approach in other rulemakings (e.g., 90
percent and 95 percent UCL), and said
that EPA offers no real explanation for
this departure from past practice or why
a 99.9 percent UCL would account for
variability but a lower UCL, such as 99
percent or 95 percent or 90 percent,
would not. The commenter
recommended that EPA correct its floor
approach to avoid the
overcompensation for variability seen
with some of the floors for new units.
Two commenters stated that a more
realistic assessment of an individual
unit's ability to meet an emissions limit
during a compliance test would use the
99.9 percent UCL for that unit/pollutant
instead of the average value.
Four commenters disagreed with
EPA's decision to use individual test
run results to account for variability in
setting MACT floors for new and
existing sources. The commenters urged
EPA to use complete performance test
results instead. One of the commenters
argued that EPA is arbitrarily using
different measures of performance for
establishing emissions standards on the
one hand (using test runs) and
measuring compliance with these
standards on the other (using whole
tests), without explaining why different
measurement approaches are
appropriate. According to the
commenter, it appears likely that
disaggregating test results leads to less
protective floors by creating false
variability in individual units'
performance. The commenter
recommended that EPA calculate the
floors with and without disaggregating
individual test runs to ensure that its
floors are not less stringent as a result
of that approach. The other commenters
noted that data limitations may not
leave EPA an alternative to using test
run results in some cases, but they
recommended that EPA use complete
test results where enough data exist to
characterize emissions variability.
Response: Based on the responses to
our waste segregation practices
questionnaire, we believe that most
HMIWI are practicing (or encouraging
the practice of) waste segregation of
materials such as batteries, fluorescent
bulbs, paper, glass, plastics, and metals-
containing materials, which we expect
L-21
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51387
to impact the emissions of CDD/CDF,
mercury, and other pollutants and be
reflected in the actual emissions data we
use in our analysis. (See 2008
memorandum "Summary of Industry
Responses to HMIWI Waste Segregation
Information Collection Request," which
is included in the docket.)
Consequently, we believe that using
actual emissions data sufficiently and
inherently accounts for non-technology
factors such as feed material quantity or
composition which influence the level
and composition of emissions. We also
believe that our use of multiple
emissions tests and individual test runs
for each HMIWI, where possible, and
our estimation of 99 percent confidence
intervals for MACT floor data
sufficiently accounts for variability. The
use of multiple emissions tests allows
us to evaluate "between-test
variability," which can occur even
where conditions appear to be the same
when two or more tests are conducted.
As we noted in the preamble to the
December 1, 2008 re-proposal (73 FR
72976, 72980), variations in emissions
may be caused by different settings for
emissions testing equipment, different
field teams conducting the testing,
differences in sample handling, or
different laboratories analyzing the
results. Identifying an achieved
emissions level needs to account for
these differences between tests, in order
for "a uniform standard [to] be capable
of being met under most adverse
conditions which can reasonably be
expected to recur[.]" (See NLA I, 627
F.2d at 431, n. 46.) (See also Portland
Cement Ass'n, 486 F.2d at 396 (noting
industry point that "a single test offered
a weak basis" for inferring that plants
could meet the standards).) The use of
individual test runs (as opposed to test
averages or unit averages) allows us to
evaluate "within-test variability." A
single test at a unit usually includes at
least three separate test runs. (See
§ 63.7(e)(3) (for MACT standards under
Section 112 of the CAA), and § 60.8(f)
(for NSPS under CAA Section 111).)
Each data point should be viewed as a
snapshot of actual performance. Along
with an understanding of the factors
that may affect performance, each of
these snapshots gives information about
the normal, and unavoidable, variation
in emissions that would be expected to
recur over time. To account for
pollutant-specific variability at the best-
performing unit (for new source MACT)
or best-performing 12 percent of units
(for existing source MACT), we used
emissions data for each test run
conducted by those units. The amount
of pollutant-specific test data for those
HMIWI varies widely for each size
category. Given the limited amount of
test data and the uncertainty regarding
that short-term emissions test data, we
have decided that using the 99 percent
UCL is an appropriate method of
estimating variability. The UCL
represents the statistical likelihood that
a value, in this case an emissions value
from the best performing source, will
fall at or below the UCL value. (Further
discussion regarding the 99 percent UCL
is provided later in this section.)
After reviewing the commenters'
suggestion that we characterize
emissions data distributions before
calculating statistics, we took a closer
look at our statistical approach. In
statistics, skewness is a measure of the
degree of asymmetry of a distribution.
Normal distributions typically have a
skewness of zero. Consequently, to
determine whether the emissions test
data used in our UCL calculations had
a normal or lognormal distribution, we
estimated the skewness of the data using
the SKEW function in Excel. Except as
specified below, those datasets with a
skewness value greater than zero (when
rounded to a whole number) were
categorized as lognormal, and all other
datasets were categorized as normal.
Those data categorized as lognormal
were transformed (by taking the natural
log of the data) prior to the calculation
of UCL values. When there were only a
few data points (e.g., one emissions test
with three test runs), which is the case
for most datasets for small HMIWI, it
was not possible to make a definitive
determination that the data were
distributed normally or lognormally. (In
fact, assuming a lognormal distribution
for those data often resulted in UCL
values that were substantially higher
than the 1997 promulgated limits.) In
those cases, we decided to use the
normal distribution in calculating UCL
values, a conservative assumption
which provided a more protective
emissions limit. When we had more
data and could make a more definitive
determination about a dataset's
distribution, we treated the data as
noted previously. In most cases, we
found that the larger datasets are
lognormally distributed, although there
are some cases where they appear to be
distributed normally, and we treated the
data as such when doing our UCL
calculations. We believe this approach
is more accurate and obtained more
representative results than those at re-
proposal.
Regarding the commenters' suggestion
about using Student's t-statistics in
calculating the UCL values, we also
decided to revisit our statistical
approach. We agree that we have only
a relatively small, random sample of
emissions data available for our
analysis, which calls for the use of the
Student's t-test, in accordance with
standard statistical practice.
Consequently, we have decided to use
the TINV function in Excel (specifically
the one-tailed t-value), rather than the
NORMSINV function, to calculate the
UCL values. This approach (using the
Student's t-test) is consistent with
approaches being taken in other EPA
rulemakings, such as Portland Cement.
In response to public comments on
the size of the confidence limits used at
re-proposal and in light of the
aforementioned changes in our
statistical approach, we also decided to
reevaluate the percentiles used in the
UCL values. We evaluated four different
percentiles (90, 95, 99, and 99.9
percent). The 99.9 percent UCL values
estimated for the 2009 final rule are
substantially higher than the highest test
runs for the MACT floor units and are
frequently higher than the emissions
limits in the September 15, 1997
promulgated standards, indicating the
99.9th percentile overcompensates for
variability. Lower percentiles (e.g., 90,
95, and 99 percent) are inherently more
stable than the 99.9th percentile, with
less uncertainty (less variability) than
the 99.9th percentile from a statistical
standpoint. However, the 90 and 95
percent UCL values are frequently lower
than the highest test runs for the MACT
floor units and the stringent emissions
limits in the December 1, 2008 re-
proposal, indicating that those
percentiles provide insufficient
compensation for variability.
The 99 percent UCL values are
somewhat higher than the emissions
limits in the December 1, 2008 re-
proposal but are well below the
emissions limits in the September 15,
1997 promulgated standards. The 99
percent UCL values are more in line
with the highest test runs for the MACT
floor units than the other percentiles,
indicating that the 99 percent UCL
provides a more reasonable
compensation for variability. This
approach results in standards more
representative of the level of emissions
reduction that the best performing
sources are actually achieving.
Accordingly, we have decided to use the
99 percent UCL to estimate emissions
limits for the 2009 final rule.
We disagree with one commenter's
argument that the 99.9 percent UCL
must provide for the floor to be met
every day and under all operating
conditions. The UCL is not about time,
but about the population of data.
Accounting for variability using the 99.9
percent UCL goes beyond the absolute
L-22
-------
51388
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
average but does not produce
expectations of 0.1 percent
noncompliance. Setting the emissions
limit at the UCL accounts for the
possibility of variability and the
possibility that the average is outside
the range. These statistical procedures
are used to help us identify the average
emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing units, as Section
129(a)(2) of the CAA requires. Also,
there is no practical upper limit as to
what a facility can emit, so the argument
that that EPA must set a floor at a level
that equates to what a facility can meet
at all times is not consistent with the
CAA's requirement that EPA estimate
the emissions levels achieved by best
performing units.
Regarding the comment about our
decision to use individual test run
results to account for variability, we felt
it was necessary to use test run results
when we had data limitations (e.g., for
small HMIWI) and for consistency
decided to take the same approach
where data were more plentiful. As
noted previously, we believe that each
data point should be viewed as a
snapshot of actual performance, which
gives information about the variation in
emissions that would be expected to
recur over time.
D. Emissions Limits
1. HC1, CDD/CDF, and Metals Emissions
Limits
Comment: One commenter argued
that EPA's proposed HC1 standards of
2.4 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
for existing sources and 0.75 ppmv for
new sources are based on biased data of
indeterminate quality and are
unachievable. The commenter also
claimed that setting the HC1 standards at
such low levels will negatively impact
the development and application of
GEMS, due to the lack of correlation
between Method 26A and GEMS at
concentrations comparable to the
proposed standards. According to the
commenter, the test results (Methods 26
and 26A and RCRA SW 846 Method
0050) that EPA used to set the HC1
standards contain a known bias at low
levels of HC1, varying widely with
temperature and moisture at HC1 levels
below 20 ppmv (all three methods), and
having a negative bias at HC1 levels
below 5 ppmv (Method 26A). The
commenter noted that all of the top
performers in the large, medium, and
small non-rural categories use wet
scrubbers to control HC1 emissions, and
will have considerable moisture in the
stack gas. Thus, the data from every one
of these sources has the potential to be
biased. The commenter argued that HC1
data below 20 ppmv are not usable and/
or representative and are technically
indefensible. The commenter
recommended that EPA follow? the
example of Office of Solid Waste (OSW),
which corrected all HC1 values below 20
ppmv to 20 ppmv, used a statistical
method to impute a standard deviation
for these test runs, and calculated a floor
standard based on those values.
Response: We are basing the HC1
standards in this rulemaking on the data
we have available to us from the HMIWI
source category, and can base them only
on that data. The sensitivity of Method
26A for HC1 is 0.04 ppmv. Moisture is
only an issue with Method 26A if the
testing contractor does not perform the
method correctly. Unless we are given
data to the contrary, we assume that the
HC1 data in our dataset are correct.
These data, for this particular
rulemaking, support the HC1 standards
being adopted today.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the
HC1 standards in our re-proposal were
very close to the method detection limit
for HC1. The changes in statistical
approach for the final rule have resulted
in increases to the HC1 standards above
5 ppmv, which should address some of
the concerns listed above. Furthermore,
based on reported HC1 emissions data
for all HMIWI, we estimate that 64
percent of large, 82 percent of medium,
and 100 percent of small/small rural
HMIWI will be capable of meeting the
revised HC1 standards, on average,
based on their currently used control
measures. It should also be noted that
HMIWI subject to the 1997 NSPS have
been meeting the 15 ppmv HC1 standard
in that rule, which is below the 20
ppmv threshold level that the
commenter cited.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that EPA set beyond-the-
floor standards for both HC1 and
chlorinated organic pollutants
(including CDD/CDF) based on
removing chlorinated plastics from the
waste stream. According to the
commenter, it is well established that
the combustion of chlorinated plastics
increases emissions of HC1 as well as
CDD/CDF and other chlorinated
pollutants. The commenter stated that it
is achievable for HMIWI to remove
chlorinated plastics from the waste
stream that they burn. The commenter
said that EPA can gather data that will
quantify the total amount of HC1 that is
attributable to the combustion of
chlorinated plastics and set a standard
reflecting the maximum degree of
reduction that is achievable through the
removal of chlorinated plastics from the
waste stream.
The same commenter also
recommended that EPA set beyond-the-
floor standards for metals based on
removing all metals from the waste
stream before combustion, consistent
with the requirements under Section
129(a)(2) and (3), which obligate EPA to
require the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions that is
achievable through the use of methods
and technologies before, during, and
after combustion. The commenter stated
that metals do not belong in an
incinerator because they cannot be
destroyed by incineration and are
especially dangerous to public health
and deleterious to the environment. As
far as the commenter knew, EPA has
never disagreed that removing metals
from the HMIWI waste stream is
achievable technically and
economically, and the commenter noted
that EPA has data from the MWC
rulemaking that show materials
separation requirements are effective
and cost-effective. (See Docket A-89-08,
various items.)
Given the language of Section 129 that
requires the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions that is
achievable through the use of pre-
combustion measures, the commenter
argued that EPA has a duty to gather
information on these measures and
evaluate such measures in its beyond-
the-floor analysis. According to the
commenter, EPA's failure to gather
information about the precise reduction
of emissions that will result from such
measures and failure to provide any
explanation for rejecting such a
standard is unlawful and arbitrary. The
commenter noted that EPA has
committed to set final standards by
September 2009, and stated that EPA
should not delay issuance of final
standards to conduct this data gathering,
but should commence data gathering
now and revise the HMIWI regulations
to include beyond-the-floor standards in
the future.
Response: As we explained in the
2008 re-proposal, the identified beyond-
the-floor add-on control measures we
analyzed were not reasonable on a cost-
effectiveness basis, especially in light of
the significantly more stringent floor
levels as compared to the 1997 rule's
standards. We read the commenter's
suggestion that we examine additional
beyond-floor measures but without
delaying final action on the re-proposal
as recommending that we conduct the
requested data gathering and analysis
for those measures in a subsequent
rulemaking action. A possible
opportunity for that would be the next
review of the rule under Sections
129(a)(5) and (h)(3). In the interim,
L-23
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51389
however, we have decided to revise the
waste management plan provisions in
§§ 60.35e and 60.55c to promote the
segregation of chlorinated plastics and
metals to the extent possible.
2. CO Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter argued
that the proposed CO emissions limits
will be unattainable by many applicable
units, based on the emissions data
provided in the docket. The commenter
stated that the add-on controls
evaluated by EPA do not reduce CO
emissions, and that CO emissions can be
a function of the feed material
composition (which the commenter
stated EPA did not evaluate). As a
result, the commenter stated, HMIWI
operators will have very little latitude or
options to meet the proposed CO limits.
Three other commenters stated that
historical CO GEMS data from well-
performing commercial HMIWI
demonstrate that the proposed CO
emissions limit is not achievable on a
continuous basis and argued that the
existing 40 ppmv emissions limit must
be retained. The commenters further
stated that the proposed CO standards
must include a reasonable, extended
averaging period (e.g., 24 hours) that
accounts for the variability of the waste
stream and waste characteristics. The
commenters noted that the proposed
standards are currently based on
discrete 3-hour average data developed
during performance test conditions,
which they said do not account for the
typical operational variability.
According to the commenters, such
snapshot data are also not representative
of long-term continuous monitoring,
placing facilities with CO GEMS at a
competitive disadvantage with any
revisions to the CO standard.
The same three commenters also
stated that the proposed CO standard in
combination with the 7 percent oxygen
(02) diluent correction factor will pose
technological monitoring challenges to
HMIWI that either choose or will be
required to use CO GEMS, especially
given the variability of HMIWI
operations and waste feed streams.
According to the commenters, costly
monitoring systems (e.g., dual range or
ambient level monitors) will be needed,
resulting in additional QA activities.
The commenters further stated that the
application of an O2 correction factor to
the measured CO concentration GEMS
data may cause artificial exceedances of
the CO emissions standard at higher 02
operating scenarios.
Response: Based on our review? of CO
emissions data for all HMIWI, we have
found many HMIWI outperforming the
existing 40 ppmv CO limit. We believe
that the CO limits developed using the
revised statistical approach are more
representative of actual operation, and
we estimate that a substantial
percentage of HMIWI with their current
controls will still be capable of meeting
the revised limits (89 percent of large,
76 percent of medium, and 100 percent
of small/small rural HMIWI, on
average). Therefore, we disagree that the
40 ppmv CO limit must be retained.
Regarding the comment about the 3-
hour average basis for the CO limit, it
should be noted that the 2008 re-
proposal included an amendment to
§ 60.56c allowing sources using GEMS
to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limit on a 24-hour
block average, instead of a 12-hour
rolling average (as specified in the 1997
final rule). This amended provision
should address concerns about the
ability of sources equipped with GEMS
to demonstrate compliance with
emissions limits on a continuous basis
(as opposed to a 3-hour annual test) and
would be consistent with past
rulemakings for incineration units (e.g.,
large and small MWCs).
Regarding the comment about the
application of an O2 correction factor to
the CO GEMS data, it should be noted
that correction to consistent standards
(e.g., percent 02) is necessary in order
to compare to other units and to an
emissions limit. Applying an O2
correction factor to CO GEMS should
only be a problem at O2 levels greater
than 15 percent. For comparison
purposes, we reviewed the O2 levels
recorded in initial test reports, and
found only about 7 of 57 HMIWI
reported 62 levels above 15 percent
during at least one pollutant test run,
and we estimate that 6 of those 7 with
their current equipment will still meet
the revised CO emissions limits, based
on a comparison of the revised limits to
the average CO concentrations for those
HMIWI.
3. Opacity Limits
Comment; Three commenters noted
that EPA requested facility test data
from 2003 through 2006 for all
pollutants except opacity, even though
annual opacity testing is required for all
units. According to the commenters, if
EPA wanted to review? and revise the
opacity limit pursuant to Section
129(a)(5), it should have requested
opacity data and should have used those
data in the re-establishment of the
MACT standards. Instead, the
commenters said, the proposed opacity
limit was inappropriately established
from a single continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) located at a
single HMIWI. The commenters argued
that data from a single unit are
insufficient to set an emissions limit
that must be continuously achieved, and
they said that EPA must seek additional
monitoring data. The commenters also
noted that compliance with the
proposed opacity limit established by
COMS is demonstrated using a different
measurement methodology (Method 9).
The same three commenters, plus a
fourth commenter, stated that the
methodology that EPA used to establish
the 2 percent opacity limit fails to
account for actual opacity monitoring
capabilities and normal operational
variability, such as that included in PS-
1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B).
According to the commenters, the
inherent potential error of a COMS
meeting PS-1 could greatly exceed the
proposed opacity limit value. The fourth
commenter argued that opacity under
the worst foreseeable circumstances for
the best-performing units would thus
easily violate the MACT floor, which
the commenter said would violate
Sierra Club. 167 F.3d at 665.
All four commenters noted that,
similar to COMS accuracy, Method 9
calls for recording visual observations to
the nearest 5 percent at 15-second
intervals. The commenters stated that
using a compliance method with
inherent potential accuracy levels
exceeding the proposed 2 percent
opacity limit appears problematic.
Given the limitations of Method 9 and
the variability of all the HMIWI subject
to the revised opacity standard, the first
three commenters recommended that
EPA establish an opacity standard based
on Method 9 data instead of COMS data
from a single unit. All four commenters
argued that the current 10 percent
opacity limit is reasonable, and would
allow conventional compliance
determination methods to be used,
accounting for their limitations.
Response: The commenters' argument
about how we established the proposed
opacity limit is somewhat misleading.
While we acknowledge that opacity data
were inadvertently not included in the
2007-08 test data request, we already
had opacity data for nearly 90 percent
of all HMIWI from their initial
compliance tests, and our initial opacity
MACT floor analysis was based on the
best-performing 12 percent of sources
for opacity. As we stated in the
preamble to the December 1, 2008 re-
proposal (73 FR 72983), based on the
opacity averages alone, without any
accounting for variability, the MACT
floor for opacity for existing and new?
units would have been 0 percent. We
tried to account for variability by
looking at the single highest opacity
reading for HMIWI in the MACT floor
L-24
-------
51390
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
for PM, based on opacity being an
appropriate surrogate for PM. We based
our MACT floor opacity limit on the
single highest COMS reading (1.1
percent) for one of the HMIWI in the
MACT floor for PM. Because we
commonly set opacity standards based
on whole numbers and could not round
down without risking having the MACT
floor unit not meet the standard, we
rounded up and proposed an opacity
limit of 2 percent for both new and
existing HMIWI. However, we now
believe this analysis was incomplete.
The analysis did not account for two
other HMIWI in the MACT floor for PM
that could more effectively account for
variability for opacity. The maximum
opacity averages for these two HMIWI
are 5.87 and 4.17 percent. (See 2008
memorandum entitled "Documentation
of HMIWI Test Data Database," which is
included in the docket.) The opacity
data for these two HMIWI were
measured using Method 9. Using the
same approach that we used at re-
proposal, we are establishing an opacity
limit of 6 percent, by rounding up the
highest opacity average of 5.87 percent
to the nearest whole number.
Regarding the commenters' arguments
that the inherent potential error of a
COMS meeting PS-1 could exceed the
proposed opacity limits, the potential
error (about 4 percent opacity at the
highest) is not the same as expected
error (more on the order of 0.5 percent).
Nonetheless, the increase in the opacity
limit to 6 percent should address the
commenters' concerns on this issue.
We disagree with the commenters'
argument that a 10 percent opacity limit
be used to allow conventional
compliance determination methods.
While opacity is read in 5 percent
increments, average opacity can be any
number above 0. Method 9 values are
averages of 24 readings, which can
include readings of 0 and an occasional
5 or 10 percent.
Regarding the commenters' argument
that only Method 9 data should be used
to establish the opacity standard
because that is the measurement method
that would be used to demonstrate
compliance, the commenters' argument
is moot, since the revised opacity
standard is now based on Method 9
results.
4. Percent Reduction Limits
Comment: One commenter agreed
with EPA's proposed elimination of
percent reduction alternatives.
According to the commenter, EPA
correctly noted that standards based
only on control technology performance
do not reflect the effects of non-
technology factors and, therefore, do not
reflect the best units' actual
performance. Therefore, the commenter
said, allowing units the option to meet
these percent reduction limits instead of
emissions standards contravenes
Section 129, and EPA appropriately
proposed to delete the percent reduction
limits.
Three other commenters argued that
the percent reduction compliance
option that was available in the 1997
rule and in the 2007 proposed rule
should be re-evaluated and retained for
commercial HMIWI, since the ability for
such units to reduce emissions is due
almost exclusively to the effectiveness
of the control equipment (and not waste
segregation). According to the
commenters, commercial HMIWI
facilities, unlike captive units, cannot
practically control the waste that is put
in the containers they process, and
applicable regulations from the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) preclude them
from practicing waste segregation at the
time of treatment. Thus, the commenters
noted, they experience extreme
variability during stack tests (especially
for volatile metals Cd, Pb, and Hg) and
will experience higher inlet
concentrations than captive units; since
they operate at the same control
efficiency, they will exhibit higher stack
emissions. The commenters stated that
the percent reduction option is a better
assessment of the performance of the
control system for commercial units.
Response: We have decided not to
include percent reduction limits in the
final rule. In addition to the reasons we
provided in the re-proposal, while
commercial HMIWI facilities face
greater challenges in controlling the
waste they receive, compared to
"captive" units, they are nonetheless
capable of taking steps to educate their
customers (i.e., waste generators)
regarding waste segregation and should
also have some control based on the
waste management plans, contract
requirements, and waste acceptance
protocols they negotiate with their
customers. Consequently, non-
technology factors are under their
control to a limited extent, which does
not support their rationale for a percent
reduction limit. The effect of raw
material inputs on emissions from
HMIWI could instead be downplayed by
a percent reduction limit that allows
more emissions provided a given level
of removal efficiency.
5. PCB and POM Emissions Limits
Comment: One commenter noted that
EPA has interpreted the CAA as
allowing the Agency to meet the
requirements of Section 112(c)(6) by
setting standards for incinerator
emissions of 112(c)(6) pollutants under
Section 129. According to the
commenter, EPA has acknowledged that
HMIWI account for a large portion of the
aggregate emissions of both PCBs and
POM. Thus, to satisfy Section 112(c)(6),
the commenter argued that EPA must
use its authority under Section 129(a)(4)
to set emissions standards for both of
these pollutants. Noting EPA's argument
that its standards for CDD/CDF and Hg
"effectively reduce" emissions of PCBs
and POM and thus satisfy Section
112(c)(6), the commenter said that
Section 112(c)(6) requires that these
HAP be subject to MACT standards.
Because the best performing units used
to set these standards may be achieving
reductions in PCBs and POM by means
other than just controlling CDD/CDF
and Hg emissions — e.g., by ensuring that
no PCB-containing wastes are put in the
incinerator or by not incinerating
chlorinated plastics — the commenter
argued that EPA's standards for CDD/
CDF and Hg do not constitute lawful
MACT standards for PCBs and POM
and, therefore, do not satisfy Section
Response: For the reasons we set forth
in the 2008 re-proposal (see 73 FR at
72991-92) and in the preamble for
today's rule (see section VII), we
continue to take the view that while the
rule does not identify specific limits for
POM and PCB, emissions of those
pollutants are nonetheless "subject to
regulation" for purposes of Section
112(c)(6). While we have not identified
specific numerical limits for POM and
PCB, we believe CO serves as an
effective surrogate for those pollutants,
because CO, like POM and PCBs, is
formed as a byproduct of combustion.
We believe that dioxins/furans also
serve as an effective surrogate for PCBs,
because the compounds act similarly
and, thus, are expected to be controlled
similarly using HMIWI emissions
control technology — e.g., wet scrubbers
or fabric filters (with or without
activated carbon). Furthermore, recent
HMIWI emissions test data for PCBs and
dioxins/furans show that HMIWI well-
controlled for dioxins/furans also
achieve low PCB emissions. (See 2008
memorandum entitled "Documentation
of HMIWI Test Data Database," which is
included in the docket.) It should also
be noted that PCBs are generally found
in higher concentrations than dioxins/
furans (also the case for HMIWI), so
HMIWI equipped with the
aforementioned emissions controls
would be even more effective at
reducing PCB emissions. Consequently,
we have concluded that the emissions
L-25
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51391
limits for CO function as a surrogate for
control of both POM and PCBs, and the
limits for dioxins/furans function as a
surrogate for PCBs, such that it is not
necessary to promulgate numerical
emissions limits for POM and PCBs
with respect to HMIWI to satisfy CAA
Section 112(c)(6).
To further address POM and PCB
emissions, the final rule also includes
revised waste management plan
provisions in §§ 60.35e and 60.55c that
encourage segregation of the types of
wastes that lead to these emissions,
such as chlorinated plastics and PCB-
containing wastes.
E. Monitoring
Comment: One commenter argued
that the monitoring requirements in the
HMIWI regulations are inadequate
because they do not provide for
emissions monitoring as required by
Section 129. According to the
commenter, EPA's exclusive reliance on
parameter monitoring for most
pollutants and units is unlawful. The
commenter stated that EPA must require
all HMIWI to use the available GEMS
(e.g., HC1, Hg, metals, CDD/CDF) to
monitor their emissions. The
commenter indicated that GEMS are the
only requirements that can possibly
provide data adequate to ensure
compliance with emissions standards
and protection of public health and the
environment, consistent with Section
Two other commenters argued that
continuous monitoring of CO with a 24-
hour block average should be required
of all existing incinerators to assure
efficient combustion. However, the two
commenters stated that continuous air
monitoring of metals and other toxics
should not be adopted as an alternative
to stack testing until GEMS accuracy
and reliability has been fully verified by
EPA.
Response: The CAA provides us with
broad discretion to establish monitoring
requirements as necessary to assure
compliance with applicable
requirements. As we noted in the
preamble to the 1997 final rule (62 FR
48360), the most direct means of
ensuring compliance with emissions
limits is the use of GEMS. As a matter
of policy, the first and foremost option
considered by EPA is to require the use
of GEMS to demonstrate continuous
compliance with specific emissions
limits. Other options are considered
only when GEMS are not technically
available or when the impacts of
including such requirements are
considered unreasonable (due to high
costs, for example). When monitoring
options other than GEMS are
considered, there is always a tradeoff
between the cost of the monitoring
requirement and the quality of the
information collected with respect to
determining actual emissions. While
monitoring of operations (operating
parameters) cannot provide a direct
measurement of emissions, it is usually
much less expensive than GEMS, and
the information provided can be used to
ensure that the incinerator and
associated air pollution control
equipment are operating properly. This
information provides EPA and the
public with assurance that the
reductions envisioned by the
regulations are being achieved. (62 FR
48360-1)
For the 1997 final rule, we developed
testing and monitoring costs for a range
of options. (See Legacy Docket ID No.
A-91-61, item IV-B-66.) At that time,
we concluded that the cost of GEMS
were unreasonably high relative to the
cost of the incinerators and emissions
controls needed for compliance. (62 FR
48360-1.) For today's final rule, we also
compared the costs of GEMS for various
pollutants to the costs of the
incinerators, emissions controls, and
parameter monitors, and reached the
same conclusion as we reached before.
(For further information, see 2009
memoranda entitled "Revised Baseline
Operating Costs for Existing HMIWI"
and "Revised Compliance Costs and
Economic Inputs for Existing HMIWI,"
which are included in the docket for
today's rulemaking.) Table 3 of this
preamble presents the annual costs for
GEMS, parameter monitoring systems,
emissions controls, and incinerators,
based on model unit cost calculations
for all four HMIWI size categories.
TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF ANNUAL COSTS FOR CEMS, PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEMS, AND EMISSIONS CONTROLS
Pollutant
CO
HCI
PM
Metals
Hg
CDD/CDF
CEMS
CO CEMS: $149,300
per year (yr).
HCI CEMS: $171,4007
yr.
PM CEMS1 $195 200/
yr.
Multi-metals CEMS1
$57,800/yr.
Hg CEMS: $313,9007
yr.
Sorbent trap biweekly
monitoring: $37,9007
yr.
Parameter monitoring
systems
Combustion control (charge rate, secondary
chamber temperature): $6,000-$9,900/yr.
Packed-bed scrubber (flue gas temperature,
scrubber liquor flow rate and pH): $5,2007
yr.
Fabric filter (fabric filter inlet temperature)1
$4,200/yr.
Activated carbon injection system (activated
carbon injection rate): $4,800/yr.
Emissions controls
Secondary chamber
retrofit: $15,100-
$80,800/yr.
Packed-bed scrubber:
$51,600-$104,000/
yr.
Fabric filter
$130,000-$268,000/
yr.
Activated carbon in-
jection system:
$5,400-$56,300/yr.
Incinerators
Incinerator: $54,800-
$366,000/yr.
Regarding the comment that CEMS for specification has been published in the F. Emissions Testing
metals and other toxics should not be
adopted until their accuracy and
reliability has been fully verified, the re-
proposal specified that the CEMS
options would be available to a facility
only when a final performance
Federal Register or when a site-specific
monitoring plan has been approved.
This should address the commenters'
concerns.
Comment: One commenter
appreciated EPA's efforts to improve
performance testing requirements and
supported the proposed changes. A
second commenter objected to the
provisions of § 60.37e(f) allowing
L-26
-------
51392
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
submission of previous stack tests to
show compliance with proposed
emissions standards for existing HMIWI,
arguing that most of the stack tests were
conducted over 7 years ago, and are also
not statistically reliable because so few
tests were conducted. The commenter
stated that the provisions disregard the
attention that Section 129 expected EPA
to place on solid waste incinerators.
The second commenter also objected
to the proposed one-time test
requirement for Pb, Cd, Hg, and CDD/
CDF, arguing that a single test result
does not provide adequate assurance
that the emissions standards have been
met or are continuously being achieved
by operations combusting a non-
homogeneous waste stream. According
to the commenter, allowing a one-time
test also provides a strong disincentive
to installing GEMS on HMIWI. The
commenter noted that if EPA still wants
to reduce testing requirements, it could
provide skip testing provisions for these
pollutants similar to existing provisions
in § 60.56c(c)(2), especially in future
rulemaking, once the industry has
demonstrated sustained compliance.
Response: Regarding the comment
objecting to the submission of previous
stack tests to show compliance with
new emissions standards for existing
HMIWI, we attempted to address such
concerns in § 60.37e(f)(2) and (3),
specifying that the HMIWI had to be
operated in a manner expected to result
in the same or lower emissions, that it
could not have been modified such that
emissions would be expected to exceed
the previous test results, and that
emissions test results prior to the year
of the 1996 proposal could not be
accepted. We believe that these
provisions are adequate to ensure an
accurate and reliable result.
Furthermore, based on the language in
the re-proposal, it is unlikely that any
commenter could have anticipated a
change in the base year (1996) for
emissions tests that would be accepted
to demonstrate compliance with the
revised emissions limits in the final
rule, such that the commenter would
have had a meaningful opportunity to
comment on the issue.
Regarding the comment objecting to
the one-time test requirement for metals
and CDD/CDF, the annual tests are
intended to be surrogates for
combustion, particulate, and acid gas
control, supplementing existing
continuous monitoring requirements.
We believe that the annual tests for
combustion and particulate control and
the continuous emissions monitoring of
activated carbon injection are sufficient
to ensure compliance with the metals
and CDD/CDF emissions limits.
However, if the State implementing the
HMIWI regulations for existing units in
its jurisdiction believes that more
frequent metals and CDD/CDF testing is
a necessary requirement for those units,
they have the option to prepare State
plans for EPA review that include those
requirements, or to simply require a
particular source to conduct such
testing. Section 116 of the CAA
preserves a State's authority to regulate
more stringently under Section 111.
Given the more stringent requirements
in the HMIWI rule (relative to the 1997
rule) being promulgated today, we do
not want to impose additional testing
requirements that are not necessary to
assure compliance with the
requirements of this final rule. Also, we
did not provide an opportunity to
comment on such additional emissions
testing in the December 2008 re-
proposal, and we would want to
develop a fuller record on any such
requirements and provide an
opportunity to comment on those
requirements before imposing them in a
final rule. However, we would be
willing to consider such a change at the
next technology review, if such a change
is necessary to reliably demonstrate
compliance.
G. Alternatives to On-Site Incineration
Comment: Five commenters
supported alternatives to on-site
incineration, such as autoclaving. One
of the commenters stated that 90 percent
or more of medical waste could be
safely diverted from incineration. The
commenter further noted that
alternative treatment technologies like
autoclaves and microwaves work, are
available, and are approved by
regulatory agencies. The commenter
argued that these technologies provide a
much healthier alternative to
incineration. Another of the
commenters suggested EPA supplement
its proposed rule to specify a phase-in
requirement that diverts all medical
waste not required by law or regulation
to be incinerated to go to approved
alternative non-incineration disposal
methods; the commenter also
recommended that EPA prohibit
autoclave residues from being
incinerated. Three of the commenters
stated that EPA should initiate a ban on
incineration of medical waste, and in
the interim give incentives to industries
using safer, cleaner alternatives to
incinerating medical waste, such as
autoclaving and microwaving.
Five other commenters noted the
disadvantages associated with
incineration alternatives such as
autoclaving. One of the commenters
noted that EPA's supporting documents
for the proposed rule seem to endorse
such alternatives but fail to recognize
that some facilities generate waste types
for which autoclaving and landfilling is
not adequate treatment. As examples,
another of the commenters noted that
numerous research facilities insist that
all of their waste be incinerated, and
three of the commenters noted that most
States and many local governments have
imposed requirements on the disposal
of these types of wastes and identified
incineration as an authorized means of
disposal; further, some States expressly
require incineration of pathological
wastes and/or prohibit autoclaving or
landfilling of such wastes. With the
proposed emissions limits, the same
three commenters expected that HMI
waste incineration capacity will
disappear, and captive units will be
limited by permit from accepting wastes
from off-site; as a result, the commenters
concluded, some waste generators will
be left with a State requirement to
incinerate waste, with little or no
available HMIWI treatment options and
capacity. One commenter noted that
that sterilized waste is often transferred
to regional MWC facilities for
incineration, especially in their
metropolitan area, and noted that MWC
emissions limits are less stringent than
the current and proposed limits for
HMIWI. Thus, the commenter
concluded, if the HMIWI regulation
increases autoclaving and reduces use of
their facility, it will have a significant
adverse effect on air quality.
One of the commenters stated that
EPA's studies for the proposed rule also
fail to recognize the environmental
impacts of transporting autoclaved
medical wastes to regional landfills,
such as depletion of landfill space,
landfill gas emissions, landfill leachate
issues, and impacts of waste
transportation traffic. Another
commenter noted that autoclaving does
not achieve the 90 percent volume
reduction that can be achieved with
incineration and, with many landfills at
or approaching capacity, volume
reduction prior to landfilling is a much
preferred option.
One commenter also noted that steam
sterilization can result in the release of
uncontrolled Hg vapors from the
autoclaving process, so any medical
waste displaced from their facility to
autoclaves would result in an increase
in Hg emissions from the autoclaves or
the MWC. The commenter said that
these potential impacts need to be
assessed before any standard is adopted.
Response: Section 129 of the CAA
provides EPA with the authority to
establish emissions limits for the nine
specified pollutants (HC1, CO, Pb, Cd,
L-27
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51393
Hg, PM, CDD/CDF, NOX, and SO2).
Today's action satisfies EPA's obligation
to respond to the Court's remand of the
1997 MACT floor determinations, as
well as EPA's duty to conduct its first
periodic review of the standards and
requirements of the HMIWI rule. While
a record that supported complete
elimination of emissions of the
enumerated pollutants is theoretically
possible, the record for today's rule does
not show that such an outright "ban" of
incineration is required to meet EPA's
obligations.
We agree with the commenters that it
is appropriate to address the
disadvantages and environmental
impacts associated with incineration
alternatives such as autoclaving in
background documentation for the
HMIWI rule, even though the revised
standards in today's rule are floor-based
(for which we cannot consider costs)
rather than beyond-the-floor-based
(where costs are to be considered). We
also agree that incineration is sometimes
insisted upon or even required by some
research facilities and State and local
governments, and we have incorporated
those comments into the revised
background documentation for the final
rule.
Regarding the comment that some
metropolitan areas require autoclaved
waste to be sent to MWC units, while
the commenter is correct that MWC
limits are currently higher than the 1997
promulgated HMIWI limits and the 2008
re-proposed HMIWI limits, the MWC
standards are on remand to the Agency,
and EPA will be reviewing those
standards. At this juncture, we cannot
predict the outcome of that remand
response.
Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA's studies for the proposed rule fail
to recognize and consider all the risks
to the public associated with closing
captive HMIWI and transporting
medical/infectious wastes to large
commercial incinerators, especially in
regions such as the western U.S., where
such commercial incinerators are not
well distributed.
Response: We believe that the revised
emissions limits are more representative
of actual operation at HMIWI and will
impact fewer HMIWI than the December
2008 re-proposal, which should address
the commenter's concerns. Moreover, in
this technology- and MACT floor-based
rulemaking, we do not believe that we
could permissibly adopt standards that
are less stringent than the floor based on
considerations of risk. See Sierra Club v.
EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (DC Cir. 2009).
H. Medical Waste Segregation
Comment: Contrary to what EPA
stated in its summary of waste
segregation survey responses, two
commenters argued that there is ample
evidence that the extent to which waste
segregation is conducted by our
healthcare facilities is far from optimal,
and that further waste segregation could
easily occur. Multiple commenters
recommended that EPA supplement the
proposed rule to minimize or eliminate
the inclusion of plastic wastes (a chief
contributor to dioxin formation), Hg
(e.g., Hg-containing dental waste, Hg-
containing devices), and other
hazardous wastes in the waste sent to
incineration; end the burning of
confidential documents (e.g., medical
records) and other paper products that
could be shredded and recycled; and
require waste management plans from
all generators of medical waste that use
incineration as a disposal option. As
examples, one of the commenters said
captive HMIWI could be required to
train staff to minimize inclusion of Hg-
containing devices and other heavy
metals from the waste stream; and
commercial HMIWI could be required to
provide educational materials to
encourage customers to prevent
inappropriate disposal of metals-
containing devices and other items into
wastes supplied to the commercial
HMIWI. Another commenter supported
the idea of enhancing waste
management practices at the point of
generation and noted that their
commercial facility offers training
sessions with hospitals and institutions
on the importance of separating items
containing Hg and other hazardous
substances from the rest of their medical
waste and has implemented and
manages recycling programs for paper,
bottles, glass, cardboard, metals,
construction material, and sharps
containers.
To ensure effective waste segregation
by commercial facilities, one of the
commenters further recommended that
EPA revise the regulation to state that
incinerator operators are responsible for
all of the waste in their possession and
the emissions that result, and should
clarify for all incinerator operators that
the term "affected source" in § 60.55C
refers to them.
Four commenters noted that the
proposed new rule for emissions from
HMIWI does not address
pharmaceutical drugs, nor does it
address how hazardous pharmaceuticals
are segregated from non-hazardous. The
commenters stated that not all
incinerators, such as those in North
Carolina, are licensed to burn
pharmaceuticals classified as hazardous.
The commenters recommended that
EPA require each State to develop and
implement programs to ensure that
hazardous and non-hazardous
pharmaceuticals are being segregated.
Response: While EPA's authority to
set emissions standards under Section
129(a)(2) reaches only incinerators of
solid waste and does not directly extend
to generators of waste who are not
owners and operators of solid waste
incineration units, we are amending the
waste management plan provisions in
the final rule to promote greater waste
segregation (e.g., plastics, metals, PCB-
containing wastes, pharmaceuticals).
Given the OSHA requirements to which
commercial HMIWI operators are
subject, those operators cannot be
expected to remove certain materials
from the waste they receive, but they
can be expected to train and educate
their clients to conduct their own waste
segregation, especially with regard to
the materials listed above. We are
including language to that effect in the
waste management provisions of the
final rule.
I. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Comment: Three commenters argued
that EPA should apply to the HMIWI
rule the decision issued by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC
Cir. 2008)), which vacated the SSM
exemptions in EPA's General Provisions
implementing Section 112 on the
grounds that the exemptions violate the
CAA's requirement that some Section
112 standards apply continuously. The
commenters stated that the reasoning
provided by the court in its decision
also applies to the HMIWI rule.
According to one of the three
commenters, the CAA makes clear that
EPA may not exempt sources from
compliance with Section 129 emissions
standards during SSM events and that
the current exemptions (found in
§§ 60.56c(a) and 60.37e(a)) are unlawful.
The commenter noted that EPA
restricted the current SSM exemption to
periods when no hospital or medical/
infectious waste is being charged to
HMIWI. However, the commenter said
this does not bring EPA's regulations
into compliance with the CAA or suffice
to protect the public from toxic
emissions during periods of SSM,
because HMIWI could stop charging
HMI waste during an SSM event but
still emit toxic pollution through a
bypass valve directly to the
environment. To the extent EPA is not
soliciting comment on the SSM
exemption as part of its response to the
remand in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d
L-28
-------
51394
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
658 (DC Cir. 1999) or its review of
regulations under Section 129(a)(5), the
commenter petitioned it to do so under
the authorities in Kennecott Utah
Copper Corp. v. Department of Interior,
88 F.3d 1191 (DC Cir. 1996).
A fourth commenter argued that if the
SSM court decision is upheld, this
would substantially impact the
approach for establishing "worst
reasonable foreseeable circumstances"
and the approach for establishing
emissions limits based on available
data. According to the commenter,
emissions and controllability during
periods of SSM are different than
"normal operation," and the commenter
noted that EPA currently sets limits by
reviewing data taken during "normal
operation," since no one generally
conducts stack tests during SSM.
One commenter requested that
emissions from SSM events be included
in the calculations of a facility's
potential to emit, which in turn
determines the applicability of some
Federal requirements. The commenter
also recommended that emissions from
SSM events should be included in
modeling to ensure that new or
expanded sources do not cause ambient
air quality to exceed health-based levels.
In lieu of modeling, the commenter said
there should be actual monitoring of
SSM events to accurately determine the
individual types of toxic air pollutants
and amounts of toxic air pollutant
releases. The commenter recommended
that there be mandatory penalties for
SSM events based on the amounts and
toxicity of the emissions. To illustrate
the point, the commenter included
documentation about bypass events at a
local HMIWI. Two additional
commenters also requested that EPA
conduct modeling to assess the types
and amounts of pollutants released
during bypass events and take
appropriate steps to regulate these
"fugitive" emissions. All three
commenters recommended that
pollution control equipment be required
for bypass events, whether the event is
operator error or violation.
Another commenter recommended
that EPA revise the General Provisions
or the specific standards to subject SSM
periods to appropriate work practice
standards, including procedures to
minimize emissions during those
periods, rather than establish MACT
emissions limits that are impossible to
meet during SSM. According to the
commenter, CAA Section 112(h) allows
the Administrator to promulgate a
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof, in lieu of an emissions standard
where it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emissions standard. The
commenter said that emissions
measurement is not practicable during
SSM periods.
Response: While the Court's ruling in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC
Cir. 2008), directly affects only the
subset of CAA Section 112(d) rules that
incorporate § 63.6(f)(l) and (h)(l) by
reference and that contain no other
regulatory text exempting or excusing
compliance during SSM events, the
legality of source category-specific SSM
provisions such as those adopted in the
1997 HMIWI rule is questionable.
To our knowledge, no HMIWI
facilities have ever done any testing
during an SSM event, except perhaps
the few that have CO GEMS (although
under the definition of "malfunction" in
§ 60.51c, operators are directed to
monitor all applicable operating
parameters during malfunctions until all
waste had been combusted or until the
malfunction ceases, whichever comes
first). It would be very difficult to do
any meaningful testing during such an
event because the exhaust flow rates,
temperatures, and other stack
conditions would be highly variable and
could foul up the isokinetic emissions
test methods (thus invalidating the
testing).
The 1997 rule excused exceedance of
emissions standards during SSM events
only in instances where "no hospital
waste or medical/infectious waste is
charged to the affected facility." 40 CFR
60.56c(a). This means that in any SSM
periods where such waste is being
charged and an exceedance of the
standards occurs, the source is in
violation of the requirements of the
standards. Based on the 1997 HMIWI
rule's definitions of the terms "startup"
and "shutdown," no waste should be
combusted during these periods, so
emissions should be low during them—
essentially the emissions from burning
natural gas. Under § 60.51C, startup is
defined as the period of time between
the activation of the system and the first
charge to the unit. For batch HMIWI,
startup means the period of time
between activation of the system and
ignition of the waste. Shutdown is
defined as the period of time after all
waste has been combusted in the
primary chamber. Shutdown must start
no less than 2 hours after the last charge
to the incinerator for continuous
HMIWI, and no less than 4 hours for
intermittent HMIWI. For batch HMIWI,
shutdown must commence no less than
5 hours after the high-air phase of
combustion has been completed.
Consequently, it should not be possible
for HMIWI to exceed the applicable
emissions limits during startup and
shutdown periods. This suggests that
the exemption from standards during
startup and shutdown is of virtually no
utility to HMIWI, such that there is any
need for EPA to retain the exemption in
today's final rule.
Malfunctions present a similar
situation in terms of how the 1997 rule
functioned, if a slightly different
situation factually. Again, the SSM
exemption of § 60.56c(a) applied only
where no hospital waste and no
medical/infectious waste was being
charged. Under §§60.56c(a) and
60.37e(a) of the HMIWI rules, facilities
are required to stop charging waste as
soon as a malfunction is identified and
not charge any additional waste.
"Malfunction" is defined in § 60.51c as
any sudden, infrequent and not
reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner, but does not
include failures caused, in part, by poor
maintenance or careless operation.
During malfunction periods, operators
must operate within established
parameters as much as possible and
continue to monitor all applicable
operating parameters. So, there should
be low emissions during such periods,
but how low is not known. In any case,
the rule as promulgated in 1997 did not
excuse exceedances of emissions
standards during malfunctions if
hospital waste or medical/infectious
waste was being charged during the
malfunction. Moreover, our final
standards established today are based
on the best data available to the Agency,
and we have no data to support
modifying the floors for malfunction
periods.
While EPA is still in the relatively
early process of formulating its strategy
for addressing the SSM court decision
and the numerous Section 112 and 129
rules that contain varying provisions
regarding SSM events, we are revising
the HMIWI rules in today's final
rulemaking to delete the 1997 rule's
narrow? exemption from emissions limits
during periods of SSM. As explained
above, the exemption and definitions as
promulgated in 1997 provided virtually
no utility, and we, therefore, expect that
today's deletion of the SSM exemption
will have very little, if any, impact on
HMIWI units' compliance status. In the
event that sources, despite their best
efforts, fail to comply with applicable
standards during SSM events (as
defined by the rule), EPA will determine
an appropriate response based on,
among other things, the good faith
efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during SSM periods,
including preventative and corrective
L-29
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51395
actions, as well as root cause analyses
to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. This approach is consistent
with that discussed in a recent letter by
Adam M. Kushner, Director, Office of
Civil Enforcement, to counsel
representing various industry
associations, entitled "Re: Vacatur of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
(SSM) Exemption (40 CFR sections
63.6(Q(1) and 63.6(h)(l))" (July 22,
2009) (included in the docket for today's
rulemaking).
For the reasons discussed above, we
disagree with the commenter who
claimed that, in the context of this
rulemaking, removal of the SSM
exemption would substantially impact
the MACT floor approach. Deletion of
the exemption should have no impact
on the use and analysis of the MACT
compliance data upon which the
revised standards are based in this rule.
This is because the 1997 rule's
exemption provisions already had a
very limited focus, in excusing
compliance with standards only when
HMI waste was not being charged to the
incinerator; even under the 1997 rules,
if HMI waste was being charged during
an SSM event, the standards continued
to apply. Moreover, the commenter
provided no information to support its
position. Therefore, it is similarly
unnecessary to accept other
commenters' recommendations to
specify mandatory penalties during
SSM events or impose unique pollution
controls for bypass events—these
concerns should be adequately
addressed by today's removal of the
SSM exemption, which includes
removal of the 1997 rule's exemption
during SSM periods to the prohibition
of using a bypass stack.
We also disagree that it is necessary
to revise the CAA Section 112 General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 to impose
work practice requirements that apply
in lieu of numeric emissions standards
during SSM periods, in the context of
this CAA Section 129 rulemaking. The
commenter who suggested this
approach cited CAA Section 112(h) as
the basis of authority for such a change,
but neither that section of the Act nor
the part 63 General Provisions apply to
standards promulgated under Section
129, which by its terms requires
numeric emissions standards for the
pollutants specified in Section 129(a)(4).
/. Economic Impacts
Comment: Two commenters argued
that the proposed limits are unattainable
without significant financial
investment, which they said will
ultimately be passed on to an already
overburdened healthcare system. The
commenters urged EPA to reconsider
the proposed rule. One of the
commenters suggested EPA keep
emissions limits for existing HMIWI at
current levels.
A third commenter argued that this
sort of rule could also have severe
adverse consequences on other
industries, as well as the economy,
energy and natural resources, and
environment. A fourth commenter
stated that the level of source
shutdowns that has occurred in the
HMIWI industry should not be allowed
to occur in other Section 112 or 129
source categories, as it would severely
cripple the manufacturing base of this
country. The commenter urged EPA to
consider costs and other impacts when
developing rules, as required under
Section 129. According to the
commenter, the current financial crisis
demonstrates the tremendous impact on
jobs and the broader economy due to
increased operational costs and facility
shutdowns.
Response: We estimate that the
revised limits for the final rule will be
viewed as more attainable than were the
2008 re-proposed standards, and will
result in less burdensome economic
impacts for the industry. (See 2009
memorandum "Revised MACT Floors,
Data Variability Analysis, and Emission
Limits for Existing and New HMIWI"
and 2009 report "Economic Impacts of
Revised MACT Standards for Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators,"
which are included in the docket for
today's rulemaking.) It should be noted
that other rules do not necessarily have
to take the same MACT floor approach
as that taken in this rule (every industry,
every situation is different), so the
argument that promulgation of this rule
as proposed would adversely affect
other regulated industries is not a given.
It should also be noted that under
Section 129 we cannot consider costs
and other impacts when we are
establishing MACT floor requirements.
Comment: One commenter disagreed
with EPA's estimation of economic
impacts, especially as it affects their
facility. The commenter specifically
questioned EPA description of HMIWI
demand as being extremely price
insensitive (i.e., that the price charged
has little effect on the quantity of
medical waste incinerated and can be
passed on to customers in full). Based
on their years of experience in selling
services, the commenter indicated that
the demand for medical waste
incineration at their facility is a curve
reflecting the interplay of different
customer groups, rather than a steep
curve as presented in EPA's analysis
(details provided in public comment).
Based on a graphical depiction of their
facility's fixed costs, variable costs, and
total costs overlaid with the demand
structure, the commenter stated that
their facility makes only a modest profit
and could not operate at any level of
volume profitably if the costs of
complying with the new regulations are
added to the current cost structure
(graphical depiction provided in public
comment).
The commenter recommended that
the economic analysis be revised to
reflect the realistic economic impacts on
their company. The commenter noted
that EPA's estimate of their gross sales
($12 million) is greater than they have
averaged in recent years, qualifying
them as a small business. The
commenter also noted that there are no
data or analysis to justify EPA's estimate
of their company's profits (greater than
$30 million) after adoption of the
proposed regulations. According to the
commenter, they will in fact be forced
out of business.
Three other commenters noted that
the economic analysis does not mention
the restrictions imposed by State and
local governments in resorting to
alternative waste treatment methods.
Response: The demand curve we used
in our economic analysis was meant to
apply to the industry as a whole, and,
as such, some assumptions and
simplifications were necessary.
Nonetheless, we have reviewed the
commenter's concerns in revising our
economic analysis for the final rule. We
acknowledge the mistakes in our
previous economic analysis regarding
the commenter's profits and sales and
have addressed them in our revised
economic analysis. We have also
addressed the restrictions noted by the
other three commenters in the revised
analysis. Finally, it should be noted that
the revisions to the emissions limits for
the final rule should mitigate the
economic impacts described here.
Comment: One commenter stated that,
although their company is a small
entity, they were not given the
opportunity to participate in the
development of the proposed HMIWI
rule, as provided under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA). According to
the commenter, EPA did not conduct
the appropriate analysis and incorrectly
assumed that their business had annual
revenue exceeding the Small Business
Size Standards. The commenter
provided tax returns documenting their
status as a small entity.
Response: We properly accounted for
the impacts of the re-proposed rule in
2008 based on our analysis of the data
we then had. The base year data we
L-30
-------
51396
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
were using in our economic analysis
(2007) showed sales numbers that
indicated they were not a small
business. After receiving public
comments and additional information,
we have accounted for any recent
changes in small entity status and re-
analyzed the economic impacts of the
rule on small entities. (See 2009 report
"Economic Impacts of Revised MACT
Standards for Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators," which is
included in the docket for today's
rulemaking.) Because we are beyond
proposal, we cannot convene a pre-
proposal SBREFA panel. After
considering the economic impacts of
this final rule on small entities, we can
certify that today's final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The one small entity directly regulated
by today's final rule is a small business
that owns two HMIWI. We have
determined that this one small entity
may experience an impact of
approximately $3.15 million per year to
comply with the final rule, resulting in
a cost-to-sales ratio of approximately 45
percent. The small entity is a company
in Maryland, which owns and operates
a commercial facility at that location.
There are only nine other commercial
facilities, which are owned and
operated by other companies, and the
closest are in North Carolina and Ohio.
Therefore, the entity is a regional
monopolist and is able to raise the price
by more than the per unit cost increase.
We expect there to be a reduction in the
amount of its services demanded due to
the price change. Because of closures of
captive HMIWI, there may also be an
increase in the demand for its services
that may reduce the decrease in
revenues associated with the price
increase.
Two other entities are defined as
borderline small: Their parent company
sales or employment in 2008 are above
the SBA size-cutoff for small entities in
their North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes,
but are near enough to the size cut-off
that variations in sales or employment
over time might move them below the
small business criterion. Based on 2008
sales data for these two entities, the
cost-to-sales ratio is less than 1 percent
for one entity and 1.4 percent for the
other. It should be noted that the entity
with the higher cost-to-sales ratio (1.4
percent) is a commercial unit and would
have the ability to pass the cost along to
their customers and would be expected
to be able to afford compliance.
Therefore, neither entity is likely to
incur significant impacts. (See 2009
memorandum entitled "Updated Sales
Information for Companies Considered
Borderline Small Entities," which is
included in the docket for today's
rulemaking.)
Although today's final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
we nonetheless have tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities, to
the extent allowed under this CAA
MACT floor rulemaking. For each
subcategory of HMIWI, we are
promulgating emissions limits that are
based on the MACT floor level of
control, which is the minimum level of
stringency that can be considered in
establishing MACT standards. Under
the CAA and the case law, EPA can set
standards no less stringent than the
MACT floor and, therefore, we were
unable to eliminate the impact of the
emissions limits on the small entity that
would be regulated by the final rule. We
nevertheless worked to minimize the
costs of testing and monitoring
requirements to the extent possible
under the statute, in light of our final
impacts analysis.
V. Impacts of the Final Action for
Existing Units
Over the last three years, about 25
percent (19 of 76 units) of the existing
HMIWI have ceased operation. This
trend is not surprising, and supports
EPA's analysis, which shows that even
in the absence of increased regulatory
requirements, less expensive alternative
waste disposal options are available for
almost all facilities that operate HMIWI.
Therefore, EPA expects this trend of
unit closures to continue even in the
absence of the regulatory changes. The
additional costs imposed by this action
are likely to accelerate the trend towards
alternative waste disposal options. Our
analysis suggests that sources are likely
to respond to the increased regulatory
requirements by choosing to minimize
the current cost of on-site incineration
(e.g., improve waste segregation), use
alternative waste disposal options, or
send the waste to an off-site commercial
incinerator.
The EPA's objective is not to
discourage continued use of HMIWI;
EPA's objective is to adopt EG for
existing HMIWI that fulfill the
requirements of CAA Section 129. In
doing so, the primary outcome
associated with adoption of these EG
may be an increase in the use of
alternative waste disposal and a
decrease in the use of HMIWI.
Consequently, EPA's impact analyses of
the final rule include complete analyses
of two potential scenarios. The first
scenario, which will be referred to as
the "MACT compliance" option for the
remainder of this preamble, assumes
that all units continue operation and
take the necessary steps to achieve
compliance. The second scenario,
which will be referred to as the
"alternative disposal" option for the
remainder of this preamble, assumes
that all facilities choose to discontinue
operation of their HMIWI in favor of an
alternative waste disposal option. While
several different disposal options, such
as sending waste to a municipal waste
combustor or commercial HMIWI or
using chemical treatment (e.g., ozone,
electropyrolysis, chlorine compounds,
alkali agents), thermal treatment (e.g.,
plasma arc, microwave technologies), or
mechanical systems (e.g., shredding,
compacting) may be available to some
facilities, EPA assessed the impacts of
another alternative waste disposal
option. This option involves on-site
sterilization of the waste using an
autoclave followed by landfilling of the
sterilized waste. EPA selected the
autoclave/landfilling option because it
is a widely available and highly used
alternative. The results of both the
MACT compliance and autoclave/
landfilling options are provided in the
discussion of impacts. While the likely
outcome of the rule revisions is
somewhere in between the two options
that EPA selected for analysis (some
units will comply with the standards
and some will discontinue operations),
EPA's analyses provide a broad picture
of potential impacts.
As explained in section IV. A. 2 of this
preamble, the revised emissions limits
for existing HMIWI are based on the
average of the best performing 12
percent of sources for each pollutant in
each subcategory. This final action
requires varying degrees of
improvements in performance by most
HMIWI. Depending on the current
configuration of each unit and air
pollution controls, the improvements
could be achieved either through the
addition of add-on APCD, improvement
of existing add-on APCD, increase in
sorbent usage rates, and various
combustion improvements. More
specifically, the improvements
anticipated include: Most wet scrubber-
controlled units adding a fabric filter-
based system for improved control of
PM and metals; most units with fabric
filter-based systems adding a packed-
bed wet scrubber for improved control
of HC1; adding activated carbon
injection or increasing activated carbon
usage rate for improved Hg and dioxin
control; upgrading fabric filter
performance for improved control of PM
and metals; increasing lime or caustic
L-31
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51397
use for improved control of HC1 and, in
a few instances, SCh; and combustion
improvements primarily associated with
decreasing CO emissions. We also
project that a few units may require add-
on controls (SNCR) to meet the revised
NOx emissions levels. Facilities may
resubmit their most recent compliance
test data for each pollutant if the data
show that their HMIWI meets the
revised emissions limits. In these
instances, facilities must certify that the
test results are representative of current
operations. Those facilities would then
not be required to test for those
pollutants to prove initial compliance
with the revised emissions limits.
A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?
EPA estimates that reductions of
approximately 393,000 pounds per year
(Ib/yr) of the regulated pollutants would
be achieved if all existing HMIWI
improved performance to meet the
revised emissions limits. If all HMIWI
selected an alternative disposal method,
reductions of approximately 1.52
million Ib/yr would be achieved. Table
4 shows the estimated reductions by
pollutant for the two scenarios for the
57 HMIWI currently operating.
TABLE 4—PROJECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR MACT COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR
EXISTING HMIWI
Pollutant
HCI
CO
Pb
Cd
Hq
PM
CDD/CDF, total
CDD/CDF TEQ
NOX
SO2
Total
Reductions
achieved through
meeting MACT
(Ib/yr)
1 68 000
1,140
313
15 6
605
3,170
0.0678
0 00145
1 46 000
73,700
393,000
Reductions
achieved through
alternative
disposal
(Ib/yr)
1 98 000
20,200
420
35 1
682
89,900
0.0985
0 00183
1 080 000
126,000
1 ,520,000
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste
Impacts?
EPA estimates that, based on the
MACT compliance option,
approximately 3,840 tons per year (tpy)
of additional solid waste and 86,000
gallons per year (gpy) of additional
wastewater would be generated as a
result of operating additional controls or
using increased amounts of various
sorbents.
EPA estimates that, based on the
alternative disposal option,
approximately 15,100 tpy of additional
solid waste would be sent to landfills.
This option would result in an
estimated 5.40 million gpy in
wastewater impacts.
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
EPA estimates that approximately
9,530 megawatt-hours per year
(MWh/yr) of additional electricity
would be required to support the
increased control requirements
associated with the MACT compliance
option.
For the alternative disposal option,
EPA estimates that approximately
12,400 MWh/yr of additional electricity
would be required to operate the
autoclaves.
D. What Are the Secondary Air Impacts?
Secondary air impacts associated with
the MACT compliance option are direct
impacts that result from the increase in
natural gas and/or electricity use that
we estimate may be required to enable
facilities to achieve the revised
emissions limits. We estimate that the
adjustments could result in emissions of
279 Ib/yr of PM; 3,260 Ib/yr of CO; 2,650
Ib/yr of NOX; and 1,780 Ib/yr of SO2
from the increased electricity and
natural gas usage.
For the alternative disposal option,
EPA estimates secondary air impacts of
692 Ib/yr of PM; 5,040 Ib/yr of CO; 2,550
Ib/yr of NOX; and 4,980 Ib/yr of SO2
from the additional electricity that
would be required to operate the
autoclaves. In addition, EPA estimates
that landfilling would result in an
additional 626 tpy of methane and
0.0330 Ib/yr of mercury emissions.
E. What Are the Cost and Economic
Impacts?
EPA estimates that for the MACT
compliance option, the national total
costs for the 57 existing HMIWI to
comply with this final action would be
approximately $15.5 million in each of
the first 3 years of compliance. This
estimate includes the costs that would
be incurred based on the anticipated
performance improvements (i.e., costs of
new APCD and improvements in
performance of existing APCD), and the
additional monitoring (i.e., annual
control device inspections), testing (i.e.,
initial EPA Method 22 of appendix
A-7 test and initial compliance testing),
and recordkeeping and reporting costs
that would be incurred by all 57 HMIWI
as a result of this final action.
Approximately 95 percent of the
estimated total cost in the first year is
for emissions control, and the remaining
5 percent is for monitoring, testing,
recordkeeping and reporting.
EPA estimates that for the alternative
disposal option, the national total costs
for the 57 existing HMIWI to dispose of
their solid waste by autoclaving and
landfilling would be approximately
$10.6 million per year. This estimate
includes the costs that would be
incurred based on the purchase and
operation of autoclaves and the
projected landfill tipping fees that
would be incurred based on the volume
of waste to be landfilled.
Currently, there are 57 existing
HMIWI at 51 facilities. They may be
divided into two broad categories: (1)
Captive HMIWI, which are co-owned
and co-located with generating facilities
and provide on-site incineration
services for waste generated by the
hospital, research facility, university, or
pharmaceutical operations; and (2)
commercial HMIWI, which provide
commercial incineration services for
waste generated off-site by firms
unrelated to the firm that owns the
HMIWI. EPA analyzed the impacts on
L-32
-------
51398
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
captive HMIWI and commercial HMIWI
using different methods. Of the 57
HMIWI, 14 are commercial and 43 are
captive.
Owners of captive HMIWI may choose
to incur the costs of complying with the
revised HMIWI standards or close the
HMIWI and switch to another disposal
technology like autoclaving and
landfilling or have their waste handled
by a commercial disposal service. EPA's
estimate of autoclaving and landfilling
costs indicate that even without
additional regulatory costs, the costs of
autoclaving and landfilling may be
lower than the costs of incinerating.
However, even if all owners of captive
HMIWI choose to continue to operate
with the additional regulatory cost, the
cost-to-sales ratios for firms owning
captive HMIWI are low. This reflects the
relatively small share of overall costs
that are associated with hospital/
medical/infectious waste management
at these firms. Of the 35 firms owning
captive HMIWI, 22 have costs of
compliance that are less than 0.1
percent of firm sales. Of the 13 with
costs exceeding 0.1 percent of sales, the
largest cost-to-sales ratio is at a captive
hospital HMIWI, and is equal to 0.995
percent. Therefore, EPA expects no
significant impact on the prices and
quantities of the underlying services of
the owners of the captive HMIWI,
whether the costs are passed on or
absorbed.
Impacts on commercial HMIWI are
analyzed using the simplifying
assumption that they operate as regional
monopolists (in general, only one
HMIWI is considered as a treatment
option by generators located nearby).
The approach to modeling the impact
for commercial HMIWI seems very
appropriate for all of the facilities
except for one. The other commercial
HMIWI facilities have costs of
compliance that are no more than 2.0
percent of revenues. That one facility
has a ratio of approximately 45 percent.
As noted previously, this facility is a
regional monopolist and is able to raise
the price by more than the per unit cost
increase. We expect there to be a
reduction in the amount of its services
demanded due to the price change.
Because of closures of captive HMIWI,
there may also be an increase in the
demand for its services that may reduce
the decrease in revenues associated with
the price increase. For more details
regarding EPA's analysis of the
economic impacts, see the luly 2009
docket entry entitled "Economic
Impacts of Revised MACT Standards for
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators."
VI. Impacts of the Final Action for New
Units
Information provided to EPA
indicates that negative growth has been
the trend for HMIWI for the past several
years. While existing units continue to
shut down, since promulgation of the
HMIWI NSPS in 1997, four new units
have been constructed and one unit has
been reconstructed. This information
indicates that in the absence of further
regulation, new HMIWI may be built.
However, based on the stringency of
revisions being promulgated for the
NSPS, sources would likely respond to
the final rule by choosing not to
construct new HMIWI and would utilize
alternative waste disposal options rather
than incur the costs of compliance.
Considering this information, EPA
does not anticipate any new HMIWI,
and therefore, no impacts of the revised
NSPS for new units. For purposes of
demonstrating that emissions reductions
would result from the NSPS in the
unlikely event that a new unit is
constructed, EPA estimated emissions
reductions and other impacts expected
for each of three HMIWI model plants.
A. What Are the Primary Air Impacts?
EPA estimated emissions reductions
for each of the model plants to
demonstrate that the NSPS would, if a
new unit were built, reduce emissions
compared to a HMIWI meeting the
current NSPS. Table 5 of this preamble
presents the emissions reductions for
the HMIWI model plants. The three
model plants (with capacities of 100 lb/
hr, 400 Ib/hr, and 4,000 Ib/hr) represent
typical HMIWI. For pollutants where a
"zero" value is shown, the model plant
performance estimate meets the revised
new source limit, which is not
surprising since the models are based on
the performance of the newest sources,
which are among the best performers in
the industry.
TABLE 5—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ON A MODEL PLANT BASIS
Pollutant
HCI
CO
Pb
Cd
Hg
PM
Dioxins/furans total
Dioxins/furans TEQ
NOX
SO2
Total
100 Ib/hr
capacity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
491
37.8
529
400 Ib/hr
capacity
45.8
7.97
0
0
0.194
0
5 34 x 10 ~4
6 02 x 10~6
1,780
31.9
1,860
4,000 Ib/hr
capacity
968
0
376
0 293
2.40
170
0
0
0
0
1,140
Emissions reduction for HMIWI model plants (Ib/yr)
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste
Impacts?
While EPA believes it is unlikely that
any new HMIWI will be constructed, we
estimated the following water or solid
waste impacts associated with the
revised NSPS for three different HMIWI
model sizes: For large units, we estimate
7,120 gpy of additional wastewater and
50.8 tpy of additional solid waste; for
medium units, we estimate no
additional wastewater and 23.6 tpy of
additional solid waste; and, for small
units, we estimate 29.7 gallons per year
of additional wastewater and 2.68 tpy of
additional solid waste.
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
While EPA believes it is unlikely that
any new HMIWI will be constructed, we
estimated the following energy impacts
associated with the revised NSPS for
three different HMIWI model sizes: for
large units, we estimate that 280 MWh/
yr of additional electricity would be
L-33
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51399
required to support the increased
control requirements; for medium units,
we estimate 416 MWh/yr; and, for small
units, we estimate 9.90 MWh/yr.
D. What Are the Secondary Air Impacts?
Secondary air impacts for new HMIWI
are direct impacts that would result
from the increase in natural gas and/or
electricity use that we estimate may be
required to enable facilities to achieve
the revised emissions limits. While EPA
believes it is unlikely that any new
HMIWI will be constructed, we
estimated the secondary air impacts
associated with the revisions to the
NSPS for three different HMIWI model
sizes. For large units, we estimate that
the adjustments could result in
emissions of 15.6 Ib/yr of PM; 114 lb/
yr of CO; 57.4 Ib/yr of NOX; and 112 lb/
yr of SO2. For medium units, we
estimate that the adjustments could
result in emissions of 2.71 Ib/yr of PM;
119 Ib/yr of CO; 142 Ib/yr of NOX; and
0.938 Ib/yr of SO2. For small units, we
estimate that the adjustments could
result in emissions of 0.551 Ib/yr of PM;
4.02 Ib/yr of CO; 2.03 Ib/yr of NOX; and
3.97lb/yrofSO2.
For the alternative disposal option,
EPA estimated secondary air impacts
from the additional electricity that
would be required to operate autoclaves
in lieu of each size of HMIWI. For large
units, we estimate secondary emissions
of 65.5 Ib/yr of PM; 478 Ib/yr of CO; 241
Ib/yr of NOX; and 471 Ib/yr of SO2. For
medium units, we estimate secondary
emissions of 4.98 Ib/yr of PM; 36.3 lb/
yr of CO; 18.4 Ib/yr of NOX; and 35.8 lb/
yr of SO2. For small units, we estimate
secondary emissions of 1.25 Ib/yr of PM;
9.09 Ib/yr of CO; 4.60 Ib/yr of NOX; and
8.98 Ib/yr of SO2. In addition, EPA
estimates that an additional 58.5 tpy of
methane and 0.00308 Ib/yr of mercury
emissions would result from landfilling
waste that would have been processed
in a large HMIWI, 3.29 tpy of methane
and 0.000173 Ib/yr of mercury
emissions would result from landfilling
waste that would have been processed
in a medium HMIWI, and 0.549 tpy of
methane and 0.0000289 Ib/yr of
mercury emissions would result from
landfilling waste that would have been
processed in a small HMIWI.
E. What Are the Cost and Economic
Impacts?
While EPA projects that three new
HMIWI would be constructed in the
absence of the promulgated revisions,
we believe that, in response to the
promulgated revisions, sources may
decide against constructing new
HMIWI. Nevertheless, we estimated the
following costs associated with
installation and operation of air
pollution controls needed to meet the
revisions to the NSPS: for new large
units, $1.08 million per year; for new
medium units, $116,000 per year; and,
for new small units, $118,000 per year.
EPA's analysis of impacts of the
revisions to the HMIWI standards on
potential new HMIWI compares the
with-regulation estimated prices that
would be charged by new large,
medium, and small HMIWI to the range
of with-regulation prices estimated to be
charged by existing commercial HMIWI
in various regional markets. This
comparison indicates that new large and
medium commercial HMIWI may be
viable, but new small commercial
HMIWI probably would not be viable.
On the other hand, generators of
hospital/medical/infectious waste could
have overarching reasons to purchase
and install a new small HMIWI.
Comparison of autoclave treatment
coupled with off-site landfill disposal
shows that, for new facilities as for
existing ones, autoclave/landfill
treatment and disposal is generally less
costly than incineration. Thus, the
motivation to improve waste segregation
to minimize the waste that must be
incinerated is likely to continue,
although HMIWI treatment of some
wastes will continue to be required by
regulation.
VII. Relationship of the Final Action to
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires
EPA to identify categories of sources of
seven specified pollutants to assure that
sources accounting for not less than 90
percent of the aggregate emissions of
each such pollutant are subject to
standards under CAA Section 112(d)(2)
or 112(d)(4). EPA has identified HMIWI
as a source category that emits five of
the seven CAA Section 112(c)(6)
pollutants: POM, dioxins, furans, Hg,
and PCBs. (The POM emitted by HMIWI
is composed of 16 polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable
organic matter (EOM).) In the Federal
Register notice Source Category Listing
for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6)
Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849,
Table 2 (1998), EPA identified medical
waste incinerators (now referred to as
HMIWI) as a source category "subject to
regulation" for purposes of CAA Section
112(c)(6) with respect to the CAA
Section 112(c)(6) pollutants that HMIWI
emit. HMIWI are solid waste
incineration units currently regulated
under CAA Section 129. For purposes of
CAA Section 112(c)(6), EPA has
determined that standards promulgated
under CAA Section 129 are
substantively equivalent to those
promulgated under CAA Section 112(d).
(See id. at 17845; see also 62 FR 33625,
33632 (1997).) As discussed in more
detail below, the CAA Section 129
standards effectively control emissions
of the five identified CAA Section
112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since CAA
Section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from
regulating these substantial sources of
the five identified CAA Section
112(c)(6) pollutants under CAA Section
112(d), EPA cannot further regulate
these emissions under that CAA section.
As a result, EPA considers emissions of
these five pollutants from HMIWI
"subject to standards" for purposes of
CAA Section 112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA
Section 129 HMIWI standards include
numeric emissions limits for the nine
pollutants specified in Section 129(a)(4).
The combination of waste segregation,
good combustion practices, and add-on
air pollution control equipment (dry
sorbent injection fabric filters, wet
scrubbers, or combined fabric filter and
wet scrubber systems) effectively
reduces emissions of the pollutants for
which emissions limits are required
under CAA Section 129: Hg, CDD/CDF,
Cd, Pb, PM, SO2, HC1, CO, and NOX.
Thus, the NSPS and EG specifically
require reduction in emissions of three
of the CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants:
dioxins, furans, and Hg. As explained
below, the air pollution controls
necessary to comply with the
requirements of the HMIWI NSPS and
EG also effectively reduce emissions of
the following CAA Section 112(c)(6)
pollutants that are emitted from HMIWI:
POM and PCBs. Although the CAA
Section 129 HMIWI standards as
promulgated in 1997 and as revised for
the 2009 final rule do not have separate,
specific numerical emissions limits for
PCBs and POM, emissions of these two
CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants are
effectively controlled by the same
control measures used to comply with
the numerical emissions limits for the
pollutants enumerated in Section
129(a)(4). Specifically, as byproducts of
combustion, the formation of PCBs and
POM is effectively reduced by the
combustion and post-combustion
practices required to comply with the
CAA Section 129 standards. Any PCBs
and POM that do form during
combustion are further controlled by the
various post-combustion HMIWI
controls. The add-on PM control
systems (either fabric filter or wet
scrubber) and activated carbon injection
in the fabric filter-based systems further
reduce emissions of these organic
pollutants, and also reduce Hg
L-34
-------
51400
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
emissions, as is evidenced by HMIWI
performance data. Specifically, the post-
MACT compliance tests at currently
operating HMIWI that were also
operational at the time of promulgation
of the 1997 standards show that, for
those units, the 1997 HMIWI MACT
regulations reduced Hg emissions by
about 60 percent and CDD/CDF
emissions by about 80 percent from pre-
MACT levels. (Note that these
reductions do not reflect unit
shutdowns, units for which exemptions
were granted, or new units.) Moreover,
similar controls have been demonstrated
to effectively reduce emissions of POM
and PCBs from another incineration
source category (municipal solid waste
combustors). It is, therefore, reasonable
to conclude that POM and PCB
emissions are substantially controlled at
all 57 HMIWI. Thus, while the final rule
does not identify specific numerical
emissions limits for POM and PCB,
emissions of those pollutants are, for the
reasons noted above, nonetheless
"subject to regulation" for purposes of
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA.
In lieu of establishing numerical
emissions limits for pollutants such as
PCBs and POM, CAA Section 129(a)(4)
allows EPA to regulate surrogate
substances. While we have not
identified specific numerical limits for
POM and PCB, we believe CO serves as
an effective surrogate for those
pollutants, because CO, like POM and
PCBs, is formed as a byproduct of
combustion. We believe that dioxins/
furans also serve as an effective
surrogate for PCBs, because the
compounds act similarly and, thus, are
expected to be controlled similarly
using HMIWI emissions control
technology—e.g., wet scrubbers or fabric
filters (with or without activated
carbon). Furthermore, recent HMIWI
emissions test data for PCBs and
dioxins/furans show that HMIWI well-
controlled for dioxins/furans also
achieve low PCB emissions. (See 2008
memorandum entitled "Documentation
of HMIWI Test Data Database," which is
included in the docket.) It should also
be noted that PCBs are generally found
in higher concentrations than dioxins/
furans (also the case for HMIWI), so
HMIWI equipped with the
aforementioned emissions controls
would be even more effective at
reducing PCB emissions. Consequently,
we have concluded, in response to the
public comments submitted on this
issue, that the emissions limits for CO
function as a surrogate for control of
both POM and PCBs, and the limits for
dioxins/furans function as a surrogate
for PCBs, such that it is not necessary
to promulgate numerical emissions
limits for POM and PCBs with respect
to HMIWI to satisfy CAA Section
To further address POM and PCB
emissions, the final rule also includes
revised waste management plan
provisions that encourage segregation of
the types of wastes that lead to these
emissions, such as chlorinated plastics
and PCB-containing wastes.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a
"significant regulatory action" because
it is likely to raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866, and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) documents
prepared by EPA have been assigned
EPA ICR number 2335.02 for subpart Ce,
40 CFR part 60, and 1730.08 for subpart
EC, 40 CFR part 60.
The requirements in this final action
result in industry recordkeeping and
reporting burden associated with review
of the amendments for all HMIWI, EPA
Method 22 of appendix A— 7 testing for
all HMIWI, and inspections of
scrubbers, fabric filters, and other air
pollution control devices that may be
used to meet the emissions limits for all
HMIWI. Stack testing and development
of new parameter limits would be
necessary for HMIWI that need to make
performance improvements in order to
meet the emissions limits and for
HMIWI that, prior to this final action,
have not been required to demonstrate
compliance with certain pollutants. Any
new HMIWI would also be required to
continuously monitor CO emissions.
New HMIWI equipped with fabric filters
would also be required to purchase bag
leak detectors.
The annual average burden associated
with the EG over the first 3 years
following promulgation of this final
action is estimated to be 44,229 hours at
a total annual labor cost of $1,871,571.
The total annualized capital/startup
costs and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs associated with the
monitoring requirements, EPA Method
22 of appendix A-7 testing, storage of
data and reports, and photocopying and
postage over the three year period of the
ICR are estimated at $1,410,168 and
$641,591 per year, respectively. (The
annual inspection costs are included
under the recordkeeping and reporting
labor costs.) The annual average burden
associated with the NSPS over the first
three years following promulgation of
this final action is estimated to be 2,705
hours at a total annual labor cost of
$102,553. The total annualized capital/
startup costs are estimated at $137,658,
with total operation and maintenance
costs of $116,192 per year. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to, a collection
of information unless it displays a valid
OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the EPA
will publish a technical amendment to
40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to
display the OMB control numbers for
the approved information collection
requirements contained in this final
rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the EPA certifies
that the final action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small government organizations, and
small government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this final action on small entities,
small entity is defined as follows: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a
small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
L-35
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51401
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The one small entity directly regulated
by this final action is a small business
that owns two HMIWI. We have
determined that this one small entity
may experience an impact of
approximately $3.15 million per year to
comply with the final rule, resulting in
a cost-to-sales ratio of approximately 45
percent. (See 2009 report "Economic
Impacts of Revised MACT Standards for
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators," which is included in the
docket for today's rulemaking.) The one
small entity is a company in Maryland,
which owns and operates a commercial
facility at that location. There are only
nine other commercial facilities, which
are owned and operated by other
companies, and the closest are in North
Carolina and Ohio. Therefore, the entity
is a regional monopolist and is able to
raise the price by more than the per unit
cost increase. We expect there to be a
reduction in the amount of its services
demanded due to the price change.
Because of closures of captive HMIWI
there may also be an increase in the
demand for its services that may reduce
the decrease in revenues associated with
the price increase.
Two other entities are defined as
borderline small: Their parent company
sales or employment in 2008 are above
the SBA size-cutoff for small entities in
their NAICS codes, but are near enough
to the size cut-off that variations in sales
or employment over time might move
them below the small business criterion.
Based on 2008 sales data for these two
entities, the cost-to-sales ratio is less
than 1 percent for one entity and 1.4
percent for the other. It should be noted
that the entity with the higher cost-to-
sales ratio (1.4 percent) is a commercial
unit and would have the ability to pass
the cost along to their customers and
would be expected to be able to afford
compliance. Therefore, neither entity is
likely to incur significant impacts. (See
2009 memorandum entitled "Updated
Sales Information for Companies
Considered Borderline Small Entities,"
which is included in the docket for
today's rulemaking.)
Although the final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless conducted an analysis
of the impacts of the final rule on the
directly regulated small entity and has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on
small entities, to the extent allowed
under the CAA MACT floor rulemaking.
Our impacts analysis is contained in the
docket for today's final rulemaking. For
each subcategory of HMIWI, we are
promulgating emissions limits that are
based on the MACT floor level of
control, which is the minimum level of
stringency that can be considered in
establishing MACT standards. Under
the CAA and the case law EPA can set
standards no less stringent than the
MACT floor. Therefore, we were unable
to reduce the impact of the emissions
limits on the small entity that would be
regulated by the final rule. However, we
worked to minimize the costs of testing
and monitoring requirements in light of
our final impacts analysis, to the extent
possible under the statute.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for
State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector. This final action
imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or Tribal governments or the
private sector. Therefore, this final
action is not subject to the requirements
of Section 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This final action is also not subject to
the requirements of Section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
final action contains no requirements
that apply to such governments,
imposes no obligations upon them, and
will not result in expenditures by them
of $100 million or more in any one year
or any disproportionate impacts on
them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have Federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This final action
will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State or local
governments, and will not preempt
State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9,
2000). EPA is not aware of any HMIWI
owned or operated by Indian Tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-
501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This final
action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not a "significant
energy action" as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22,
2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA
estimates that the requirements in this
final action would cause most HMIWI to
modify existing air pollution control
devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of
their wet scrubbers) or install and
operate new control devices, resulting
in approximately 9,530 MWh/yr of
additional electricity being used.
Given the negligible change in energy
consumption resulting from this final
action, EPA does not expect any
significant price increase for any energy
type. The cost of energy distribution
should not be affected by this final
action at all since the action would not
affect energy distribution facilities. We
also expect that any impacts on the
import of foreign energy supplies, or
any other adverse outcomes that may
occur with regards to energy supplies
would not be significant. We, therefore,
conclude that if there were to be any
adverse energy effects associated with
this final action, they would be
minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law
104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the EPA decides not
to use available and applicable VCS.
L-36
-------
51402
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
This final rulemaking involves
technical standards. EPA has decided to
use two VCS in this final rule. One VCS,
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses," is cited in this
final rule for its manual method of
measuring the content of the exhaust gas
as an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 3B of appendix A-2. This
standard is available from the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ
07007-2900; or Global Engineering
Documents, Sales Department, 15
Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO
80112.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02,
"Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total
Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method)," is cited in this final rule as
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
29 of appendix A-8 (portion for
mercury only) for measuring mercury.
This standard is available from the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or
ProQuest, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106.
While the EPA has identified 16 VCS
as being potentially applicable to this
final rule, we have decided not to use
these VCS in this rulemaking. The use
of these VCS would be impractical
because they do not meet the objectives
of the standards cited in this rule. See
the docket for this rule for the reasons
for these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(1) of the NSPS
General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final
rule and any amendments.
/. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629)
(February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority or
low-income populations.
This action would establish national
standards that would result in
reductions in emissions of HC1, CO, Cd,
Pb, Hg, PM, CDD/CDF, NOX and SO2
from all HMIWI and thus decrease the
amount of such emissions to which all
affected populations are exposed.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review? Act, 5
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this final rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a "major rule" as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will
be effective on December 7, 2009.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 15, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
• For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, part 60 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 60—[AMENDED]
• 1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, etseq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
• 2. Section 60.17 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(90) and (h)(4) to
read as follows:
§60.17 Incorporations by reference.
(a) * * *
(90) ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in
Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method), IBR approved for Appendix B
to part 60, Performance Specification
12A, Section 8.6.2 and § 60.56c(b)(13) of
subpart EC of this part.
A A A A A
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981,
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus], IBR
approved for § 60.56c(b)(4) of subpart
EC, § 60.106(e)(2) of subpart 1,
§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5),
and (j)(4), 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4),
(g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(l)(iii),
, , ,
and (a)(3)(v), and 60.107a(a)(l)(ii),
(a)(l)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and
(d)(2) of subpart la, tables 1 and 3 of
subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart
FFFF, table 2 of subpart 1111, and
§§60.4415(a)(2) and 60.4415(a)(3) of
subpart KKKK of this part.
Subpart Ce—[Amended]
• 3. Section 60.32e is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 60.32e Designated facilities.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) through (h) of this section, the
designated facility to which the
guidelines apply is each individual
HMIWI:
(l) For which construction was
commenced on or before lune 20, 1996,
or for which modification was
commenced on or before March 16,
1998.
(2) For which construction was
commenced after lune 20, 1996 but no
later than December 1, 2008, or for
which modification is commenced after
March 16, 1998 but no later than April
6, 2010.
A A A A A
(j) The requirements of this subpart as
promulgated on September 15, 1997,
shall apply to the designated facilities
defined in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section until the applicable compliance
L-37
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51403
date of the requirements of this subpart,
as amended on October 6, 2009. Upon
the compliance date of the requirements
of this subpart, designated facilities as
defined in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section are no longer subject to the
requirements of this subpart, as
promulgated on September 15, 1997, but
are subject to the requirements of this
subpart, as amended on October 6, 2009.
• 4. Section 60.33e is revised to read as
follows:
§60.33e Emissions guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall
include the requirements for emissions
limits at least as protective as the
following requirements, as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, the requirements
listed in Table 1A of this subpart, except
as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(2) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009, the requirements listed in Table
IB of this subpart, except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(2), the more stringent of
the requirements listed in Table IB of
this subpart and Table 1A of subpart EC
of this part.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall
include the requirements for emissions
limits for any small HMIWI constructed
on or before lune 20, 1996, which is
located more than 50 miles from the
boundary of the nearest Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (defined in
§ 60.31e) and which burns less than
2,000 pounds per week of hospital
waste and medical/infectious waste that
are at least as protective as the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(l) and
(b)(2) of this section, as applicable. The
2,000 Ib/week limitation does not apply
during performance tests.
(1) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, the requirements
listed in Table 2A of this subpart.
(2) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009, the requirements listed in Table
2B of this subpart.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall
include the requirements for stack
opacity at least as protective as the
following, as applicable:
(1) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, the requirements in
§ 60.52c(b)(l) of subpart EC of this part.
(2) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009 and a designated facility as
defined in § 60.32e(a)(2), the
requirements in § 60.52c(b)(2) of subpart
EC of this part.
• 5. Section 60.36e is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraph (a)
introductory text;
• b. By revising paragraph (b); and
• c. By adding paragraphs (c) and (d).
§60.36e Inspection guidelines.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall
require each small HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(b) and
each HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) to
undergo an initial equipment inspection
that is at least as protective as the
following within 1 year following
approval of the State plan:
A A A A A
(b) For approval, a State plan shall
require each small HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(b) and
each HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.33e(a)(2) and (a)(3) to
undergo an equipment inspection
annually (no more than 12 months
following the previous annual
equipment inspection), as outlined in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall
require each small HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(b)(2)
and each HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(a)(2)
and (a)(3) to undergo an initial air
pollution control device inspection, as
applicable, that is at least as protective
as the following within 1 year following
approval of the State plan:
(1) At a minimum, an inspection shall
include the following:
(i) Inspect air pollution control
device(s) for proper operation, if
applicable;
(ii) Ensure proper calibration of
thermocouples, sorbent feed systems,
and any other monitoring equipment;
and
(iii) Generally observe that the
equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days
following an air pollution control device
inspection, all necessary repairs shall be
completed unless the owner or operator
obtains written approval from the State
agency establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the designated
facility shall be completed.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall
require each small HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(b)(2)
and each HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(a)(2)
and (a)(3) to undergo an air pollution
control device inspection, as applicable,
annually (no more than 12 months
following the previous annual air
pollution control device inspection), as
outlined in paragraph (c) of this section.
• 6. Section 60.37e is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text, and (b)(l);
• b. By redesignating paragraphs (c) and
(d) as paragraphs (d) and (e);
• c. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)
through (b)(5) as paragraphs (c)(l)
through (c)(4);
• d. By adding a new paragraph (b)(2);
• e. By adding paragraph (c)
introductory text;
• f. By revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4), (d), (e)
introductory text, and (e)(3); and
• g. By adding paragraph (f).
§60.37e Compliance, performance testing,
and monitoring guidelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, for approval, a State
plan shall include the requirements for
compliance and performance testing
listed in § 60.56c of subpart EC of this
part, with the following exclusions:
(1) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
limits in § 60.33e(a)(l), the test methods
listed in § 60.56c(b)(7) and (8), the
fugitive emissions testing requirements
under § 60.56c(b)(14) and (c)(3), the CO
GEMS requirements under
§ 60.56c(c)(4), and the compliance
requirements for monitoring listed in
§60.56c(c)(5)(ii) through (v), (c)(6),
(c)(7), (e)(6) through (10), (f)(7) through
(10), (g)(6) through (10), and (h).
(2) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) and (a)(2) subject to the
emissions limits in § 60.33e(a)(2) and
(a)(3), the annual fugitive emissions
testing requirements under
§ 60.56c(c)(3), the CO GEMS
requirements under § 60.56c(c)(4), and
the compliance requirements for
monitoring listed in § 60.56c(c)(5)(ii)
through (v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through
(10), (f)(7) through (10), and (g)(6)
through (10). Sources subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(a)(2)
and (a)(3) may, however, elect to use CO
GEMS as specified under § 60.56c(c)(4)
or bag leak detection systems as
specified under § 60.57c(h).
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b)(l) and (b)(2) of this section, for
approval, a State plan shall require each
small HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.33e(b) to meet the
performance testing requirements listed
L-38
-------
51404
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
in § 60.56c of subpart EC of this part.
The 2,000 Ib/week limitation under
§ 60.33e(b) does not apply during
performance tests.
(1) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.33e(b)(l), the test
methods listed in § 60.56c(b)(7), (8),
(12), (13) (Pb and Cd), and (14), the
annual PM, CO, and HC1 emissions
testing requirements under
§ 60.56c(c)(2), the annual fugitive
emissions testing requirements under
§ 60.56c(c)(3), the CO GEMS
requirements under § 60.56c(c)(4), and
the compliance requirements for
monitoring listed in § 60.56c(c)(5)
through (7), and (d) through (k) do not
apply.
(2) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(2) subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.33e(b)(2), the annual
fugitive emissions testing requirements
under § 60.56c(c)(3), the CO GEMS
requirements under § 60.56c(c)(4), and
the compliance requirements for
monitoring listed in § 60.56c(c)(5)(ii)
through (v), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e)(6) through
(10), (f)(7) through (10), and (g)(6)
through (10) do not apply. Sources
subject to the emissions limits under
§ 60.33e(b)(2) may, however, elect to use
CO GEMS as specified under
§ 60.56c(c)(4) or bag leak detection
systems as specified under § 60.57c(h).
(c) For approval, a State plan shall
require each small HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(b) that
is not equipped with an air pollution
control device to meet the following
compliance and performance testing
requirements:
A A A A A
(2) Following the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.8, whichever date comes first,
ensure that the designated facility does
not operate above the maximum charge
rate or below the minimum secondary
chamber temperature measured as 3-
hour rolling averages (calculated each
hour as the average of the previous 3
operating hours) at all times. Operating
parameter limits do not apply during
performance tests. Operation above the
maximum charge rate or below the
minimum secondary chamber
temperature shall constitute a violation
of the established operating
parameter(s).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section, operation of the
designated facility above the maximum
charge rate and below the minimum
secondary chamber temperature (each
measured on a 3-hour rolling average)
simultaneously shall constitute a
violation of the PM, CO, and dioxin/
furan emissions limits.
(4) The owner or operator of a
designated facility may conduct a repeat
performance test within 30 days of
violation of applicable operating
parameter(s) to demonstrate that the
designated facility is not in violation of
the applicable emissions limit(s). Repeat
performance tests conducted pursuant
to this paragraph must be conducted
under process and control device
operating conditions duplicating as
nearly as possible those that indicated a
violation under paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall
include the requirements for monitoring
listed in §60.57c of subpart EC of this
part for HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.33e(a) and (b), except
as provided for under paragraph (e) of
this section.
(e) For approval, a State plan shall
require small HMIWI subject to the
emissions limits under § 60.33e(b) that
are not equipped with an air pollution
control device to meet the following
monitoring requirements:
A A A A A
(3) The owner or operator of a
designated facility shall obtain
monitoring data at all times during
HMIWI operation except during periods
of monitoring equipment malfunction,
calibration, or repair. At a minimum,
valid monitoring data shall be obtained
for 75 percent of the operating hours per
day for 90 percent of the operating
hours per calendar quarter that the
designated facility is combusting
hospital waste and/or medical/
infectious waste.
(f) The owner or operator of a
designated facility as defined in
§ 60.32e(a)(l) or (a)(2) subject to
emissions limits under § 60.33e(a)(2),
(a)(3), or (b)(2) may use the results of
previous emissions tests to demonstrate
compliance with the emissions limits,
provided that the conditions in
paragraphs (f)(l) through (f)(3) of this
section are met:
(1) The designated facility's previous
emissions tests must have been
conducted using the applicable
procedures and test methods listed in
§60.56c(b) of subpart EC of this part.
Previous emissions test results obtained
using EPA-accepted voluntary
consensus standards are also acceptable.
(2) The HMIWI at the designated
facility shall currently be operated in a
manner (e.g., with charge rate,
secondary chamber temperature, etc.)
that would be expected to result in the
same or lower emissions than observed
during the previous emissions test(s),
and the HMIWI may not have been
modified such that emissions would be
expected to exceed (notwithstanding
normal test-to-test variability) the
results from previous emissions test(s).
(3) The previous emissions test(s)
must have been conducted in 1996 or
later.
• 7. Section 60.38e is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraph (a);
• b. By revising paragraph (b)
introductory text; and
• c. By revising paragraph (b)(l).
§ 60.38e Reporting and recordkeeping
guidelines.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section, for
approval, a State plan shall include the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements listed in § 60.58c(b)
through (g) of subpart EC of this part.
(1) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) subject to emissions
limits under § 60.33e(a)(l) or (b)(l),
excluding § 60.58c(b)(2)(ii) (fugitive
emissions), (b)(2)(viii) (NOx reagent),
(b)(2)(xvii) (air pollution control device
inspections), (b)(2)(xviii) (bag leak
detection system alarms), (b)(2)(xix) (CO
GEMS data), and (b)(7) (siting
documentation).
(2) For a designated facility as defined
in § 60.32e(a)(l) or (a)(2) subject to
emissions limits under § 60.33e(a)(2),
(a)(3), or (b)(2), excluding
§ 60.58c(b)(2)(xviii) (bag leak detection
system alarms), (b)(2)(xix) (CO GEMS
data), and (b)(7) (siting documentation).
(b) For approval, a State plan shall
require the owner or operator of each
HMIWI subject to the emissions limits
under §60.33e to:
(1) As specified in § 60.36e, maintain
records of the annual equipment
inspections that are required for each
HMIWI subject to the emissions limits
under §60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b), and
the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each
HMIWI subject to the emissions limits
under §60.33e(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b)(2),
any required maintenance, and any
repairs not completed within 10 days of
an inspection or the timeframe
established by the State regulatory
agency; and
• 8. Section 60.39e is amended as
follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a);
b. By revising paragraph (c)
ntroductory text;
c. By revising paragraph (c)(l);
d. By revising paragraph (d)(3); and
e. By revising paragraph (f).
L-39
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51405
§60.39e Compliance times.
(a) Each State in which a designated
facility is operating shall submit to the
Administrator a plan to implement and
enforce the emissions guidelines as
specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2)
of this section:
(1) Not later than September 15, 1998,
for the emissions guidelines as
promulgated on September 15, 1997.
(2) Not later than October 6, 2010, for
the emissions guidelines as amended on
October 6, 2009.
A A A A A
(c) State plans that specify measurable
and enforceable incremental steps of
progress towards compliance for
designated facilities planning to install
the necessary air pollution control
equipment may allow compliance on or
before the date 3 years after EPA
approval of the State plan (but not later
than September 16, 2002), for the
emissions guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, and on or before
the date 3 years after approval of an
amended State plan (but not later than
October 6, 2014), for the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009). Suggested measurable and
enforceable activities to be included in
State plans are:
(1) Date for submitting a petition for
site-specific operating parameters under
§ 60.56c(j) of subpart EC of this part.
A A A A A
(d) * * *
(3) If an extension is granted, require
compliance with the emissions
guidelines on or before the date 3 years
after EPA approval of the State plan (but
not later than September 16, 2002), for
the emissions guidelines as promulgated
on September 15, 1997, and on or before
the date 3 years after EPA approval of
an amended State plan (but not later
than October 6, 2014), for the emissions
guidelines as amended on October 6,
2009.
(f) The Administrator shall develop,
implement, and enforce a plan for
existing HMIWI located in any State that
has not submitted an approvable plan
within 2 years after September 15, 1997,
for the emissions guidelines as
promulgated on September 15, 1997,
and within 2 years after October 6, 2009
for the emissions guidelines as amended
on October 6, 2009. Such plans shall
ensure that each designated facility is in
compliance with the provisions of this
subpart no later than 5 years after
September 15, 1997, for the emissions
guidelines as promulgated on
September 15, 1997, and no later than
5 years after October 6, 2009 for the
emissions guidelines as amended on
October 6, 2009.
• 9. Table 1 to subpart Ce is
redesignated as Table 1A and revised to
read as follows:
TABLE 1A TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN §60.32e(a)(1)
Pollutant
Participate
matter.
Carbon mon-
oxide.
Dioxins/furans
Hydrogen chlo-
ride.
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen ox-
ides.
Lead
Units
(7 percent oxygen, dry basis)
Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (mg/dscm)
(grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)).
Parts per million by volume
(ppmv).
Nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter total dioxins/
furans (ng/dscm) (grains
per billion dry standard
cubic feet (gr/109 dscf)) or
ng/dscm TEQ (gr/109 dscf).
ppmv
DDmv
ppmv
mg/dscm (grains per thou-
sand dry standard cubic
feet (gr/103 dscf)).
Small
115 (0.05) ....
40
125 (55) or
2.3 (1.0).
100 or 93%
55
250
1.2 (0.52) or
70%.
Emissions limit
HMIWI size
Medium
69 (0.03)
40
125 (55) or
2.3 (1.0).
1 00 or 93%
55
250
1.2 (0.52) or
70%.
s
Large
34 (0.015)
40
125 (55) or 2.3
(1.0).
100 or 93% ....
55
250
1.2 (0.52) or
70%.
Averaging
time1
3-run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3-run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3-run average
(4-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3-run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3-run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3-run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3-run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
Method for demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 5 of
appendix A-3 of part 60,
or EPA Reference Method
26A or 29 of appendix A-8
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 10
or 10B of appendix A-4 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method 23
of appendix A-7 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 26
or 26A of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method 6 or
6C of appendix A-4 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 7 or
7E of appendix k-4 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
L-40
-------
51406
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1A TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN §60.32e(a)(1)—Continued
Pollutant
Cadmium
Mercury
Units
(7 percent oxygen, dry basis)
mg/dscm (gr/1 03 dscf)
mg/dscm (gr/1 03 dscf)
Small
0 1 6 (0 07)
or 65%.
0 55 (0 24)
or 85%.
Emissions limit
HMIWI size
Medium
0 1 6 (0 07)
or 65%.
0 55 (0 24)
or 85%.
s
Large
0 16 (0 07) or
65%.
0 55 (0 24) or
85%.
Averaging
time1
3 -run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
3 -run average
(1-hour min-
imum sam-
ple time per
run).
Method for demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
• 10. Add Table IB to subpart Ce to read
as follows:
TABLE 1B TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN §60.32e(a)(1) AND (a)(2)
Pollutant
Particulate
matter.
Carbon mon-
oxide.
Dioxins/furans
Hydrogen
chloride.
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen ox-
ides.
Lead
Cadmium
I InitQ
(7 percent oxygen, dry
Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (mg/dscm)
(grains per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)).
Parts per million by volume
(ppmv).
Nanograms per dry stand-
ard cubic meter total
dioxins/furans (ng/dscm)
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet (gr/
109 dscf)) or ng/dscm
TEQ (gr/1 09 dscf).
DDmv
DDmv
DDmv
mg/dscm (grains per thou-
sand dry standard cubic
feet (gr/1 03 dscf)).
mg/dscm (gr/103 dscf)
Small
66 (0.029) ....
20
16 (7.0) or
0.013
(0.0057).
44
4 2
190
0 31 (0 14)
0.017
(0.0074).
zmissions limits
HMIWI size
Medium
46 (0.020) ....
5.5
0.85 (0.37)
or 0.020
(0.0087).
7 7
4 2
190
0 018
(0.0079).
0.013
(0.0057).
Large
25 (0.011) ....
11
9.3 (4.1) or
0.054
(0.024).
66
90
140
0036 (0 016)
0.0092
(0.0040).
Averaging time 1
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (4-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
Method for demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 5 of
appendix A-3 of part 60,
or EPA Reference Meth-
od 26A or 29 of appendix
A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 10
or 10B of appendix A-4
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 23
of appendix A-7 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 26
or 26A of appendix A-8
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 6
or 6C of appendix A-4 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method 7
or 7E of appendix A-4 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
L-41
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51407
TABLE 1B TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN §60.32e(a)(1) AND (a)(2)—Continued
Pollutant
Mercury
I InitQ
(7 percent oxygen, dry
mg/dscm (gr/103 dscf)
Small
0 014
(0.0061).
Emissions limits
HMIWI size
Medium
0 025 (0011)
Large
0018
(0.0079).
Averaging time 1
3-run average (1-
hour minimum
sample time per
run).
Method for demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
• 11. Table 2 to subpart Ce is
redesignated as Table 2A and revised to
read as follows:
TABLE 2A TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL HMIWI WHICH MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER
§60.33e(b)(1)
Pollutant
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
Dioxins/furans
Hydrogen chloride
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Units
(7 percent oxygen,
dry basis)
mg/dscm (gr/dscf)
DDmv
ng/dscm total
dioxins/furans
(gr/109 dscf) or
ng/dscm TEQ
(gr/109 dscf).
DDmv
DDmv
DDmv
mg/dscm (gr/103
dscf).
mg/dscm (gr/103
dscf).
mg/dscm (gr/103
dscf).
HMIWI emissions
limits
197 (0086)
40
800 (350) or 15
(6.6).
3 100
55
250
10 (4.4)
4 (1 7)
7.5 (3.3)
Averaging time 1
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (4-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
Method for demonstrating compliance2
EPA Reference Method 5 of appendix
A-3 of part 60, or EPA Reference
Method 26A or 29 of appendix A-8
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 10 or 10B of
appendix A-4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 23 of appen-
dix A-7 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A of
appendix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C of ap-
pendix A-4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of ap-
pendix A-4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29 of appen-
dix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29 of appen-
dix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29 of appen-
dix A-8 of part 60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
• 12. Add Table 2B to subpart Ce to read
as follows:
TABLE 2B TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL HMIWI WHICH MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER
§60.33e(b)(2)
Pollutant
Units
(7 percent oxygen,
dry basis)
HMIWI Emissions
limits
Averaging time1
Method for demonstrating compliance2
Particulate matter.
Carbon monoxide
mg/dscm (gr/dscf)
ppmv
87 (0.038)
20
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
EPA Reference Method 5 of appendix
A-3 of part 60, or EPA Reference
Method 26A or 29 of appendix A-8
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 10 or 10B of
appendix A-4 of part 60.
L-42
-------
51408
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2B TO SUBPART Ce OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL HMIWI WHICH MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER
§ 60.33e(b)(2)—Continued
Pollutant
Dioxins/furans
Hydrogen chloride ..
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Units
(7 percent oxygen,
dry basis)
ng/dscm total
dioxins/furans
(gr/109 dscf) or
ng/dscm TEQ
(gr/109 dscf).
ppmv
DDmv
ppmv
mg/dscm (gr/103
dscf).
mg/dscm (gr/103
dscf).
mg/dscm (gr/103
dscf).
HMIWI Emissions
limits
240 (100) or 5 1
(2.2).
810
55
130
0 50 (0 22)
0.11 (0.048)
0 0051 (0 0022)
Averaging time 1
3-run average (4-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sam-
ple time per run).
Method for demonstrating compliance2
EPA Reference Method 23 of appen-
dix A-7 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A of
appendix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C of ap-
pendix A-4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of ap-
pendix A-4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29 of appen-
dix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29 of appen-
dix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29 of appen-
dix A-8 of part 60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
Subpart EC—[Amended]
• 13. Section 60.50c is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraph (a);
• b. By revising paragraph (i)(2);
• c. By adding paragraphs (i)(3) through
(i)(5); and
• d. By adding paragraphs (m) and (n).
§ 60.50c Applicability and delegation of
authority.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) through (h) of this section, the
affected facility to which this subpart
applies is each individual hospital/
medical/infectious waste incinerator
(HMIWI):
(l) For which construction is
commenced after lune 20, 1996 but no
later than December 1, 2008; or
(2) For which modification is
commenced after March 16, 1998 but no
later than April 6, 2010.
(3) For which construction is
commenced after December 1, 2008; or
(4) For which modification is
commenced after April 6, 2010.
(1) * * *
(2) Approval of alternative methods of
demonstrating compliance under § 60.8
including:
(i) Approval of CEMS for PM, HC1,
multi-metals, and Hg where used for
purposes of demonstrating compliance,
(ii) Approval of continuous automated
sampling systems for dioxin/furan and
Hg where used for purposes of
demonstrating compliance, and
(iii) Approval of major alternatives to
test methods;
(3) Approval of major alternatives to
monitoring;
(4) Waiver of recordkeeping
requirements; and
(5) Performance test and data
reduction waivers under § 60.8(b).
A A A A A
(m) The requirements of this subpart
as promulgated on September 15, 1997,
shall apply to the affected facilities
defined in paragraph (a)(l) and (2) of
this section until the applicable
compliance date of the requirements of
subpart Ce of this part, as amended on
October 6, 2009. Upon the compliance
date of the requirements of the amended
subpart Ce of this part, affected facilities
as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section are no longer subject to the
requirements of this subpart, but are
subject to the requirements of subpart
Ce of this part, as amended on October
6, 2009, except where the emissions
limits of this subpart as promulgated on
September 15, 1997 are more stringent
than the emissions limits of the
amended subpart Ce of this part.
Compliance with subpart Ce of this part,
as amended on October 6, 2009 is
required on or before the date 3 years
after EPA approval of the State plan for
States in which an affected facility as
defined in paragraph (a) of this section
is located (but not later than the date 5
years after promulgation of the amended
subpart).
(n) The requirements of this subpart,
as amended on October 6, 2009, shall
become effective April 6, 2010.
• 14. Section 60.51c is amended as
follows:
• a. By adding a definition for "Bag leak
detection system";
• b. By adding a definition for
"Commercial HMIWI"; and
• c. By adding a definition for
"Minimum reagent flow rate"; and
• d. By revising the definition for
"Minimum secondary chamber
temperature."
§ 60.51 c Definitions.
Bag leak detection system means an
instrument that is capable of monitoring
PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter in order to detect bag failures. A
bag leak detection system includes, but
is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light-
scattering, light-transmittance, or other
effects to monitor relative PM loadings.
A A A A A
Commercial HMIWI means a HMIWI
which offers incineration services for
hospital/medical/infectious waste
generated offsite by firms unrelated to
the firm that owns the HMIWI.
A A A A A
Minimum reagent flow rate means 90
percent of the highest 3-hour average
reagent flow rate at the inlet to the
selective noncatalytic reduction
technology (taken, at a minimum, once
every minute) measured during the most
recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the NOX emissions
limit.
A A A A A
Minimum secondary chamber
temperature means 90 percent of the
highest 3-hour average secondary
chamber temperature (taken, at a
minimum, once every minute) measured
L-43
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51409
during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the PM,
CO, dioxin/furan, and NOx emissions
limits.
A A A A A
• 15. Section 60.52c is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to
read as follows:
§60.52c Emissions limits.
(a) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.8, whichever date comes first, no
owner or operator of an affected facility
shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere:
(1) From an affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(l) and (2), any
gases that contain stack emissions in
excess of the limits presented in Table
1A to this subpart.
(2) From an affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), any
gases that contain stack emissions in
excess of the limits presented in Table
IB to this subpart.
(b) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.8, whichever date comes first, no
owner or operator of an affected facility
shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere:
(1) From an affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(l) and (2), any
gases that exhibit greater than 10
percent opacity (6-minute block
average).
(2) From an affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), any
gases that exhibit greater than 6 percent
opacity (6-minute block average).
(c) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.8, whichever date comes first, no
owner or operator of an affected facility
as defined in § 60.50c(a)(l) and (2) and
utilizing a large HMIWI, and in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere visible
emissions of combustion ash from an
ash conveying system (including
conveyor transfer points) in excess of 5
percent of the observation period (i.e., 9
minutes per 3-hour period), as
determined by EPA Reference Method
22 of appendix A-l of this part, except
as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
this section.
A A A A A
• 16. Section 60.55c is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.55c Waste management plan.
The owner or operator of an affected
facility shall prepare a waste
management plan. The waste
management plan shall identify both the
feasibility and the approach to separate
certain components of solid waste from
the health care waste stream in order to
reduce the amount of toxic emissions
from incinerated waste. A waste
management plan may include, but is
not limited to, elements such as
segregation and recycling of paper,
cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries, food
waste, and metals (e.g., aluminum cans,
metals-containing devices); segregation
of non-recyclable wastes (e.g.,
polychlorinatedbiphenyl-containing
waste, pharmaceutical waste, and
mercury-containing waste, such as
dental waste); and purchasing recycled
or recyclable products. A waste
management plan may include different
goals or approaches for different areas or
departments of the facility and need not
include new waste management goals
for every waste stream. It should
identify, where possible, reasonably
available additional waste management
measures, taking into account the
effectiveness of waste management
measures already in place, the costs of
additional measures, the emissions
reductions expected to be achieved, and
any other environmental or energy
impacts they might have. The American
Hospital Association publication
entitled "An Ounce of Prevention:
Waste Reduction Strategies for Health
Care Facilities" (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17) shall be
considered in the development of the
waste management plan. The owner or
operator of each commercial HMIWI
company shall conduct training and
education programs in waste segregation
for each of the company's waste
generator clients and ensure that each
client prepares its own waste
management plan that includes, but is
not limited to, the provisions listed
previously in this section.
• 17. Section 60.56c is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraph (a);
• b. By revising paragraph (b)
introductory text and paragraphs (b)(4)
and (b)(6);
• c. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(7)
through (b)(12) as paragraphs (b)(9)
through (b)(14);
• d. By adding new paragraphs (b)(7)
and (b)(8);
• e. By revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), (b)(ll)
introductory text, and (b)(12) through
• h. By revising newly redesignated
paragraph (c)(5);
• i. By adding paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6),
and (c)(7);
• j. By revising paragraph (d)
introductory text;
• k. By revising paragraph (e)
introductory text and paragraph (e)(5);
• 1. By adding paragraphs (e)(6) through
• m. By revising paragraph (f)
introductory text and paragraph (f)(6);
• n. By adding paragraphs (f)(7) through
(0(10);
• o. By revising paragraph (g)
introductory text and paragraph (g)(5);
• p. By adding paragraphs (g)(6) through
f. By revising paragraphs (c)(2) and
• g. By redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as
paragraph (c)(5);
• q. By redesignating paragraphs (h)
through (j) as paragraphs (i) through (k);
• r. By adding paragraph (h); and
• s. By revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (i) and (j).
§ 60.56c Compliance and performance
testing.
(a) The emissions limits apply at all
times.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(l) and (2), shall conduct an
initial performance test as required
under § 60.8 to determine compliance
with the emissions limits using the
procedures and test methods listed in
paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(6) and
(b)(9) through (b)(14) of this section. The
owner or operator of an affected facility
as defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), shall
conduct an initial performance test as
required under § 60.8 to determine
compliance with the emissions limits
using the procedures and test methods
listed in paragraphs (b)(l) through
(b)(14). The use of the bypass stack
during a performance test shall
invalidate the performance test.
A A A A A
(4) EPA Reference Method 3, 3 A, or
3B of appendix A-2 of this part shall be
used for gas composition analysis,
including measurement of oxygen
concentration. EPA Reference Method 3,
3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 of this part
shall be used simultaneously with each
of the other EPA reference methods. As
an alternative to EPA Reference Method
3B, ASME PTC-19-10-1981-Part 10
may be used (incorporated by reference,
see §60. 17).
A A A A A
(6) EPA Reference Method 5 of
appendix A-3 or Method 26A or
Method 29 of appendix A-8 of this part
shall be used to measure the particulate
matter emissions. As an alternative, PM
GEMS may be used as specified in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
L-44
-------
51410
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
(7) EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E of
appendix A-4 of this part shall be used
to measure NOx emissions.
(8) EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C of
appendix A-4 of this part shall be used
to measure SC>2 emissions.
(9) EPA Reference Method 9 of
appendix A-4 of this part shall be used
to measure stack opacity. As an
alternative, demonstration of
compliance with the PM standards
using bag leak detection systems as
specified in § 60.57c(h) or PM GEMS as
specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section is considered demonstrative of
compliance with the opacity
requirements.
(10) EPA Reference Method 10 or 1 OB
of appendix A-4 of this part shall be
used to measure the CO emissions. As
specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, use of CO GEMS are required
for affected facilities under
§60.50c(a)(3)and(4).
(11) EPA Reference Method 23 of
appendix A-7 of this part shall be used
to measure total dioxin/furan emissions.
As an alternative, an owner or operator
may elect to sample dioxins/furans by
installing, calibrating, maintaining, and
operating a continuous automated
sampling system for monitoring dioxin/
furan emissions as specified in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section. For
Method 23 of appendix A—7 sampling,
the minimum sample time shall be 4
hours per test run. If the affected facility
has selected the toxic equivalency
standards for dioxins/furans, under
§ 60.52c, the following procedures shall
be used to determine compliance:
A A A A A
(12) EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A
of appendix A-8 of this part shall be
used to measure HC1 emissions. As an
alternative, HC1 GEMS may be used as
specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section.
(13) EPA Reference Method 29 of
appendix A-8 of this part shall be used
to measure Pb, Cd, and Hg emissions.
As an alternative, Hg emissions may be
measured using ASTM D6784-02
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17).
As an alternative for Pb, Cd, and Hg,
multi-metals GEMS or Hg GEMS, may be
used as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section. As an alternative, an owner
or operator may elect to sample Hg by
installing, calibrating, maintaining, and
operating a continuous automated
sampling system for monitoring Hg
emissions as specified in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section.
(14) The EPA Reference Method 22 of
appendix A-7 of this part shall be used
to determine compliance with the
fugitive ash emissions limit under
§ 60.52c(c). The minimum observation
time shall be a series of three 1-hour
observations.
A A A A A
(c) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c)(4) and (c)(5) of this section,
determine compliance with the PM, CO,
and HC1 emissions limits by conducting
an annual performance test (no more
than 12 months following the previous
performance test) using the applicable
procedures and test methods listed in
paragraph (b) of this section. If all three
performance tests over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the emissions
limit for a pollutant (PM, CO, or HC1),
the owner or operator may forego a
performance test for that pollutant for
the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum,
a performance test for PM, CO, and HC1
shall be conducted every third year (no
more than 36 months following the
previous performance test). If a
performance test conducted every third
year indicates compliance with the
emissions limit for a pollutant (PM, CO,
or HC1), the owner or operator may
forego a performance test for that
pollutant for an additional 2 years. If
any performance test indicates
noncompliance with the respective
emissions limit, a performance test for
that pollutant shall be conducted
annually until all annual performance
tests over a 3-year period indicate
compliance with the emissions limit.
The use of the bypass stack during a
performance test shall invalidate the
performance test.
(3) For an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(l) and (2) and utilizing a
large HMIWI, and in § 60.50c(a)(3) and
(4), determine compliance with the
visible emissions limits for fugitive
emissions from flyash/bottom ash
storage and handling by conducting a
performance test using EPA Reference
Method 22 of appendix A-7 on an
annual basis (no more than 12 months
following the previous performance
test).
(4) For an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), determine
compliance with the CO emissions limit
using a CO GEMS according to
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iii) of
this section:
(i) Determine compliance with the CO
emissions limit using a 24-hour block
average, calculated as specified in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method
19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(ii) Operate the CO GEMS in
accordance with the applicable
procedures under appendices B and F of
this part.
(iii) Use of a CO GEMS may be
substituted for the CO annual
performance test and minimum
secondary chamber temperature to
demonstrate compliance with the CO
emissions limit.
(5) Facilities using GEMS to
demonstrate compliance with any of the
emissions limits under § 60.52c shall:
(i) For an affected facility as defined
in §60.50c(a)(l) and (2), determine
compliance with the appropriate
emissions limit(s) using a 12-hour
rolling average, calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 12 operating
hours.
(ii) For an affected facility as defined
in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), determine
compliance with the appropriate
emissions limit(s) using a 24-hour block
average, calculated as specified in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method
19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(iii) Operate all GEMS in accordance
with the applicable procedures under
appendices B and F of this part. For
those GEMS for which performance
specifications have not yet been
promulgated (HC1, multi-metals), this
option for an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) takes effect on
the date a final performance
specification is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan.
(iv) For an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), be allowed to
substitute use of an HC1 GEMS for the
HC1 annual performance test, minimum
HC1 sorbent flow rate, and minimum
scrubber liquor pH to demonstrate
compliance with the HC1 emissions
limit.
(v) For an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), be allowed to
substitute use of a PM GEMS for the PM
annual performance test and minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber,
if applicable, to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emissions
limit.
(6) An affected facility as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) using a continuous
automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with the
dioxin/furan emissions limits under
§ 60.52c shall record the output of the
system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Reference Method 23
of appendix A-7 of this part. This
option to use a continuous automated
sampling system takes effect on the date
a final performance specification
applicable to dioxin/furan from
monitors is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. The owner or
operator of an affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) who
elects to continuously sample dioxin/
furan emissions instead of sampling and
L-45
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51411
testing using EPA Reference Method 23
of appendix A-7 shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and shall
comply with the requirements specified
in § 60.58b(p) and (q) of subpart Eb of
this part.
(7) An affected facility as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) using a continuous
automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with the Hg
emissions limits under § 60.52c shall
record the output of the system and
analyze the sample at set intervals using
any suitable determinative technique
that can meet appropriate performance
criteria. This option to use a continuous
automated sampling system takes effect
on the date a final performance
specification applicable to Hg from
monitors is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. The owner or
operator of an affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) who
elects to continuously sample Hg
emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of this part, or an
approved alternative method for
measuring Hg emissions, shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous automated sampling system
and shall comply with the requirements
specified in § 60.58b(p) and (q) of
subpart Eb of this part.
(d) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c)(4) through (c)(7) of this section, the
owner or operator of an affected facility
equipped with a dry scrubber followed
by a fabric filter, a wet scrubber, or a dry
scrubber followed by a fabric filter and
wet scrubber shall:
A A A A A
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (i)
of this section, for affected facilities
equipped with a dry scrubber followed
by a fabric filter:
A A A A A
(5) Use of the bypass stack shall
constitute a violation of the PM, dioxin/
furan, HC1, Pb, Cd and Hg emissions
limits.
(6) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the CO emissions limit as measured by
the CO GEMS specified in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emissions limit.
(7) For an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), failure to
initiate corrective action within 1 hour
of a bag leak detection system alarm; or
failure to operate and maintain the
fabric filter such that the alarm is not
engaged for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period shall constitute a
violation of the PM emissions limit. If
inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is
required, no alarm time is counted. If
corrective action is required, each alarm
is counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If
it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate
corrective action, the alarm time is
counted as the actual amount of time
taken to initiate corrective action. If the
bag leak detection system is used to
demonstrate compliance with the
opacity limit, this would also constitute
a violation of the opacity emissions
limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the PM, HC1, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg
emissions limit as measured by the
GEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section shall constitute a violation
of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the dioxin/furan emissions limit as
measured by the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the dioxin/furan emissions
limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility
as defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
above the Hg emissions limit as
measured by the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(f) Except as provided in paragraph (i)
of this section, for affected facilities
equipped with a wet scrubber:
A A A A A
(6) Use of the bypass stack shall
constitute a violation of the PM, dioxin/
furan, HC1, Pb, Cd and Hg emissions
limits.
(7) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the CO emissions limit as measured by
the CO GEMS specified in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emissions limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the PM, HC1, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg
emissions limit as measured by the
GEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section shall constitute a violation
of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the dioxin/furan emissions limit as
measured by the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the dioxin/furan emissions
limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility
as defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
above the Hg emissions limit as
measured by the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(g) Except as provided in paragraph (i)
of this section, for affected facilities
equipped with a dry scrubber followed
by a fabric filter and a wet scrubber:
A A A A A
(5) Use of the bypass stack shall
constitute a violation of the PM, dioxin/
furan, HC1, Pb, Cd and Hg emissions
limits.
(6) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the CO emissions limit as measured by
the CO GEMS specified in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the CO emissions limit.
(7) For an affected facility as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), failure to
initiate corrective action within 1 hour
of a bag leak detection system alarm; or
failure to operate and maintain the
fabric filter such that the alarm is not
engaged for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period shall constitute a
violation of the PM emissions limit. If
inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is
required, no alarm time is counted. If
corrective action is required, each alarm
is counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If
it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate
corrective action, the alarm time is
counted as the actual amount of time
taken to initiate corrective action. If the
bag leak detection system is used to
demonstrate compliance with the
opacity limit, this would also constitute
a violation of the opacity emissions
limit.
(8) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the PM, HC1, Pb, Cd, and/or Hg
emissions limit as measured by the
GEMS specified in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section shall constitute a violation
of the applicable emissions limit.
(9) Operation of the affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) above
the dioxin/furan emissions limit as
measured by the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(6) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the dioxin/furan emissions
limit.
(10) Operation of the affected facility
as defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
above the Hg emissions limit as
measured by the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section shall constitute a
violation of the Hg emissions limit.
(h) The owner or operator of an
affected facility as defined in
L-46
-------
51412
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) equipped with
selective noncatalytic reduction
technology shall:
(1) Establish the maximum charge
rate, the minimum secondary chamber
temperature, and the minimum reagent
flow rate as site specific operating
parameters during the initial
performance test to determine
compliance with the emissions limits;
(2) Following the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.8, whichever date comes first,
ensure that the affected facility does not
operate above the maximum charge rate,
or below the minimum secondary
chamber temperature or the minimum
reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour
rolling averages (calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 3 operating
hours) at all times. Operating parameter
limits do not apply during performance
tests.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (i)
of this section, operation of the affected
facility above the maximum charge rate,
below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature, and below the minimum
reagent flow rate simultaneously shall
constitute a violation of the NOx
emissions limit.
(i) The owner or operator of an
affected facility may conduct a repeat
performance test within 30 days of
violation of applicable operating
parameter(s) to demonstrate that the
affected facility is not in violation of the
applicable emissions limit(s). Repeat
performance tests conducted pursuant
to this paragraph shall be conducted
using the identical operating parameters
that indicated a violation under
paragraph (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this
section.
(j) The owner or operator of an
affected facility using an air pollution
control device other than a dry scrubber
followed by a fabric filter, a wet
scrubber, a dry scrubber followed by a
fabric filter and a wet scrubber, or
selective noncatalytic reduction
technology to comply with the
emissions limits under § 60.52c shall
petition the Administrator for other site-
specific operating parameters to be
established during the initial
performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter. The owner or
operator shall not conduct the initial
performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the
Administrator.
A A A A A
• 18. Section 60.57c is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraph (a);
• b. By redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (d) as paragraphs (c) through
(e);
• c. By adding paragraph (b);
• d. By revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (d) and (e); and
• e. By adding paragraphs (f) through
(h).
§60.57c Monitoring requirements.
(a) Except as provided in
§ 60.56c(c)(4) through (c)(7), the owner
or operator of an affected facility shall
install, calibrate (to manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate
devices (or establish methods) for
monitoring the applicable maximum
and minimum operating parameters
listed in Table 3 to this subpart (unless
GEMS are used as a substitute for
certain parameters as specified) such
that these devices (or methods) measure
and record values for these operating
parameters at the frequencies indicated
in Table 3 of this subpart at all times.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that uses selective
noncatalytic reduction technology shall
install, calibrate (to manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate
devices (or establish methods) for
monitoring the operating parameters
listed in § 60.56c(h) such that the
devices (or methods) measure and
record values for the operating
parameters at all times. Operating
parameter values shall be measured and
recorded at the following minimum
frequencies:
(1) Maximum charge rate shall be
measured continuously and recorded
once each hour;
(2) Minimum secondary chamber
temperature shall be measured
continuously and recorded once each
minute; and
(3) Minimum reagent flow rate shall
be measured hourly and recorded once
each hour.
A A A A A
(d) The owner or operator of an
affected facility using an air pollution
control device other than a dry scrubber
followed by a fabric filter, a wet
scrubber, a dry scrubber followed by a
fabric filter and a wet scrubber, or
selective noncatalytic reduction
technology to comply with the
emissions limits under § 60.52c shall
install, calibrate (to manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate
the equipment necessary to monitor the
site-specific operating parameters
developed pursuant to § 60.56c(j).
(e) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall obtain monitoring
data at all times during HMIWI
operation except during periods of
monitoring equipment malfunction,
calibration, or repair. At a minimum,
valid monitoring data shall be obtained
for 75 percent of the operating hours per
day for 90 percent of the operating days
per calendar quarter that the affected
facility is combusting hospital waste
and/or medical/infectious waste.
(f) The owner or operator of an
affected facility as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) shall ensure that
each HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits in § 60.52c undergoes an initial
air pollution control device inspection
that is at least as protective as the
following:
(l) At a minimum, an inspection shall
include the following:
(i) Inspect air pollution control
device(s) for proper operation, if
applicable;
(ii) Ensure proper calibration of
thermocouples, sorbent feed systems,
and any other monitoring equipment;
and
(iii) Generally observe that the
equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(2) Within 10 operating days
following an air pollution control device
inspection, all necessary repairs shall be
completed unless the owner or operator
obtains written approval from the
Administrator establishing a date
whereby all necessary repairs of the
designated facility shall be completed.
(g) The owner or operator of an
affected facility as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) shall ensure that
each HMIWI subject to the emissions
limits under § 60.52c undergoes an air
pollution control device inspection
annually (no more than 12 months
following the previous annual air
pollution control device inspection), as
outlined in paragraphs (f)(l) and (f)(2) of
this section.
(h) For affected facilities as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that use an air
pollution control device that includes a
fabric filter and are not demonstrating
compliance using PM GEMS, determine
compliance with the PM emissions limit
using a bag leak detection system and
meet the requirements in paragraphs
(h)(l) through (h)(12) of this section for
each bag leak detection system.
(1) Each triboelectric bag leak
detection system may be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained
according to the "Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance," (EPA-454/R-98-
015, September 1997). This document is
available from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards;
Sector Policies and Programs Division;
Measurement Policy Group (D-243-02),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This
L-47
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51413
document is also available on the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
under Emissions Measurement Center
Continuous Emissions Monitoring.
Other types of bag leak detection
systems shall be installed, operated,
calibrated, and maintained in a manner
consistent with the manufacturer's
written specifications and
recommendations.
(2) The bag leak detection system
shall be certified by the manufacturer to
be capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per
actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per
actual cubic foot) or less.
(3) The bag leak detection system
sensor shall provide an output of
relative PM loadings.
(4) The bag leak detection system
shall be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal
from the sensor.
(5) The bag leak detection system
shall be equipped with an audible alarm
system that will sound automatically
when an increase in relative PM
emissions over a preset level is detected.
The alarm shall be located where it is
easily heard by plant operating
personnel.
(6) For positive pressure fabric filter
systems, a bag leak detector shall be
installed in each baghouse compartment
or cell.
(7) For negative pressure or induced
air fabric filters, the bag leak detector
shall be installed downstream of the
fabric filter.
(8) Where multiple detectors are
required, the system's instrumentation
and alarm may be shared among
detectors.
(9) The baseline output shall be
established by adjusting the range and
the averaging period of the device and
establishing the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time according to section
5.0 of the "Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance."
(10) Following initial adjustment of
the system, the sensitivity or range,
averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time may not be adjusted.
In no case may the sensitivity be
increased by more than 100 percent or
decreased more than 50 percent over a
365-day period unless such adjustment
follows a complete fabric filter
inspection that demonstrates that the
fabric filter is in good operating
condition. Each adjustment shall be
recorded.
(11) Record the results of each
inspection, calibration, and validation
check.
(12) Initiate corrective action within 1
hour of a bag leak detection system
alarm; operate and maintain the fabric
filter such that the alarm is not engaged
for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period. If inspection of the
fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm
time is counted. If corrective action is
required, each alarm is counted as a
minimum of 1 hour. If it takes longer
than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
the alarm time is counted as the actual
amount of time taken to initiate
corrective action.
• 19. Section 60.58c is amended as
follows:
• a. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv);
• b. By redesignating paragraphs
(b)(2)(viii) through (b)(2)(xv) as
paragraphs (b)(2)(ix) through (b)(2)(xvi);
• c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(viii);
• d. By revising newly designated
paragraph (b)(2)(xvi);
• e. By adding paragraphs (b)(2)(xvii)
through (b)(2)(xix);
• f. By revising paragraphs (b)(6) and
• g. By revising paragraph (c)
introductory text;
• h. By revising paragraphs (c)(l) and
• i. By adding paragraph (c)(4);
• j. By revising paragraph (d)
introductory text;
• k. By revising paragraphs (d)(l)
through (d)(3);
• 1. By adding paragraphs (d)(9) through
(d)(ll); and
• m. By adding paragraph (g).
§ 60.58c Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) If applicable, the petition for site-
specific operating parameters under
§60.56c(j).
A A A A A
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) For affected facilities as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), amount and
type of NOX reagent used during each
hour of operation, as applicable;
A A A A A
(xvi) For affected facilities complying
with § 60.56c(j) and § 60.57c(d), the
owner or operator shall maintain all
operating parameter data collected;
(xvii) For affected facilities as defined
in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of the
annual air pollution control device
inspections, any required maintenance,
and any repairs not completed within
10 days of an inspection or the
timeframe established by the
Administrator.
(xviii) For affected facilities as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records
of each bag leak detection system alarm,
the time of the alarm, the time
corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the
cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken, as applicable.
(xix) For affected facilities as defined
in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), concentrations
of CO as determined by the continuous
emissions monitoring system.
A A A A A
(6) The results of the initial, annual,
and any subsequent performance tests
conducted to determine compliance
with the emissions limits and/or to
establish or re-establish operating
parameters, as applicable, and a
description, including sample
calculations, of how the operating
parameters were established or re-
established, if applicable.
A A A A A
(11) Records of calibration of any
monitoring devices as required under
§60.57c(a) through (d).
(c) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs
(c)(l) through (c)(4) of this section no
later than 60 days following the initial
performance test. All reports shall be
signed by the facilities manager.
(1) The initial performance test data
as recorded under § 60.56c(b)(l) through
(b)(14), as applicable.
(2) The values for the site-specific
operating parameters established
pursuant to § 60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as
applicable, and a description, including
sample calculations, of how the
operating parameters were established
during the initial performance test.
A A A A A
(4) For each affected facility as
defined in § 60.50c(a)(3) and (4) that
uses a bag leak detection system,
analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA
guidance and specifications for bag leak
detection systems in § 60.57c(h).
(d) An annual report shall be
submitted 1 year following the
submissions of the information in
paragraph (c) of this section and
subsequent reports shall be submitted
no more than 12 months following the
previous report (once the unit is subject
to permitting requirements under title V
of the Clean Air Act, the owner or
operator of an affected facility must
submit these reports semiannually). The
annual report shall include the
information specified in paragraphs
(d)(l) through (11) of this section. All
reports shall be signed by the facilities
manager.
(1) The values for the site-specific
operating parameters established
L-48
-------
51414
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
pursuant to § 60.56(d), (h), or (j), as
applicable.
(2) The highest maximum operating
parameter and the lowest minimum
operating parameter, as applicable, for
each operating parameter recorded for
the calendar year being reported,
pursuant to § 60.56(d), (h), or (j), as
applicable.
(3) The highest maximum operating
parameter and the lowest minimum
operating parameter, as applicable, for
each operating parameter recorded
pursuant to § 60.56(d), (h), or (j) for the
calendar year preceding the year being
reported, in order to provide the
Administrator with a summary of the
performance of the affected facility over
a 2-year period.
(9) For affected facilities as defined in
§60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of the
annual air pollution control device
inspection, any required maintenance,
and any repairs not completed within
10 days of an inspection or the
timeframe established by the
Administrator.
(10) For affected facilities as defined
in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), records of each
bag leak detection system alarm, the
time of the alarm, the time corrective
action was initiated and completed, and
a brief description of the cause of the
alarm and the corrective action taken, as
applicable.
(11) For affected facilities as defined
in §60.50c(a)(3) and (4), concentrations
of CO as determined by the continuous
emissions monitoring system.
A A A A A
(g) For affected facilities, as defined in
§ 60.50c(a)(3) and (4), that choose to
submit an electronic copy of stack test
reports to EPA's WebFIRE data base, as
of December 31, 2011, the owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
enter the test data into EPA's data base
using the Electronic Reporting Tool
located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
ert/ert_tool.html.
• 20. Table 1 to subpart EC is
redesignated as Table 1A and revised to
read as follows:
TABLE 1A TO SUBPART EC OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT AFFECTED
FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN §60.50c(a)(l) AND (2)
Pollutant
Participate
matter.
Carbon mon-
oxide.
Dioxins/
furans.
Hydrogen
chloride.
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen ox-
ides.
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Units (7 percent oxygen,
dry basis)
Milligrams per dry stand-
ard cubic meter (grains
per dry standard cubic
foot).
Parts per million by vol-
ume.
Nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter
total dioxins/furans
(grains per billion dry
standard cubic feet) or
nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter
TEQ (grains per billion
dry standard cubic
feet).
Parts per million by vol-
ume.
Parts per million by vol-
ume.
Parts per million by vol-
ume.
Milligrams per dry stand-
ard cubic meter (grains
per thousand dry
standard cubic feet.
Milligrams per dry stand-
ard cubic meter (grains
per thousand dry
standard cubic feet) or
percent reduction.
Milligrams per dry stand-
ard cubic meter (grains
per thousand dry
standard cubic feet) or
percent reduction.
Small
69 (0.03)
40
125 (55) or
2.3 (1.0).
15 or 99% ...
55
250
1 .2 (0.52) or
70%.
0.16 (0.07)
or 65%.
0.55 (0.24)
or 85%.
Emissions limits
HMIWI size
Medium
34 (0.015) ....
40
25 (11) or
0.6 (0.26).
15 or 99% ...
55
250
0.07 (0.03)
or 98%.
0.04 (0.02)
or 90%.
0.55 (0.24)
or 85%.
Large
34 (0.015) ....
40
25 (11) or
0.6 (0.26).
15 or99%5.1
55
250
0.07 (0.03)
or 98%.
0.04 (0.02)
or 90%.
0.55 (0.24)
or 85%.
Averaging time 1
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (4-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample time
per run).
Method for demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 5
of appendix A-3 of part
60, or EPA Reference
Method M 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method
10 or 1 0B of appendix
k-4 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
23 of appendix A-7 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
26 or 26A of appendix
A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 6
or 6C of appendix A-4
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 7
or 7E of appendix k-4
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method
29 of appendix A-8 of
part 60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
L-49
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 192/Tuesday, October 6, 2009/Rules and Regulations
51415
• 21. Add Table IB to subpart EC to read
as follows:
TABLE 1B TO SUBPART EC OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT AFFECTED
FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN §60.50c(a)(3) AND (4)
Pollutant
Participate
matter.
Carbon mon-
oxide.
Dioxins/
furans.
Hydrogen
chloride.
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen ox-
ides.
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Units (7 percent oxygen,
dry basis)
Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
dry standard cubic foot).
Parts per million by volume
Nanograms per dry stand-
ard cubic meter total
dioxins/furans (grains
per billion dry standard
cubic feet) or nanograms
per dry standard cubic
meter TEQ (grains per
billion dry standard cubic
feet).
Parts per million by volume
Parts per million by volume
Parts per million by volume
Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
thousand dry standard
cubic feet).
Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
thousand dry standard
cubic feet) or percent re-
duction.
Milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per
thousand dry standard
cubic feet) or percent re-
duction.
Small
66 (0.029) ....
20
16 (7.0) or
0.013
(0.0057).
15
1.4
67
0 31 (0 14)
0.017
(0.0074).
0.014
(0.0061).
zmissions limits
HMIWI size
Medium
22 (0.0095) ..
1 8
0.47 (0.21)
or 0.014
(0.0061).
7 7
1.4
67
0 018
(0.0079).
0.0098
(0.0043).
0.0035
(0.0015).
Large
18 (0.0080) ..
11
9.3 (4.1) or
0.035
(0.015).
5 1
1.6
130
0 00069
(0.00030).
0.00013
(0.000057).
0.0013
(0.00057).
Averaging time1
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (4-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
3-run average (1-hour
minimum sample
time per run).
Method for demonstrating
compliance2
EPA Reference Method 5
of appendix A-3 of part
60, or EPA Reference
Method M 26A or 29 of
appendix A-8 of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 10
or 10B of appendix A-4
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 23
of appendix A-7 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 26
or 26A of appendix A-8
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 6
or 6C of appendix A-4
of part 60.
EPA Reference Method 7
or 7E of appendix A-4 of
part 60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
EPA Reference Method 29
of appendix A-8 of part
60.
1 Except as allowed under §60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under §60.56c(b).
[FR Doc. E9-22928 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
L-50
-------
Appendix M
2010 HMIWI Inventory
-------
APPENDIX M—2010 HMIWI INVENTORY
No.
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Facility name
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Merck & Company, Inc.
Curtis Bay Energy
Curtis Bay Energy
Franklin Square Hospital
Center
University of Maryland at
Baltimore, Environmental
Health and Safety Facility
Fort Detrick
Fort Detrick
Washington County
Hospital
Holy Spirit Hospital
Hamot Medical Center
Riddle Memorial Hospital
Pennsylvania State
University, Animal
Diagnostic Lab Incinerator
Merck & Company, Inc.
Merck & Company, Inc.
Charleston Area Medical
Center, General Hospital
Unit
no.
Unitl
Unit 2
Unit5
Unit 6
Unit 2
Unit5
Street address
5 Research Parkway,
P.O. Box 5 100
126 E. Lincoln Avenue
3200 Hawkins Point
Road
3200 Hawkins Point
Road
9000 Franklin Square
Drive
714 W.Lombard Street
Incinerator Complex,
Building 393
Incinerator Complex,
Building 393
25 IE. Antietam Street
503 N. 21st Street
201 State Street
1068 W. Baltimore Pike
159 A Physical Plant
Building, Orchard Road
770 Sumneytown Pike,
P.O. Box 4
770 Sumneytown Pike,
P.O. Box 4
501 Morris Street
City
Wallingford
Rahway
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Fort Detrick
Fort Detrick
Hagerstown
Camp Hill
Erie
Media
State College
West Point
West Point
Charleston
State
CT
NJ
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
WV
Zip
06492
07065
21226
21226
21237
21201
21702
21702
21740
17011
16550
19063
16802
19486
19486
25301
County
New Haven
Union
Baltimore
City
Baltimore
City
Baltimore
Baltimore
City
Frederick
Frederick
Washington
Cumberland
Erie
Delaware
Centre
Montgomery
Montgomery
Kanawha
EPA
Region
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Size
category
L
L
L
L
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
New/
existing
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M-2
-------
No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Facility name
Thomas Memorial
Hospital
Stericycle, Inc.
Boca Raton Community
Hospital
Bethesda Memorial
Hospital
Holy Cross Hospital
Malcom Randall Veterans
Affairs Medical Center
Memorial Regional
Hospital
Lakeland Regional
Medical Center
Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center
Bayfront Medical Center
St. Joseph's Hospital
Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention--
Clifton, Building 18
East Carolina University,
Health Sciences Campus,
HSC Utility Plant
Stericycle, Inc.
Stericycle, Inc.
BMWNC, Inc.
St. Jude Children's
Research Hospital
Unit
no.
Unitl
Unit 2
Unitl
Street address
4605 MacCorkle
Avenue S.W.
254 W. Keene Road
800 Meadows Road
2815 S. Seacrest
Boulevard
4725 N. Federal
Highway
1601 S.W. Archer Road
3501 Johnson Street
1324 Lakeland Hills
Boulevard
1201 N.W. 16th Street
70 16th Streets.
3001 W.Martin Luther
King Jr. Boulevard
1600 Clifton Road,
N.E.
600 Moye Boulevard
1 168 Porter Avenue
1 168 Porter Avenue
3250 Campus Ridge
Road
262 Danny Thomas
Place
City
South
Charleston
Apopka
Boca Raton
Boynton
Beach
Fort
Lauderdale
Gainesville
Hollywood
Lakeland
Miami
St. Petersburg
Tampa
Atlanta
Greenville
Haw River
Haw River
Matthews
Memphis
State
WV
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
NC
NC
NC
NC
TN
Zip
25309
32703
33486
33435
33308
32608
33021
33805
33125
33701
33607
30333
27834
27258
27258
28105
38105
County
Kanawha
Orange
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Broward
Alachua
Broward
Polk
Miami-Dade
Pinellas
Hillsborough
DeKalb
Pitt
Alamance
Alamance
Mecklenburg
Shelby
EPA
Region
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Size
category
M
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
S
L
L
L
L
M
New/
existing
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
E
E
E
E
M-3
-------
No.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Facility name
Stericycle, Inc.
Stericycle, Inc.
Loyola University Medical
Center
Parkview Hospital
South Bend Medical
Foundation
Good Samaritan Hospital
Mayo Clinic, Waste
Management Facility
Fairfield Medical Center
MedCentral Health System,
Mansfield Hospital
Medina General Hospital
Stericycle, Inc.
Waste Management
Resource Recovery &
Recycling Center
Waste Management
Resource Recovery &
Recycling Center
University of Texas
Medical Branch
Stericycle, Inc.
Rocky Mountain
Laboratories
Healthcare Environmental
Services Inc.
Stericycle, Inc.
Unit
no.
Unitl
Unit 2
Unitl
Unit 2
Street address
Rural Route 4, P.O. Box
243L
Rural Route 4, P.O. Box
243L
2160 S. First Avenue
2200 Randallia Drive
530 N. Lafayette
Boulevard
520 S. Seventh Street
7123 L.C. Industrial Park,
Rochester Municipal
Airport
401 N. Ewing Street
335 Glessner Avenue
1000 E. Washington
Street
1901 Pine Avenue S.E.
7505 State Highway 65
7505 State Highway 65
301 University Boulevard,
Mail Route 1 108
3 140 N. 7th Street
903 S. 4th Street, Building
23
1420 40th Street N.
90 N. 1100W.
City
Clinton
Clinton
Maywood
Fort Wayne
South Bend
Vincennes
Rochester
Lancaster
Mansfield
Medina
Warren
Anahuac
Anahuac
Galveston
Kansas City
Hamilton
Fargo
North Salt Lake
State
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
TX
TX
TX
KS
MT
ND
UT
Zip
61727
61727
60153
46805
46601
47591
55905
43130
44903
44256
44483
77514
77514
77555
66115
59840
58102
84054
County
DeWitt
DeWitt
Cook
Allen
St. Joseph
Knox
Olmsted
Fairfield
Richland
Medina
Trumbull
Chambers
Chambers
Galveston
Wyandotte
Ravalli
Cass
Davis
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
Size
category
L
L
L
L
M
M
L
S
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
New/
existing
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
N
E
E
E
E
E
M-4
-------
No.
52
53
54
Facility name
Wyoming Medical Center
Kona Community Hospital
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
Regional Hospital
Unit
no.
Street address
1233 E. Second Street
79-1019 Haukapila Street
829 Chief Eddie Hoffman
Highway, P.O. Box 528
City
Casper
Kealakekua
Bethel
State
WY
HI
AK
Zip
82601
96750
99559
County
Natrona
Hawaii
Bethel Census
Area
EPA
Region
8
9
10
Size
category
M
SR
SR
New/
existing
E
E
E
M-5
-------
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Facility name
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co.
Merck & Company, Inc.
Curtis Bay Energy
Curtis Bay Energy
Franklin Square Hospital
Center
University of Maryland
at Baltimore,
Environmental Health
and Safety Facility
Fort Detrick
Fort Detrick
Washington County
Hospital
Unit
no.
Unitl
Unit 2
Units
Unit 6
Facility type
Pharmaceutical
Pharmaceutical
Commercial
Commercial
Hospital
University
Fed military
Fed military
Hospital
APCD description
Secondary chamber
(1 SOOT) and baghouse
Secondary chamber
(1500°F, 1 sec), partial
quench, dry acid gas
scrubber with dry lime
injection, and baghouse
Secondary chamber, dry
scrubber, and baghouse
with activated carbon
injection
Secondary chamber, dry
scrubber, and baghouse
with activated carbon
injection
Secondary chamber
(1 SOOT) and venturi
scrubber followed by
quench chamber and mist
eliminator
Secondary chamber
(1832°F)andventuri
caustic scrubber with
packed-bed scrubber
Secondary chamber and
rotary atomizing wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber and
rotary atomizing wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber and
venturi caustic scrubber
APCD
code
FF
DIFF
DIFF
DIFF
WS
ws
WS
ws
ws
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
Compliance
date
9/15/2002
8/15/2001
3/15/2002
3/15/2002
3/15/2002
3/15/2002
3/15/2002
3/15/2002
3/15/2002
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
1,000
799
7,083
7,083
500
500
1,000
1,000
500
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
2,072
4,321
8,736
8,736
5,408
1,440
1,300
1,300
2,496
M-6
-------
No.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Facility name
Holy Spirit Hospital
Hamot Medical Center
Riddle Memorial
Hospital
Pennsylvania State
University, Animal
Diagnostic Lab
Incinerator
Merck & Company, Inc.
Merck & Company, Inc.
Unit
no.
Unit 2
Unit5
Facility type
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
University
University
Pharmaceutical
APCD description
Secondary chamber
(1 SOOT) and venturi
scrubber with prequench
and NaOH injection
Secondary chamber
(2000°F, 2 sec), lime
injection system,
powdered activated
carbon injection system,
baghouse, and vertical
upflow two-stage multi-
microventuri scrubber
system
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2 sec), caustic
packed tower scrubber,
and high pressure venturi,
with activated carbon
injection
Secondary chamber
(1900°F) and rotary
atomizing wet scrubber
with demister
Secondary chamber
(1900°F) and rotary
atomizing wet scrubber
with demister
Secondary /tertiary
chamber (2000°F, 2 sec),
water quench followed by
sodium bicarbonate
injection system with dry
reaction chamber and
pulse-jet baghouse
APCD
code
WS
DIFF/
WS
WS
WS
WS
DIFF
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
Compliance
date
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
8/15/2001
8/15/2001
9/15/2002
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
500
1,060
500
500
500
2,000
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
3,944
2,080
2,920
1,022
1,022
865
M-7
-------
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Facility name
Charleston Area Medical
Center, General Hospital
Thomas Memorial
Hospital
Stericycle, Inc.
Boca Raton Community
Hospital
Bethesda Memorial
Hospital
Holy Cross Hospital
Malcom Randall
Veterans Affairs Medical
Center
Unit
no.
Facility type
Pharmaceutical
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Fed hospital
APCD description
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2.2 sec), water
quench followed by
sodium bicarbonate
injection system and
pulse-jet baghouse
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2 sec), dry
inj ection/baghouse
scrubber system with
activated carbon
Secondary chamber
(1 SOOT) and venturi
packed tower wet
scrubber with caustic
injection
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and rotary
atomizing wet scrubber
system with caustic soda
injection
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2 sec) and rotary
atomizing scrubber with
mist eliminator
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and
venturi scrubber with
packed bed absorption
unit using dilute NaOH
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and wet
scrubber with caustic soda
injection
APCD
code
DIFF
DIFF
WS
ws
WS
ws
ws
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
Compliance
date
9/15/2002
7/28/2001
7/28/2001
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
3,045
1,000
470
730
1,000
1,300
495
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
5,753
1,248
2,080
8,736
3,024
2,964
1,664
M-8
-------
No.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Facility name
Memorial Regional
Hospital
Lakeland Regional
Medical Center
Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center
Bayfront Medical Center
St. Joseph's Hospital
Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention--
Clifton, Building 18
East Carolina University,
Health Sciences Campus,
HSC Utility Plant
Unit
no.
Facility type
Hospital
Hospital
Fed hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Fed research
University
APCD description
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec), packed
column gas scrubber, and
wet ESP
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec), lime
injection system, and
baghouse
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec), venturi
scrubber, and packed
tower absorber
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and flux
force/condensation
collision scrubber system
using dilute NaOH
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec), lime
injection, baghouse, and
venturi scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1.68 sec) and
rotary atomizing wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1985°F), rotary
atomizing wet scrubber
(with NaOH scrubbing
medium), carbon bed
adsorber, HEPA filtering
system, and heat recovery
system
APCD
code
WS/
WESP
DIFF
WS
WS
DIFF/
WS
WS
HEPA/
CA/
WS
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
NSPS
NSPS
Compliance
date
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
1/16/2002
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
1,800
750
1,000
1,500
1,500
120
1,000
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
4,992
6,247
4,160
3,352
8,008
2,920
625
M-9
-------
No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
Facility name
Stericycle, Inc.
Stericycle, Inc.
BMWNC, Inc.
St. Jude Children's
Research Hospital
Stericycle, Inc.
Stericycle, Inc.
Unit
no.
Unitl
Unit 2
Unitl
Unitl
Unit 2
Facility type
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Hospital
Commercial
Commercial
APCD description
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec), rapid gas
quench system, wet
scrubber system
consisting of a packed bed
absorber and venturi
scrubber, and demister.
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec), rapid gas
quench system, wet
scrubber system
consisting of a packed bed
absorber and venturi
scrubber, and demister.
Secondary chamber
(1641°F), dry scrubber
with lime and activated
carbon injection, and
baghouse
Secondary chamber
(1528°F) and baghouse
with sodium bicarbonate
and carbon injection
Secondary chamber
(1800°F), venturi
scrubber, and condensing
absorber
Secondary chamber
(1800°F), venturi
scrubber, and condensing
absorber
APCD
code
WS
ws
DIFF
DIFF
WS
ws
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
State Plan
State Plan
Compliance
date
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
7/1/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
1,911
1,911
1,500
500
1,500
1,500
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
8,400
8,400
7,456
1,050
7,665
7,558
M-10
-------
No.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Facility name
Loyola University
Medical Center
Parkview Hospital
South Bend Medical
Foundation
Good Samaritan Hospital
Mayo Clinic, Waste
Management Facility
Fairfield Medical Center
MedCentral Health
System, Mansfield
Hospital
Medina General Hospital
Stericycle, Inc.
Waste Management
Resource Recovery &
Recycling Center
Unit
no.
Unitl
Facility type
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Commercial
Commercial
APCD description
Two secondary chambers
(1600°F), twin rotary
atomizer scrubber using
50% caustic solution, and
two demister pads
Secondary chamber and
wet scrubber
Secondary chamber and
wet scrubber
Secondary chamber and
multi-chamber spray
scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and
baghouse with lime and
carbon injection
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2 sec) and
baghouse with lime and
carbon injection system
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 1 sec) and wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2 sec), wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber,
baghouse with virgin lime
injection, urea injection,
and activated carbon
injection
APCD
code
WS
ws
WS
ws
DIFF
WS
DIFF
WS
ws
DIFF
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
NSPS
Compliance
date
9/15/2002
3/31/2002
3/31/2002
3/31/2002
8/15/2001
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
1,650
1,200
470
500
2,000
95
600
300
1,400
4,167
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
4,800
8,395
2,028
2,574
6,240
5,018
3,120
3,016
7,904
7,896
M-ll
-------
No.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Facility name
Waste Management
Resource Recovery &
Recycling Center
University of Texas
Medical Branch
Stericycle, Inc.
Rocky Mountain
Laboratories
Healthcare
Environmental Services
Inc.
Stericycle, Inc.
Wyoming Medical
Center
Kona Community
Hospital
Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta Regional Hospital
Unit
no.
Unit 2
Facility type
Commercial
Hospital
Commercial
Fed research
Commercial
Commercial
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
APCD description
Secondary chamber,
baghouse with virgin lime
injection, urea injection,
and activated carbon
injection
Secondary chamber,
packed tower, and venturi
scrubber with activated
carbon injection
Secondary chamber
(1800°F, 2 sec), wet
scrubber
Secondary chamber and
wet scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1 SOOT) and dry
scrubber/baghouse system
with lime and carbon
injection
Secondary chamber
(1834°F), carbon injection
system, ESP, dry
scrubber, and wet gas
absorber
Secondary chamber and
wet scrubber
Secondary chamber
(1900°F, 2 sec), no APCD
Secondary chamber, no
APCD
APCD
code
DIFF
WS
ws
WS
DIFF
DI-
ESP/
WS
WS
cc
cc
State Plan/
Federal
Plan/NSPS
NSPS
Federal Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
State Plan
Federal Plan
Federal Plan
Compliance
date
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
9/15/2002
8/15/2001
Maximum
charge
rate, Ib/hr
4,167
1,500
1,500
500
1,686
1,935
400
200
50
Operating
hours,
hr/yr
7,896
5,328
8,760
1,248
1,872
7,309
989
1,430
1,560
M-12
-------
Key:
APCD = Air pollution control device
CA = Carbon adsorber
CC = Combustion control
DI = Dry injection
DIFF = Dry injection fabric filter
E = Existing HMIWI
ESP = Electrostatic precipitator
FF = Fabric filter
HEPA = High-efficiency paniculate air
HMIWI = Hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator(s)
L = Large HMIWI
M = Medium HMIWI
N = New HMIWI
S = Small HMIWI
SR = Small rural HMIWI
WESP = WetESP
WS = Wet scrubber
M-13
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-453/B-10-001
Environmental Protection Sector Policies and Programs Division October 2010
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |