[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75348-75369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23968]
[[Page 75347]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75348]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-OAR-2005-0117; FRL-8008-1]
RIN 2060-AL97
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 19, 1995, EPA adopted new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for large municipal waste
combustion (MWC) units. The NSPS and emission guidelines were fully
implemented by December 2000. Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires EPA to review, and if appropriate, revise the NSPS and
emission guidelines every 5 years. In this action, EPA is proposing to
revise the emission limits in the NSPS and emission guidelines to
reflect the levels of performance actually achieved by the emission
controls installed to meet the emission limits set forth in the
December 19, 1995, NSPS and emission guidelines.
The MWC NSPS and emission guidelines apply to the combustion of
non-hazardous municipal solid waste. Hazardous waste combustors
(incinerators) are addressed by CAA section 112 standards.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 6, 2006. Because
of the need to resolve the issues raised in this action in a timely
manner, EPA will not grant requests for extensions beyond this date.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by December 30, 2005
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing
on January 6, 2006. If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify that a
hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-
2005-0117, by one of the following methods:
Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, will be replaced by an
enhanced Federal wide electronic docket management and comment system
located at http://www.regulations.gov. When that occurs, you will be
redirected to that site to access the docket and submit comments.
Follow the on-line instructions.
E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA,
Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117. Such
deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays),
and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-
0117. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting
oral testimony must contact Ms. Pam Garrett at (919) 541-7966 at least
2 days in advance of the hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Garrett in
advance of the hearing with a request to present oral testimony at the
hearing, we will cancel the hearing. The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed action.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West Building, Room B102, 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. Walt Stevenson, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5264, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Do the proposed amendments apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
A. Are revisions to the emission limits being proposed?
B. Are other amendments being proposed?
C. Is an implementation schedule being proposed?
D. Has EPA changed the applicability date of the NSPS?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How were the proposed emission limits developed?
B. How were the proposed operator stand-in provisions developed?
C. Why did EPA add two MWC combustor categories to the list of
MWC combustor types?
[[Page 75349]]
D. How were the additional carbon monoxide (CO) limits
developed?
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period for measuring activated
carbon injection (ACI) rate?
F. Are any other changes being considered for measuring ACI?
G. How did EPA determine the amended performance testing and
monitoring requirements?
H. How did EPA determine the other amendments?
I. How was the implementation schedule developed?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments for Existing Units
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC units equipped with electrostatic
precipitator-based scrubbing systems to replace the ESP with a
fabric filter?
VII. How do the proposed amendments relate 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
I. General Information
A. Do the proposed amendments apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed amendments are MWC units with a design combustion capacity
of greater than 250 tons per day. The NSPS and emission guidelines for
municipal waste combustors affect the following categories of sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC code Examples of potentially regulated
Category NAICS code (optional) entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry, Federal government, and State/local/ 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors or incinerators
tribal governments. 92411 9511 at waste-to-energy facilities that
generate electricity or steam from
the combustion of garbage (typically
municipal solid waste); and solid
waste combustors or incinerators at
facilities that combust garbage
(typically municipal solid waste) and
do not recover energy from the waste
combustion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
the proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.32b of subpart Cb and 40 CFR 60.50b of subpart Eb. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI to only the following address: Mr. Walt Stevenson, c/
o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0117. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
(b) Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
(c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
(d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
(e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
(f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
(g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
(h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the preceding section titled Dates.
Docket. The docket number for the proposed amendments to the large
MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb) and emission guidelines (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cb) is Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0117.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed rule is available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following
signature, EPA posted a copy of the proposed rule on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
II. Background Information
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and emission guidelines for
solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129.
Section 111(b) of the CAA (NSPS program) addresses emissions from new
MWC units and CAA section 111(d) (emission guidelines program)
addresses emissions from existing MWC units. The NSPS are directly
enforceable Federal regulations. The emission guidelines are not
directly enforceable
[[Page 75350]]
but, rather, are implemented by State air pollution control agencies
through sections 111(d)/129 State plans.
In December 1995, EPA adopted NSPS (subpart Eb) and emission
guidelines (subpart Cb) for MWC units with a combustion capacity
greater than 250 tons per day. These MWC units are referred to as large
MWC units. Both the NSPS and emission guidelines require compliance
with emission limitations that reflect the performance of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). The NSPS apply to new MWC units
after the effective date of the NSPS or at start-up, whichever is
later. The emission guidelines apply to existing MWC units and required
compliance by December 2000. These retrofits were completed on time,
and the controls installed to meet the required emission limitations
were highly effective in reducing emissions of all of the CAA section
129 pollutants emitted by large MWC units. Relative to a 1990 baseline,
the emission guidelines reduced organic emissions (dioxin/furan) by
more than 99 percent, metal emissions (cadmium, lead, and mercury) by
more than 93 percent, and acid gas emissions (hydrogen chloride and
sulfur dioxide) by more than 91 percent.
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a 5-year
review of the NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if appropriate, revise
the NSPS and emission guidelines. The EPA has completed that review,
and these proposed amendments reflect the changes EPA believes are
appropriate.
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
Following year 2000 compliance with the emission guidelines, EPA
gathered information on the performance levels actually being achieved
by large MWC units retrofitted to comply with the emission guidelines.
Today's proposed amendments would revise the NSPS and emission
guidelines based on the performance levels being achieved by large MWC
units. The revisions discussed in the following text apply to both the
NSPS and the emission guidelines, unless otherwise specified.
A. Are revisions to the emission limits being proposed?
Yes. The proposed amendments would revise many of the emission
limits in both the NSPS and emission guidelines. Relative to the NSPS,
the most significant changes would be in the lead and cadmium emission
limits. Relative to the emission guidelines, the most significant
changes would be in the dioxin/furan and lead emission limits. Also
associated with the revised emissions limits, are proposed amendments
to change the dimensions (units of measure) of the emission limits for
cadmium, lead, and mercury from milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
to micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm). EPA believes
the proposed emission limits can be achieved with the same emission
control technology currently used by large MWCs. EPA requests comment
on achievability of the proposed limits and whether the proposed limits
adequately consider emission variability. The proposed emission limits
for the NSPS and emission guidelines are summarized in Table 1 of this
preamble.
Table 1.-- Proposed Emission Limits for Large MWC Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed emission Proposed emission
Pollutant limit for existing limit for new MWC
MWC units* units*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF)...... 21 nanograms per dry 13 nanograms per dry
standard cubic standard cubic
meter total mass meter total mass
basis. basis**.
Cadmium (Cd)................ 31 micrograms per 3.5 micrograms per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter. per dry meter.
Lead (Pb)................... 250 micrograms per 84 micrograms per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter. meter.
Mercury (Hg)................ 80 micrograms per 49 micrograms per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter or 85 percent meter or 90 percent
reduction of reduction of
mercury emissions**. mercury emissions.
Particulate Matter (PM)..... 24 milligrams per 9.5 milligrams per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter. meter.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)..... 26 parts per million 25 parts per million
dry volume or 97 dry volume or 98
percent reduction percent reduction
of hydrogen of hydrogen
chloride emissions. chloride emissions.
Sulfur dioxide (CO2)........ 23 parts per million 19 parts per million
dry volume or 80 dry volume or 90
percent reduction percent reduction
of sulfur dioxide of sulfur dioxide
emissions. emissions.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)....... Varies by combustor 180 parts per
type (see table 1 million dry volume/
to subpart Cb of 150 parts per
part 60). million dry volume
after first year of
operation**.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
**No change proposed.
B. Are other amendments being proposed?
The proposed amendments would also make the following changes based
on information received during implementation of the MWC emission
guidelines and would apply equally to the NSPS and emission guidelines,
unless otherwise specified.
Operating Practices
The proposed amendments would revise the operator stand-in
provisions in Sec. 60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift supervisor is
allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified control room
operator is standing in. A provisionally certified control room
operator could stand in for up to 12 hours without notifying EPA; for
up to 2 weeks if EPA is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if EPA is
notified and the MWC owner demonstrates to EPA that a good faith effort
is being made to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor is on site as soon as practicable.
The proposed amendments would add two additional
classifications of MWC units to the emission guidelines and would add
associated CO limits to assure good combustion practices. The two new
classifications are ``spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-fired/
100 percent coal capable combustor'' and ``semi-suspension RDF-fired
combustor/wet RDF process conversion.''
Operating Parameters
The proposed amendments would revise Sec. 60.58b(m) to
establish an 8-hour block average for measuring activated carbon
injection (ACI) rate. This would make the NSPS and emission guidelines
for large MWC units consistent with the newer (year 2000) section 129
regulations for small MWC units (40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA, BBBB),
which monitors ACI rate using an 8-hour block average.
Performance Testing and Monitoring
The proposed amendments would revise the annual mercury
testing
[[Page 75351]]
requirements to allow for optimization of mercury control operating
parameters by waiving operating parameter limits during the mercury
performance test and during the 2 weeks preceding the mercury
performance test. This is already done for dioxin testing.
The proposed amendments would revise the reduced testing
requirements for exceptionally well-operated MWC units. Exceptionally
well-operated units are those with emissions significantly below the
emission limits. Specifically, EPA proposes to lower the dioxin/furan
criteria and add an associated mercury criteria to qualify for reduced
testing.
The proposed amendments would add flexibility to the
annual compliance testing schedule so that a facility still tests once
per calendar year, but no less than 9 months and no more than 15 months
since the previous test. The revision would provide flexibility to
facilities when facing scheduled and unscheduled outages, adverse local
weather conditions, and other conditions, while still meeting the
intent of the compliance testing requirements.
The proposed amendments would allow the use of parametric
monitoring limits from an exceptionally well-operated MWC unit (i.e.,
unit with emissions significantly below the emission limits) to be
applied to all identical units at the same plant site without
retesting.
The proposed amendments would increase the continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) data collection rates from 90 percent
of operating time on a quarterly calendar basis to 95 percent of
operating time on a quarterly calendar basis.
The proposed amendments would revise the particulate
matter compliance testing requirements to allow the optional use of a
particulate matter CEMS in place of EPA Method 5.
Other Amendments
The proposed amendments would clarify the meaning of the
term ``Administrator'' in the regulations.
Other details to fine tune the regulation are also
proposed.
C. Is an implementation schedule being proposed?
Yes. Under the proposed emission guidelines, and consistent with
CAA section 129, revised State plans containing the revised emission
limits and other requirements in the proposed emission guidelines would
be due within 1 year after promulgation of the revisions. That is,
revised State plans would have to be submitted to EPA 1 year after the
date by which EPA promulgates revised limits.
The proposed emission guidelines then allow MWC units up to 2 years
from the date of approval of a State plan to comply. Consistent with
CAA section 129, EPA, therefore, expects States to require compliance
as expeditiously as practicable. Large MWC units have already installed
the emission control equipment necessary to meet the proposed revised
limits, and EPA, therefore, anticipates that most State plans will
include compliance dates sooner than 3 years following promulgation of
the final rule. In most cases, the only changes necessary are to review
the revisions and adjust the emission monitoring and reporting
accordingly.
In revising the emission limits in a State plan, a State has two
options. First, it could insert the new emission limits in place of the
current emission limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
B, and submit a revised State plan to EPA for approval. If the revised
State plan contains only the new emission limits (i.e., the existing
emission limits are not retained), then the new emission limits must
become effective immediately since the current limits would be removed
from the State plan. A second approach would be for a State plan to
include both the current and the new emission limits. This allows a
phased approach in applying the new limits. That is, the State plan
would make it clear that the existing emission limits remain in force
and apply until the date the new emission limits are effective (as
defined in the State plan).
D. Has EPA changed the applicability date of the NSPS?
No. The applicability date for the NSPS units remains September 20,
1994; however, units for which construction or modification is
commenced after the date of this proposal will be subject to more
stringent emission limits than units on which construction or
modification was completed prior to that date. Under the proposed
amendments, units that commenced construction after September 20, 1994,
and on or before December 19, 2005, or that are modified 6 months or
more after the effective date of any final standards, would continue to
be subject to the NSPS emission limits that were promulgated in 1995
and that remain in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb NSPS. Units that
commence construction after December 19, 2005 would meet the revised
emission limits that are being added to the subpart Eb NSPS.
The EPA is not aware of any MWC units that were modified or
reconstructed after June 19, 1996 (effective date of the December 19,
1995 NSPS), therefore, EPA is proposing to simplify the applicability
text for the NSPS to be MWC units that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994. The EPA
believes the use of one date is the most understandable format. The EPA
requests comment on this approach and whether all dates referenced in
CAA section 129 should remain in the revised NSPS, even if the dates
have passed and have no utility.
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How were the proposed emission limits developed?
The proposed emission limits are based on the performance of MACT.
One set of emission limits is proposed for existing MWC units regulated
under CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines, and another set of
emission limits is proposed for new MWC units regulated under CAA
section 111(b) NSPS. Both sets of limits were developed following the
procedures discussed below.
As background, the current emission limits in the emission
guidelines, as well as the proposed emission limits for the emission
guidelines, are based on the application of either spray dryer/
electrostatic precipitator/activated carbon injection/selective non-
catalytic reduction technology (SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR) or spray dryer/fabric
filter/activated carbon injection/selective non-catalytic reduction
technology (SD/FF/ACI/SNCR). The current emission limits in the NSPS,
as well as the proposed NSPS emission limits, are based on SD/FF/ACI/
SNCR technology alone. In practice, and as allowed by the emission
guidelines, existing MWC units have used a mix of SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR
technology and SD/FF/ACI/SNCR technology to comply with the emission
guidelines.
Following MACT compliance in December 2000, EPA obtained compliance
test reports from all operating large MWC units (167 units at 66
plants) and used those data to evaluate MACT performance. When the MWC
regulations were proposed in 1994, no MWC units were operating with the
full set of controls, and significant engineering judgment was
necessary in selecting the emission limits. The year 2000 compliance
data show that the actual performance of the control technology that
industry installed to meet the 1995 NSPS and
[[Page 75352]]
emission guidelines achieves reductions superior to the 1995 limits.
The EPA used the MACT data in the compliance test reports to develop
the emission limits contained in the proposed amendments. The EPA
believes the proposed emission limits more accurately reflect actual
MACT performance.
The first step in the analysis was to subdivide the database into
two subgroups based on emission control technology. For the emission
guidelines, the data were subcategorized to MWC units equipped with SD/
ESP/ACI/SNCR. For the NSPS, data were subcategorized to MWC units
equipped with SD/FF/ACI/SNCR. The data were subcategorized this way
because the emission guidelines are based on SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR control
and the NSPS are based on SD/FF/ACI/SNCR control. The remaining steps
of the analysis were the same for both data sets.
Next, the data were screened. The screening was based on the
expectation that similar MWC units at a single MWC plant should have
similar emissions. That is, at an MWC plant, MWC units with the same
configuration, firing waste from the same waste pit, and controlled
with the same design of pollution control equipment, would be expected
to have similar emissions. The test data for multiple MWC units at an
MWC plant were compared to identify the difference between the test
results. This was done for all MWC plants. Next, the mean and standard
deviation of the differences were calculated for the entire MWC
database. This mean and standard deviation were then used to screen
test results for each MWC plant. If the test results from multiple MWC
units at a specific MWC plant differed by more than the mean plus one
standard deviation from the full dataset, the test data for that MWC
plant were removed from analysis. This was repeated for each CAA
section 129 pollutant. Less than 14 percent of the data were excluded
during screening.
Next, a statistical analysis of the remaining database was
conducted to identify the best fitting frequency distribution. After
identifying the best fitting frequency distribution, an actually
achievable emission limit was calculated (i.e., the mean performance
plus a variability factor). Where the analysis supported limits more
stringent than the current limits, new limits are proposed. This
procedure was followed in developing the proposed emission limits for
the ``stack test'' pollutants (dioxin/furan, Cd, Pd, Hg, PM, and HCl).
For SO2 and NOX, a different approach was
used. For these pollutants, CEMS, rather than stack tests, are used to
determine compliance. CEMS can generate up to 8,760 hours of data per
year and emissions variability must be carefully addressed in order to
select an appropriate emission limit. Typically, EPA analyzes more than
1,000 hours of CEMS data per source in order to evaluate and address
emissions variability when setting emission limits to be enforced by
CEMS. To develop the proposed SO2 and NOX limits,
EPA used a two-step process. First, the mean performance level for
SO2 and NOX control was determined using the year
2000 MACT compliance data. Next, a variability factor was identified
based on an analysis of SO2 and NOX CEMS data
from four MWC plants. The variability analysis was based on the
evaluation of more than 2,400 hours of SO2 CEMS data and
3,500 hours of NOX CEMS data. The variability factor was
added to the mean performance level from the year 2000 MACT database to
determine new emission limits. Where the analysis supported
SO2 and NOX limits more stringent than the
current limits, new limits are proposed.
EPA requests comment on the data screening procedure used for this
proposal and requests suggestions for alternative data screening
procedures. EPA also requests comment on the appropriateness to screen
out data. The data screening procedure for the proposal is presented in
a data analysis memo contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. How were the proposed operator stand-in provisions developed?
Under the good combustion practices component of the regulations
(Sec. 60.54b(c)(2)), a fully certified MWC plant supervisor or MWC
shift supervisor must be on site during all periods of MWC operation,
except those periods when a provisionally certified control room
operator ``stands in.'' A provisionally certified control room operator
on site can stand in for the duration of the plant or shift
supervisor's shift when the plant or shift supervisor must leave prior
to the end of the shift. In implementing the MACT regulations in the
late 1990s, a number of questions were raised on this issue. State
regulators and MWC owners and operators questioned how long a certified
plant or shift supervisor is allowed to be off site, and how long a
provisionally certified control room operator is allowed to stand in.
Questions were raised about what should be done if a plant supervisor
became sick or was off for a week of training or vacation. The EPA
examined the issue, and in 1998 issued an enforcement guidance
memorandum to reflect EPA's intent in developing the regulation. Under
the enforcement guidance memorandum, a provisionally certified control
room operator can stand in for a certified plant or shift supervisor
when they are off site for (1) periods up to twelve hours without
notifying EPA; (2) periods up to two weeks if EPA is notified; and (3)
periods longer than two weeks if EPA is notified and the MWC owner
demonstrates to EPA that a good faith effort is being made to ensure
that a certified chief facility operator or certified control room
shift supervisor is on site. These stand-in provisions were
incorporated into the small MWC MACT regulations promulgated in 2000.
The EPA is now proposing to amend the large MWC NSPS and emission
guidelines to be consistent with this EPA enforcement guidance
memorandum and the small MWC regulations.
The EPA is aware that later this year the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is planning to publish updated Standards
for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility
Operators (QRO-1-1994). The MWC rules currently require MWC operators
obtain this certification. A number of changes to QRO are planed by the
ASME. At this time it appears the principal affect would be the need
for EPA to revise the MWC rules to use the QRO term ``operator
certification'' in place of the term ``fully certified'' as currently
used in the MWC rules. If the ASME completes the QRO update by the time
the MWC rules are finalized, the new QRO procedures will be
incorporated into the final MWC rule.
C. Why did EPA add two MWC combustor categories to the list of MWC
combustor types?
In the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA identified three distinct
types of RDF-fired MWC units: (1) RDF stoker, (2) pulverized coal/RDF
mixed fuel-fired combustor, and (3) spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed
fuel-fired combustor. Recently, EPA has identified two additional types
of RDF-fired MWC designs that do not fit within the three types of RDF
combustors as defined in the regulations. Since none of the three
previous subcategories of RDF municipal waste combustors correctly
describe the design or operation of these particular units, EPA
recognized a need to add combustor types that would adequately describe
and set CO emission limits for these combustors.
The EPA is proposing to add definitions for ``spreader stoker RDF-
fired combustor/100 percent coal capable'' and ``semi-suspension RDF-
[[Page 75353]]
fired combustor/wet RDF process conversion.'' For these MWC technology
types, the proposed amendments would add good combustion practice-based
CO limits. A spreader/stoker RDF-fired combustor/100 percent coal
capable combustor fires RDF into the combustion zone by a mechanism
that throws the fuel onto the grate from above. Combustion takes place
both in suspension and on the grate. Such a unit is capable of firing
100 percent coal as a replacement for RDF. A semi-suspension RDF-fired
combustor/wet RDF process conversion means a combustion unit that was
converted from wet RDF processing to dry RDF processing. For both of
these technologies, CO emission limits are proposed based on levels
achievable by good combustion practices.
D. How were the additional carbon monoxide (CO) limits developed?
First, EPA determined that both good combustion practices and MACT
had been fully implemented at the two additional MWC types discussed
above. Next, EPA obtained over 5,000 hours of CO CEMS data from each
MWC type and conducted a statistical analysis of the data to identify
the best fitting distribution. After identifying the best fitting
distribution, EPA calculated a statistically achievable emission limit
based on a 24-hour block average for each of the two MWC types. The new
CO limits fall within the range of current good combustion practice-
based CO limits for other MWC combustors that range from 50 to 250
parts per million (ppm).
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period for measuring activated carbon
injection (ACI) rate?
The proposed amendments would revise Sec. 60.58b(m) to specify an
8-hour block average period for measuring the ACI rate. Section
60.58b(m) requires an owner or operator using ACI to select an ACI
operating parameter that can be used to calculate ACI feed rate (e.g.,
screw feeder speed) during the mercury and dioxin/furan performance
test. The current Sec. 60.58b does not, however, indicate the
averaging time to be used, and the performance test period can vary
from test to test.
To select an averaging period, EPA examined the Hg test sampling
period of twelve MWC units that use ACI. The test duration averaged
about 7 hours. To establish consistency, a fixed 8-hour block averaging
period is being proposed for ongoing measurement of the ACI system
operating parameters used to calculate ACI feed rate.
F. Are any other changes being considered for measuring ACI?
The EPA is considering including in the final regulation a
requirement to monitor the pneumatic injection pressure at the location
where the activated carbon is injected into the flue gases in order to
monitor ACI. This would quickly identify a clogged injection nozzle. If
this were done, the same 8-hour block average would be used for
measuring injection pressure. The EPA specifically requests comments on
the reasonableness of such monitoring.
G. How did EPA determine the amended performance testing and monitoring
requirements?
Annual testing schedule. While implementing the mandatory 12-month
testing schedule under the current regulations, MWC owners and
operators found the testing schedule difficult to comply with. The
current schedule does not provide flexibility to accommodate
unscheduled MWC outages, local weather conditions, and other unexpected
conditions. After an outage, bringing the MWC units back on line,
rescheduling the test, notifying the regulatory agencies, and preparing
for the test can cause delays and prevent testing within the specified
12-month period. Inclement weather can cause similar problems. To
accommodate the need for flexibility while retaining an annual test
schedule, EPA proposes to revise the testing schedule to once per
calendar year, with no less than 9 months and no more than 15 months
between tests.
Optimization Parameters. The proposed amendments would revise the
testing requirements to allow the use of optimized parametric
monitoring data from the most recently tested MWC unit to be applied to
all similar MWC units on site. The use of this approach would be
limited to exceptionally well-run MWC units where dioxin/furan and Hg
tests show levels less than one half the dioxin/furan and Hg standards.
Optimization Testing. The proposed amendments would revise the
operating parameter requirements for the annual testing to waive
parameters during Hg testing. The use of this approach would provide
the same flexibility in Hg testing as currently allowed for dioxin/
furan testing. The standards presently allow the operating parameters
to be waived during the dioxin/furan performance test and during the
two weeks preceding the performance test (Sec. 60.53b(b) and (c)).
Such flexibility is needed in cases where the owner or operator wishes
to use the performance test to establish different site-specific
maximum or minimum values for their operating parameters for Hg
control. Waiving the operating parameters associated with dioxin/furan
control (i.e., load level and temperature at the control device inlet)
during these times allows the source to optimize the performance of the
controls and to perform the tests necessary to show that the emission
limits are met while operating under the revised parameter values. The
EPA requests comments on whether other parameters need such
flexibility. If you suggest additional flexibility, identify the
parameters and explain why the flexibility is needed.
Reduced Testing for Well-operated MWC Units. The EPA is proposing
to amend the NSPS and emission guidelines provisions that allow reduced
frequency for testing of exceptionally well-operated MWC units. Well-
operated MWC units are those with emissions significantly below the
emission limits. Currently, reduced testing is allowed if dioxin/furan
emission levels have been repeatedly shown to be less than half of the
emission limit. The proposed amendments would require both dioxin/furan
and mercury emissions to both be less than half the emission limit to
qualify for reduced testing. By amending the requirements to qualify
for reduced testing, we are providing an incentive for MWC owners or
operators to optimize an MWC unit's carbon injection system and other
operating parameters for exceptional reduction of both mercury and
dioxin/furan emissions.
CEMS Data Availability. The proposed amendments would increase the
CEMS data collection requirement from 90 percent of the operating days
per calendar quarter to 95 percent of the operating days per calendar
quarter. The EPA obtained year 2003 CEMS data from a large MWC plant.
That data included CEMS information on six parameters for each of three
MWC units at the plant (SO2, NOX, opacity, flue
gas temperature at scrubber discharge, CO, and HCl). Overall, the data
contained 72 calendar quarters of CEMS data (3 combustion units x 4
calendar quarters x 6 parameters). All CEMS produced more than 99
percent data availability for all calendar quarters for all parameters
monitored. As demonstrated by the data, well-designed and operated CEMS
reliably collect data at rates higher than required in current
regulations; thus, the proposed amendments would increase the data
availability requirement to reflect current operating practices and
performance.
[[Page 75354]]
PM CEMS. The proposed amendments would allow the use of PM CEMS as
an alternative to PM performance testing by EPA Method 5. Owners or
operators who choose to rely on PM CEMS would be able to discontinue
their annual Method 5 test. The proposed amendments incorporate the use
of PS-11 for PM CEMS and PS-11 QA Procedure 2 to ensure that PM CEMS
are installed and operated properly and produce good quality monitoring
data.
An owner or operator of an MWC unit who wishes to use PM CEMS would
be required to notify EPA one month before starting use of PM CEMS and
one month before stopping use of the PM CEMS. Additionally, EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of dropping the opacity
monitoring requirements for MWC units that use PM CEMS.
The PM emissions limits are based on data from infrequent (normally
annual) stack tests and have been enforced by stack test. The change to
use of PM CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the same emission
limits must be carefully considered in relation to an appropriate
averaging period for data reduction. The EPA considered this issue and
concluded the use of a 24-hr block average was appropriate to address
PM emissions variability and EPA has included the use of a 24-hour
block average in the proposed rule. The 24-hour block average would be
calculated following procedures in Method 19.
PM CEMS have been applied successfully at various sources including
fossil fueled power plants and MWC units in Germany.
Other CEMS. The EPA considered proposing the use of HCl CEMS, Hg
CEMS, and multi-metal CEMS as alternatives to the existing ways of
demonstrating compliance with the HCl, Hg, Cd, and Pb emissions limits.
Although the proposed rule does not include such monitoring provisions,
EPA is considering development of PS and including such provisions in
the final rule as an optional test method. The EPA has not included
such provisions in the proposed rules because it appears the current
practice of continuous monitoring of SO2 and PM in
combination with the continuous monitoring of operating parameters
(boiler load, fuel gas temperature and ACI rate) give a good indication
of acid gas, metals and organic emissions from MWC units. The EPA
specifically requests comment on the reasonableness of including
optional provisions for use of HCl CEMS, Hg CEMS, and multi-metal CEMS
in the final rule.
Relative to HCl monitoring, EPA is aware that State agencies, such
as those in Michigan, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, already require
the use of HCl CEMS for MWC units in their jurisdictions. The EPA is
also aware that PS for HCl CEMS have been developed by the Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In response, EPA will consider such
actions as a request by Michigan, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania to
use HCl CEMS as an alternate test method for determining compliance
with the HCl emission limits in both the NSPS and emission guidelines
for large MWC units located in the states of Michigan, Massachusetts,
and Pennsylvania. The EPA will address this request in the final rule.
The EPA has proposed PS-13 for HCl CEMS and believes that PS can
serve as the basis for PS for HCl CEMS use at MWC units. In addition to
the procedures used in proposed PS-13 for HC1 for initial accuracy
determination using the relative accuracy test, a comparison against a
referenced method, EPA is taking comment on an alternate initial
accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one in section 11 of
PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
Relative to the use of Hg CEMS, the EPA believes that PS-12A for
fossil fuel-fired boilers can provide the basis for using Hg CEMS at
MWC units. The EPA is aware of the use of Hg CEMS use at MWC units in
Germany. Six sites employ Hg CEMS; three MWC units, one hazardous waste
combustor, one sewage sludge combustor, and one sewage sludge/coal-
fired power plant.
EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can be used in many applications,
including MWC units. The EPA has monitored side-by-side evaluations of
multi-metals CEMS with Method 29 at industrial waste incinerators and
found good correlation. The EPA was also approved to the use multi-
metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring method at a hazardous waste
combustor. The EPA believes it is possible to adapt proposed PS-10 or
other EPA performance specifications to allow the use of multi-metal
CEMS at MWC units. In addition to the procedures used in proposed PS-10
for initial accuracy determination using the relative accuracy test, a
comparison against a reference method, EPA is taking comment on an
alternate initial accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one
in section 11 of PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
Whether or not EPA includes provisions for use of HCl, Hg, or
multi-metal CEMS in the final NSPS and emission guidelines, at any
time, an owner or operator of an MWC unit may apply for approval of
these monitoring methods in lieu of specified monitoring requirements.
Such requests are authorized according to the general provisions of
part 60 at 40 CFR 60.13(i).
The EPA is also aware of the use of semi-continuous or CEMS for
dioxin/furan as alternatives to the existing ways of showing compliance
with the dioxin/furan emissions limits. One semi-continuous dioxin/
furan sampling system is the Adsorption Method for Sampling of Dioxins
and Furans (AMESA), which operates like an automated Method 23 sampler
and yields average dioxin and furan emissions over a specified period
from 14 to 30 days. Again, the proposed rule does not include
provisions for such monitoring, but EPA is considering including such
provisions in the final regulations as an optional test method for
measuring dioxin/furan emissions. The EPA specifically requests
comments on the reasonableness of including provisions for this type of
dioxin/furan monitoring.
The EPA continues to be interested in dioxin/furan monitoring
technologies, as evidenced by the upcoming Environmental Technology
Verification testing program scheduled for summer 2005. During that
two-week program, at least four dioxin/furan monitoring technologies
will be evaluated, one of which was successfully tested in December
2004 at a MWC unit.
MWC unit owners and operators should note that the use of HCl, Hg,
multi-metal, and dioxin/furan CEMS technology may allow the
discontinuation of various parametric monitoring including flue gas,
temperature, MWC load, and ACI rate.
H. How did EPA determine the other amendments?
Administrator. The NSPS and emission guidelines refer to both
``Administrator'' and ``EPA Administrator.'' Because both terms are
used in the regulation and neither has been defined, it has been
unclear to personnel implementing CAA section 111(d)/129 plans whether
Administrator was to be construed broadly to include the Administrator
of the U.S. EPA and all of his/her designees, including the
Administrator of a State Air Pollution Control Agency consistent with
the definition in the General Provisions, or was intended to refer only
to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA. To clarify the intent, the text
has been revised to ``EPA'' to refer to the EPA Administrator where
appropriate. The term ``Administrator'' now refers to the appropriate
representative (e.g., Director
[[Page 75355]]
of a State Air Pollution Control Agency for section 111(d)/129 State
plans and EPA Administrator (or delegate) for section 111(d)/129
Federal plans). Definitions for the terms ``EPA'' and ``Administrator''
are included in the proposed rule.
I. How was the implementation schedule developed?
A consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia requires EPA to promulgate any revisions of the emission
guidelines or NSPS for large MWC units that result from this technical
review by April 28, 2006. (See Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 01-1537
(D.D.C.) Consent decree file entered on May 22, 2003.) Consistent with
CAA section 129, EPA is proposing that revisions to State plans be
submitted to EPA one year following adoption of the revisions
(approximately April 28, 2007). Dates in this preamble discussion and
in the proposed rule are estimated and will depend on the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Next, EPA chose to provide up to two additional years for MWC units
to implement the revised guidelines (i.e., units must be in compliance
by the date two years after the date specified for submitting State
plans). Thus, final compliance would occur on or before April 28, 2009
(approximately). As proposed, while revised State plans must specify
compliance no later than three years following adoption of the final
rule (a compliance date of approximately April 28, 2009), consistent
with CAA section 129, EPA expects States to require compliance as
expeditiously as practical, and EPA anticipates that many States will
submit revised State plans that include earlier compliance dates. The
proposed emission limits can be achieved using the same air pollution
control technology that served as the basis of the current emission
limits.
The EPA requests comment on an alternate compliance schedule, as
follows. That schedule would be to allow the same one year for State
plan submittal (approximately April 28, 2007), but allow only one
additional year for MWC units to achieve final compliance
(approximately April 28, 2008), with the option that a State can
request a longer compliance date for specific MWC units, but in no case
longer than four years after the date by which revised State plans are
due (the maximum allowed by CAA section 129). In requesting a longer
site-specific schedule, a State would have to provide a demonstration
why additional time is needed and how much additional time is needed.
Again, EPA requests comment on this alternative schedule.
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments for Existing Units
The EPA projects the proposed amendments will have no additional
impacts to air, water, or energy since the proposed emission limits can
be achieved using the same air pollution control technology that was
used to comply with the current emission limits. Similarly, EPA expects
no additional cost or economic impact for the same reason. Existing
large MWC units will continue to use their existing MACT control
technology to meet the emission limits, and will not incur costs to
retrofit equipment. The same conclusions apply to new MWC units since
EPA expects that new MWC units will be equipped with the same control
technology used to comply with the 1995 NSPS. EPA requests comment on
the projections that revising the emission limits as proposed here will
not lead to any changes in MWC operations, costs, or emissions. For
example, we seek information on whether MWC operations could change
(and the resultant impacts on costs and emissions) to ensure that an
adequate variability margin (some times called a compliance margin)
remains with the proposed limits.
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC units equipped with electrostatic
precipitator (ESP)-based scrubbing systems to replace the ESP with a
fabric filter?
Yes. The EPA considered the option of requiring the MWC owner or
operator of MWC units equipped with ESP-based scrubbing systems to
replace the ESP with a fabric filter. The EPA conducted an analysis of
impacts resulting from the implementation of such an option. The
analysis identified 21 MWC units with ESP-based scrubbing systems. All
other MWC units are currently equipped with fabric filter-based
scrubbing systems. As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, ESP
replacement at the 21 identified MWC units would reduce MWC emissions
by about 130 tons per year (tpy). The analysis determined that the
annualized cost of ESP replacement at these units would be about $14.5
million per year. If this cost is evenly assigned to the emissions
reductions listed in Table 2 of this preamble, the cost of these
emission reductions would exceed $100,000 per ton removed. The EPA has
recently completed other rulemakings that have achieved considerable
reductions of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Because of EPA's
interest in reducing such emissions, the reductions in PM 2.5 emissions
resulting from replacing ESPs with fabric filters were also calculated.
The PM 2.5 reduction would be about 8 tpy. If all costs associated with
ESP replacement were assigned to PM 2.5 reductions, the cost of these
additional reductions in PM 2.5 emissions would be about $900,000 per
ton removed. After considering the above factors in relation to recent
EPA rules, EPA concluded that the cost-reduction ratio for ESP
replacement was excessive, and decided not to require ESP replacement.
For a more detailed discussion of the analysis, see the Docket.
Table 2.--Emission Reduction and Cost for 21 MWC Units With ESP-Based Scrubbing Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of
Current fabric filter
emissions option (with Potential
Pollutant (with ESP FF-based emission
based control control reduction, tpy
system), tpy system), tpy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF).......................................... 2.6 E-4 1.6E-4 1.0E-4
Cd.............................................................. 0.20 0.03 0.17
Pb.............................................................. 2.7 0.30 2.4
Hg.............................................................. 0.70 0.20 0.50
PM.............................................................. 210 80 130
PM 2.5.......................................................... 60 44 16
Capital Cost (million, 2002 $).................................. NA 119 NA
-----------------
Total Annual Cost (million, $ per year, 2002 $)............. NA 14.5 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75356]]
VII. How do the proposed amendments relate to section 112(c)(6) of the
Clean Air Act?
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). The EPA has identified municipal waste combustors as a
source category that emits five of the seven CAA section 112(c)(6)
pollutants: Hg, dioxin, furans, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and
polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs). (The POM emitted by MWC units is
composed of 16 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable organic
matters (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
municipal waste combustors 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 MWC units emit. MWC units 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 MWC units ``subject to standards'' for purposes of CAA
section 112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA section 129 MWC standards
include numeric emission limitations for the nine pollutants specified
in that section. The combination of good combustion practices (GCP) and
add-on air pollution control equipment (spray dryer, fabric filter or
ESP, ACI, and selective non-catalytic reduction) effectively reduces
emissions of the pollutants for which emission limits are required
under CAA section 129: Hg, dioxin, furans, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2,
HCl, and NOX. Thus, the NSPS and emissions guidelines
specifically require reduction in emissions of three of the CAA section
112(c)(6) pollutants: Hg, dioxin, and furans. As explained below, the
air pollution controls necessary to comply with the requirements of the
MWC NSPS and emission guidelines also effectively reduce emissions of
the following CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants that are emitted from
MWC units: POM and PCBs.
Although the CAA section 129 MWC standards do not have separate,
specific emissions standards for PCBs and POM, emissions of these two
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively controlled by the same
control measures used to comply with the numerical emissions limits for
the enumerated CAA section 129 pollutants. 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 captured by the combination of spray dryer, PM control,
and ACI system, which are necessary post-combustion MWC controls. The
combination of spray dryer, PM control, and ACI greatly reduces
emissions of these organic pollutants, as well as reducing Hg
emissions. The fact that POM and PCBs are effectively controlled by the
application of MACT is confirmed by POM and PCB emission tests
conducted at one large MWC with MACT controls which showed non-
detectable levels of POM and PCBs. Based on post-MACT compliance tests
at all 167 large MWC units, the MWC MACT regulations reduced Hg
emissions by 95 percent and dioxin/furan emissions by greater than 99
percent from pre-MACT levels. In light of the fact that the MACT
controls also effectively reduce emissions of POM and PCBs, it is,
therefore, reasonable to conclude that POM and PCB emissions are
substantially reduced at all 167 large MWC units. Thus, while the
proposed rule does not identify specific limits for POM and PCB, they
are for the reasons noted above nonetheless ``subject to regulation''
for purposes of section 112(c)(6) of the CAA.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the NSPS and emission
guidelines for large MWC units under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and
emission guidelines were promulgated on December 19, 1995. The
information collection request has been assigned OMB Control Number
2060-0210 (EPA ICR No. 1506.10).
The proposed amendments result in no changes to the information
collection requirements of the NSPS or emission guidelines and will
have no impact on the information collection estimate of project cost
and hour burden made and approved by OMB during the development of the
NSPS and emission guidelines. Therefore, the information collection
requests have not been revised.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the
[[Page 75357]]
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
the proposed amendments 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 the proposed amendments on
small entities, small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small
business in the regulated industry that has gross annual revenues of
less than $6 million; (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 the proposed amendments
on small entities, I certify that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed amendments will not impose any requirements on any
entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory
requirements.
Nevertheless, we continue to be interested in the potential impacts
of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if EPA publishes with the final rule an explanation why
that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal
governments, EPA must develop a small government agency plan under
section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the proposed amendments are not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, EPA has determined that the proposed amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, the proposed amendments are not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that
is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State
and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Also, EPA
may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that
preempts State law, unless EPA consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
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. The proposed
amendments will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State
or local governments because the proposed regulations will not require
any change in the emission control technology currently used to comply
with the 1995 NSPS and emissions guidelines, and will not preempt State
law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed
amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on relationship between the
Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes.''
The proposed amendments do not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial
direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
[[Page 75358]]
power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA is not aware of
any large MWC unit owned or operated by Indian Tribal government. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amendments are
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on
technology performance and not on health and safety risks. Also, the
proposed amendments are not ``economically significant.''
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects
for certain actions identified as ``significant energy actions.''
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy
actions'' as ``* * * any action by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of
inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action * * *.'' The proposed amendments are not considered to be a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. They
also are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Since there would be no change in energy consumption resulting from
the proposed amendments, EPA does not expect any price increase for any
energy type. We also expect that there would be no impact on the import
of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected
to occur with regards to energy supplies.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the proposed amendments are not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and
procurement 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, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), with explanations when an agency does not use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The MWC NSPS and emission guidelines involve technical standards.
The EPA cites the following methods in the NSPS and emission
guidelines: Methods 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A or 6C, 7 or 7A, 7C, 7D, or
7E, 9, 10, 10A or 10B, 19, 22, 23, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; Performance Specifications (PS) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix B; and appendix F of 40 CFR part 60.
In previous searches and review, which have been documented and
placed in the docket, EPA identified four voluntary consensus standards
that have already been incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 60.17. The
voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6216 (1998), ``Standard Practice for
Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and
Performance Specifications,'' is an acceptable alternative for opacity
monitor design specifications given in EPA's PS 1 (promulgated in March
1983). As a result, EPA incorporated ASTM D6216-98 by reference into PS
1 as the design specifications for opacity monitors in August 2000.
(See 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.) The MWC NSPS and emissions guidelines
also incorporate by reference into 40 CFR part 60.17 ASME QRO-1-1994,
``Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery
Facility Operators'' for operator qualification and certification; ASME
PTC 4.1-1964 (reaffirmed 1991), ``Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam
Generating Units,'' for steam or feedwater flow; and ASME Interim
Supplement 19.5 (6th Edition, 1971), ``Instruments and Apparatus:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters,'' for nozzle and orifice design.
In this search and review, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to EPA methods in the MWC
NSPS and emission guidelines. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 7D, 9, 10A, 19, and 22; and
PS 3 and 4A. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified
27 voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the proposed
amendments. One of the 27 voluntary consensus standards identified in
this search was not available at the time the review was conducted for
the purposes of the proposed amendments because the standard is under
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASTM WK3159 (Begun in 2003),
``Practice for Quality Assurance of Instrumental Monitoring Systems.''
The EPA determined that two of the remaining 26 standards identified
for measuring emissions subject to the NSPS and emission were practical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed
amendments. The EPA determined that 24 standards were not practical
alternatives to EPA test methods, therefore, EPA does not intend to
adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for EPA's
determinations are discussed in a memorandum in the docket. The two
acceptable monitoring methods are discussed below.
The EPA identified two voluntary consensus standards as acceptable
alternatives to EPA test methods. ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, ``Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' includes manual and instrumental methods of
analyses for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and sulfur
dioxide. The manual methods of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10 for
measuring the nitrogen oxide, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide content of
exhaust gas are acceptable
[[Page 75359]]
alternatives to Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 7C. The instrumental methods
of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10 are not acceptable as a substitute for
EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7E, 10, and 10B. The instrumental methods are
only general descriptions of procedures and are not true methods.
Therefore, while some of the manual methods are acceptable alternatives
to EPA methods, the instrumental methods are not.
The voluntary consensus standard 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 an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury
only) as a method for measuring mercury. A full discussion of
acceptable and not acceptable voluntary consensus standards is
contained in a memorandum in the docket.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(76) and
adding paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(76) ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury 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., Sec.
60.58b(d)(2)(iii) and 60.58b(d)(2)(iv).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, IBR
approved for Sec. 60.58b(b)(i), Sec. 60.58b(c)(2), Sec.
60.58b(d)(1)(ii), Sec. 60.58b(d)(2)(ii), Sec. 60.58b(e)(12)(i)(A),
Sec. 60.58b(e)(12)(i)(B), Sec. 60.58b(g)(2), Sec.
60.58b(h)(10)(i)(A), Sec. 60.58b(h)(10)(i)(B), and Sec.
60.58b(i)(3)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
Subpart Cb--[Amended]
3. Revise Sec. 60.30b, to read as follows:
Sec. 60.30b Scope and delegation of authority.
(a) This subpart contains emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of certain designated pollutants from certain
municipal waste combustors in accordance with section 111(d) and
section 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. The
provisions in these emission guidelines apply instead of the provisions
of Sec. 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part.
(b) The following authorities shall be retained by EPA:
(1) Approval of exemption claims in Sec. 60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e),
(f)(1), (i)(1);
(2) Approval of a nitrogen oxides trading program under Sec.
60.33b(d)(2); and
(3) Approval of other monitoring systems used to obtain emissions
data when data are not obtained by continuous emissions monitoring
systems as specified in Sec. 60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12), and (i)(11), as
specified in Sec. 60.38b.
4. Amend Sec. 60.31b by adding the definitions of ``Semi-
suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel
process conversion'' and ``Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel-fired
combustor/100 percent coal capable'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.31b Definitions.
* * * * *
Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-
derived fuel process conversion means a combustion unit that was
converted from a wet refuse-derived fuel process to a dry refuse-
derived fuel process, and because of constraints in the design of the
system, includes a low furnace height (less than 60 feet between the
grate and the roof) and a high waste capacity-to-undergrate air zone
ratio (greater than 300 tons of waste per day (tpd) fuel per each
undergrate air zone).
Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/100 percent
coal capable means a spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel-fired
combustor that typically fires 100 percent refuse-derived fuel but is
equipped to burn 100 percent coal instead of refuse-derived fuel to
fulfill 100 percent steam or energy demand.
5. Amend Sec. 60.32b by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (d);
c. Revising paragraph (e);
d. Revising paragraph (f)(1); and
e. Revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.32b Designated facilities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim,
* * * * *
(d) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility
notifies EPA of this exemption and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies EPA of
this exemption and provides data documenting that the facility
qualifies for this exemption.
(f) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim, and
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim,
* * * * *
6. Amend Sec. 60.33b by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b);
c. Revising paragraph (c);
d. Removing tables 1 and 2; and
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3) introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor metals,
acid gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor metals are
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
particulate matter and opacity at least as protective as the emission
limits for particulate matter and opacity specified in
[[Page 75360]]
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for particulate
matter contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 27 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April 28, 2009, the
emission limit for particulate matter contained in the gases discharged
to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 24 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) The emission limit for opacity exhibited by the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 10 percent
(6-minute average).
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
cadmium at least as protective as the emission limits for cadmium
specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for cadmium contained
in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is
40 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen. On and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for cadmium
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated
facility is 31 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
mercury at least as protective as the emission limits specified in this
paragraph (a)(3). The emission limit for mercury contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 80
micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential
mercury emission concentration (85-percent reduction by weight),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
(4) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission limit for
lead at least as protective as the emission limit for lead specified in
this paragraph. Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for lead
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated
facility is 440 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen. On and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for
lead contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 250 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(b) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor acid gases,
expressed as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride, are specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(3) For approval, a State shall include emission limits for sulfur
dioxide and hydrogen chloride at least as protective as the emission
limits specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for sulfur dioxide
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated
facility is 29 parts per million by volume or 25 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration (75-percent reduction
by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis),
whichever is less stringent. On and after April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is 23 parts per million by volume
or 20 percent of the potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration
(80-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent. Compliance with this
emission limit is based on a 24-hour daily geometric mean.
(ii) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for hydrogen
chloride contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 29 parts per million by volume or 5 percent of
the potential hydrogen chloride emission concentration (95-percent
reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis), whichever is less stringent. On and after April 28, 2009, the
emission limit for hydrogen chloride contained in the gases discharged
to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 26 parts per million by
volume or 3 percent of the potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (97-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent.
(c) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor organics,
expressed as total mass dioxin/furan, are specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission limit for
dioxin/furan contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility at least as protective as the emission limit for
dioxin/furan specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and
(c)(1)(iii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for designated
facilities that employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission
control system is 60 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total
mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for designated
facilities that do not employ an electrostatic precipitator-based
emission control system is 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(total mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(iii) On and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for
designated facilities is 21 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(total mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) * * *
(2) A State plan may establish a program to allow owners or
operators of municipal waste combustor plants to engage in trading of
nitrogen oxides emission credits. A trading program must be approved by
EPA before implementation.
(3) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
nitrogen oxides from fluidized bed combustors at least as protective as
the emission limits listed in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of
this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 60.34b [Amended]
6a. Amend Sec. 60.34b by removing table 3.
7. Add tables 1, 2, and 3 to subpart Cb to read as follows:
[[Page 75361]]
Table 1 to Subpart Cb of Part 60.--Nitrogen Oxides Guidelines for
Designated Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before April 28, On and after April
2009, nitrogen 28, 2009, nitrogen
Municipal waste combustor oxides emission oxides emission
technology limit (parts per limit (parts per
million by volume) million by volume)
a a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall............ 205................ 205
Mass burn rotary waterwall..... 250................ 158
Refuse-derived fuel combustor.. 250................ 219
Fluidized bed combustor........ 180................ 180
Mass burn refractory combustors no limit........... no limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
Table 2 to Subpart Cb of Part 60.--Nitrogen Oxides Limits for Existing
Designated Facilities Included in an Emissions Averaging Plan at a
Municipal Waste Combustor Plant b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before April On and after
28, 2009, April 28,
nitrogen 2009, nitrogen
oxides oxides
Municipal waste combustor technology emission limit emission limit
(parts per (parts per
million by million by
volume) b volume) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall..................... 185 185
Mass burn rotary waterwall.............. 220 142
Refuse-derived fuel combustor........... 230 197
Fluidized bed combustor................. 165 165
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors and other MWC
technologies not listed above may not be included in an emissions
averaging plan.
b Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
Table 3 to Subpart Cb of Part 60.--Municipal Waste Combustor Operating
Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon
monoxide
emissions Averaging time
Municipal waste combustor technology level (parts (hrs) b
per million by
volume) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall..................... 100 4
Mass burn refractory.................... 100 4
Mass burn rotary refractory............. 100 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall.............. 250 24
Modular starved air..................... 50 4
Modular excess air...................... 50 4
Refuse-derived fuel stoker.............. 200 24
Fluidized bed, mixed fuel (wood/refuse- 200 c 24
derived fuel)..........................
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor........ 100 4
Circulating fluidized bed combustor..... 100 4
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel 150 4
mixed fuel-fired combustor.............
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel 200 24
mixed fuel-fired combustor.............
Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel- 250 c 24
fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel
process conversion.....................
Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel- 250 c 24
fired combustor/100 percent coal
capable................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of
oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
Calculated as an arithmetic average.
b Averaging times are 4-hour or 24-hour block averages.
c 24-hour block average, geometric mean.
8. Revise Sec. 60.36b to read as follows:
Sec. 60.36b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
fugitive ash emissions.
For approval, a State plan shall include requirements for municipal
waste combustor fugitive ash emissions at least as protective as those
requirements listed in Sec. 60.55b of subpart Eb of this part.
9. Amend Sec. 60.38b by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.38b Compliance and performance testing.
* * * * *
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include the alternative
performance testing schedule for dioxin/furan specified in Sec.
60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this part, as applicable, for those
designated facilities that achieve both a dioxin/furan emission level
less than or equal to 10 nanograms per dry standard
[[Page 75362]]
cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent oxygen and a mercury
emission level less than or equal to 40 micrograms per dry standard
cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
10. Amend Sec. 60.39b by:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B);
d. Revising paragraph (e); and
e. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines and compliance
schedules.
* * * * *
(b) Not later than December 19, 1996, each State in which a
designated facility is located shall submit to EPA a plan to implement
and enforce all provisions of this subpart except those specified under
Sec. 60.33b (a)(4), (b)(3), and (d)(3). Not later than April 28, 2007,
each State in which a designated facility is located shall submit to
EPA a plan to implement and enforce all provisions of this subpart, as
amended on [DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. The
compliance schedule specified in this paragraph is in accordance with
section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act and applies instead of the
compliance schedule provided in Sec. 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of this
part.
(c) For approval, a State plan that is required to be submitted by
December 19, 1996 and is submitted prior to December 19, 2005 shall
include the compliance schedules specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) The owner or operator of a designated facility may request that
the Administrator waive the requirement specified in Sec. 60.54b(d) of
subpart Eb of this part for chief facility operators, shift
supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained provisional
certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on or
before the initial date of State plan approval.
* * * * *
(e) Not later than August 25, 1998, each State in which a
designated facility is operating shall submit to EPA a plan to
implement and enforce all provisions of this subpart specified in Sec.
60.33b (a)(4), (b)(3), and (d)(3).
* * * * *
(g) For approval, a revised State plan submitted not later than
April 28, 2007 in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, shall
include compliance schedules for meeting the revised April 28, 2009
emission limits in Sec. 60.33b(a), (b), (c), (d), and Sec. 60.34b(a),
and the revised testing provisions in Sec. 60.38b(b). Compliance with
the revised April 28, 2009 emission limits shall be required as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than April 28, 2009.
(h) In the event no plan for implementing the emission guidelines
is approved by EPA, all designated facilities meeting the applicability
requirements under Sec. 60.32b shall be in compliance with all of the
guidelines, including the revised April 28, 2009 emission limits in
Sec. 60.33b(a), (b), (c), (d), and Sec. 60.34b(a), and the revised
testing provisions in Sec. 60.38b(b), no later than [DATE 5 YEARS
AFTER DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
Subpart Eb--[Amended]
11. Amend Sec. 60.50b by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (e);
d. Revising paragraph (f);
e. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
f. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and
g. Revising paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.50b Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) The affected facility to which this subpart applies is each
municipal waste combustor unit with a combustion capacity greater than
250 tons per day of municipal solid waste for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction is commenced after September 20, 1994.
(b) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim;
* * * * *
(e) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility
notifies EPA of this exemption and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies EPA of
this exemption and provides data documenting that the facility
qualifies for this exemption.
(g) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim; and
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim;
* * * * *
(n) The following authorities shall be retained by the
Administrator of the U.S. EPA and not transferred to a State:
(1) Approval of exemption claims in paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g)
and (j) of this section;
(2) Enforceability under Federal law of all Federally enforceable,
as defined in Sec. 60.51b, limitations and conditions;
(3) Determination of compliance with the siting requirements as
specified in Sec. 60.57b(a);
(4) Acceptance of relationship between carbon monoxide and oxygen
as part of initial and annual performance tests as specified in Sec.
60.58b(b)(7); and
(5) Approval of other monitoring systems used to obtain emissions
data when data is not obtained by CEMS as specified in Sec.
60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12), and (i)(11).
* * * * *
12. Amend Sec. 60.51b by revising the definition of ``Federally
enforceable'' and adding the definitions for ``Administrator'' and
``EPA'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 60.51b Definitions.
Administrator means:
(1) For approved and effective State Section 111(d)/129 plans, the
Director of the State air pollution control agency, or employee of the
State air pollution control agency that is delegated the authority to
perform the specified task;
(2) For Federal Section 111(d)/129 plans, the Administrator of the
EPA, an employee of the EPA, the Director of the State air pollution
control agency, or employee of the State air pollution control agency
to whom the authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the
EPA to perform the specified task; and
(3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA,
the Director of the State air pollution control agency, or employee of
the State air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been
delegated by the
[[Page 75363]]
Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified task.
* * * * *
EPA means the Administrator of the EPA or employee of the EPA that
is delegated to perform the specified task.
Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are
enforceable by EPA including the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR
part 61, and 40 CFR part 63, requirements within any applicable State
implementation plan, and any permit requirements established under 40
CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 and 40 CFR 51.24.
* * * * *
13. Amend Sec. 60.52b by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
d. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
g. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
h. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 60.52b Standards for municipal waste combustor metals, acid
gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The limits for municipal waste combustor metals are specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any
gases that contain particulate matter in excess of the limits specified
in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994, and on or
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 24 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission
limit is 9.5 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
* * * * *
(3) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any
gases that contain cadmium in excess of the limits specified in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994, and on or
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 20 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission
limit is 3.5 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(4) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility any
gases that contain lead in excess of the limits specified in paragraph
(a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994, and on or
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 200 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission
limit is 84 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(5) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility any
gases that contain mercury in excess of the limits specified in
paragraph (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994 and on or
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 80 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential mercury emission
concentration (85-percent reduction by weight), corrected to 7 percent
oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
(ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission
limit is 49 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, or 10 percent of
the potential mercury emission concentration (90-percent reduction by
weight), corrected to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
(b) The limits for municipal waste combustor acid gases are
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any
gases that contain sulfur dioxide in excess of the limits specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994 and on or
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 30 parts per million by
volume or 20 percent of the potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (80-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent. The
averaging time is specified in Sec. 60.58b(e).
(ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission
limit is 19 parts per million by volume or 10 percent of the potential
sulfur dioxide emission concentration (90-percent reduction by weight
or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
less stringent. The averaging time is specified in Sec. 60.58b(e).
* * * * *
(c) The limits for municipal waste combustor organics are specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
14. Amend Sec. 60.53b by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); and
d. Revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.53b Standards for municipal waste combustor operating
practices.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance test and
the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance
test, no municipal waste combustor unit load limit is applicable if the
provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
(2) The municipal waste combustor unit load limit may be waived in
writing by the Administrator for the purpose of evaluating system
performance, testing
[[Page 75364]]
new technology or control technologies, diagnostic testing, or related
activities for the purpose of improving facility performance or
advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility emissions. The
municipal waste combustor unit load limit continues to apply, and
remains enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the
waiver.
(c) * * *
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance test and
the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance
test, no particulate matter control device temperature limitations are
applicable.
(2) The particulate matter control device temperature limits may be
waived in writing by the Administrator for the purpose of evaluating
system performance, testing new technology or control technologies,
diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving
facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling
facility emissions. The temperature limits continue to apply, and
remain enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the
waiver.
15. Amend Sec. 60.54b by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.54b Standards for municipal waste combustor operator training
and certification.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) If both the certified chief facility operator and certified
shift supervisor are unavailable, a provisionally certified control
room operator on site at the municipal waste combustion unit may
fulfill the certified operator requirement. Depending on the length of
time that a certified chief facility operator and certified shift
supervisor are away, the owner or operator of the affected facility
must meet one of three criteria:
(i) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift
supervisor are both off site for 12 hours or less, and no other
certified operator is on site, the provisionally certified control room
operator may perform the duties of the certified chief facility
operator or certified shift supervisor without notice to, or approval
by, the Administrator.
(ii) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift
supervisor are off site for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or
less, and no other certified operator is on site, the provisionally
certified control room operator may perform the duties of the certified
chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor without notice
to, or approval by, the Administrator. However, the owner or operator
of the affected facility must record the period when the certified
chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are off site and
include that information in the annual report as specified under Sec.
60.59b(g)(5).
(iii) When the certified chief facility operator and certified
shift supervisor are off site for more than 2 weeks, and no other
certified operator is on site, the provisionally certified control room
operator may perform the duties of the certified chief facility
operator or certified shift supervisor without notice to, or approval
by, the Administrator. However, the owner or operator of the affected
facility must take two actions:
(A) Notify the Administrator in writing. In the notice, state what
caused the absence and what actions are being taken by the owner or
operator of the facility to ensure that a certified chief facility
operator or certified shift supervisor is on site as expeditiously as
practicable.
(B) Submit a status report and corrective action summary to the
Administrator every 4 weeks following the initial notification. If the
Administrator provides notice that the status report or corrective
action summary is disapproved, the municipal waste combustion unit may
continue operation for 90 days, but then must cease operation. If
corrective actions are taken in the 90-day period such that the
Administrator withdraws the disapproval, municipal waste combustion
unit operation may continue.
* * * * *
16. Amend Sec. 60.55b by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.55b Standards for municipal waste combustor fugitive ash
emissions.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause
to be discharged to 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 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) observations as specified in Sec. 60.58b(k), except as
provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
* * * * *
17. Amend Sec. 60.57b by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.57b Siting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall prepare a
materials separation plan, as defined in Sec. 60.51b, for the affected
facility and its service area, and shall comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section. The
initial application is defined as representing a good faith submittal
as determined by EPA.
* * * * *
(6) As required under Sec. 60.59b(a), the owner or operator shall
submit to EPA a copy of the notification of the public meeting, a
transcript of the public meeting, the document summarizing responses to
public comments, and copies of both the preliminary and final draft
materials separation plans on or before the time the facility's
application for a construction permit is submitted under 40 CFR part
51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable.
* * * * *
18. Amend Sec. 60.58b by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(6)(i), and
(b)(7);
b. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(3),
(c)(9), and (c)(11);
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(vii), (d)(2)(ii),
(d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), and (d)(2)(ix);
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(7) introductory text, (e)(12)(i)(A),
(e)(12)(i)(B), and (e)(14);
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(5)(i), (g)(5)(iii), and (g)(7);
f. Revising paragraphs (h)(6) introductory text, (h)(10)(i)(B), and
(h)(12);
g. Revising paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(B), (i)(10) introductory text,
and (i)(11);
h. Revising paragraph (m)(2); and
i. Adding paragraphs (c)(10) and (g)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.58b Compliance and performance testing.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring
system for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the flue
gas at each location where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides emissions, or particulate matter (if the owner or operator
elects to continuously monitor particulate matter emissions under
paragraph (c)(10) of this section) are monitored and record the output
of the system and shall comply with the test procedures and test
methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section.
* * * * *
[[Page 75365]]
(6) * * *
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B shall be used to
determine the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a
sampling location. Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part),
as applicable, shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration at
the same location as the carbon dioxide monitor.
* * * * *
(7) The relationship between carbon dioxide and oxygen
concentrations that is established in accordance with paragraph (b)(6)
of this section shall be submitted to EPA or the director of a State
air pollution control agency, if so delegated by EPA, as part of the
initial performance test report and, if applicable, as part of the
annual test report if the relationship is reestablished during the
annual performance test.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(10) of this section, the
procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(11) of this section shall be used to determine compliance with the
emission limits for particulate matter and opacity under Sec.
60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2).
* * * * *
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A or 3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-1981--
Part 10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), as applicable, shall be used for gas analysis.
(3) EPA Reference Method 5 shall be used for determining compliance
with the particulate matter emission limit. The minimum sample volume
shall be 1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter holder heating systems
in the sample train shall be set to provide a gas temperature no
greater than 160[deg]C. An oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement shall
be obtained simultaneously with each Method 5 run.
* * * * *
(9) Following the date that the initial performance test for
particulate matter is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility, the
owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for particulate
matter on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 months and no more than
15 calendar months following the previous performance test).
(10) In place of particulate matter testing with EPA Reference
Method 5, an owner or operator may elect to install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for
monitoring particulate matter emissions discharged to the atmosphere
and record the output of the system. The owner or operator of an
affected facility who elects to continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system and shall comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through (c)(10)(xiv) of this section.
(i) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the
system.
(ii) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the
system.
(iii) The monitor shall be installed, evaluated, and operated in
accordance with Sec. 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(iv) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected
facility, as specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part or
within 180 days of notification to the Administrator of use of the
continuous monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously
determining compliance by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is
later.
(v) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(vi) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part. Compliance with the
particulate matter emission limit shall be determined by using the
continuous emission monitoring system specified in paragraph (c)(10) of
this section to measure particulate matter and calculating a 24-hour
block arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA Reference
Method 19, section 4.1.
(vii) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit shall
be determined based on the 24-hour daily (block) average of the hourly
arithmetic average emission concentrations using continuous emission
monitoring system outlet data.
(viii) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (c)(10)(viii)(A)
and (c)(10)(viii)(B) of this section for 75 percent of the operating
hours per day for 95 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter
that the affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
(A) At least two data points per hour shall be used to calculate
each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(B) Each particulate matter 1-hour arithmetic average shall be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
(ix) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph
(c)(10)(vii) of this section shall be expressed in milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and
shall be used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
emission concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be
calculated using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2) of
subpart A of this part.
(x) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data shall be
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph
(c)(10)(viii) of this section are not met.
(xi) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated
according to Performance Specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
(xii) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by Performance Specification 11 in
appendix B of this part, particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data shall be collected concurrently (or within a 30-to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test
methods specified in paragraphs (c)(10)(xii)(A) and (c)(10)(xii)(B) of
this section.
(A) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, as applicable shall be used.
(xiii) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration
drift tests shall be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in
appendix F of this part.
(xiv) When particulate matter emissions data are not obtained
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,
calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, emissions data shall
be obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by the
Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day
that the affected facility is operated and combusting municipal solid
waste
[[Page 75366]]
for 95 percent of the days per calendar quarter that the affected
facility is operated and combusting municipal solid waste.
(11) Following the date that the initial performance test for
opacity is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part for an affected facility, the owner or operator
shall conduct a performance test for opacity on an annual basis (no
less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months
following the previous performance test) using the test method
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-
1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A
of this part), as applicable, shall be used for flue gas analysis.
* * * * *
(vii) Following the date of the initial performance test or the
date on which the initial performance test is required to be completed
under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct a performance test for compliance with
the emission limits for cadmium and lead on a calendar year basis (no
less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months
following the previous performance test).
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-
1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A
of this part), as applicable, shall be used for flue gas analysis.
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 or ASTM D6784-02 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part), shall be used to
determine the mercury emission concentration. The minimum sample volume
when using Method 29 for mercury shall be 1.7 cubic meters.
(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 29 or ASTM D6784-02 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part), test run for
mercury required under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(ix) Following the date that the initial performance test for
mercury is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an affected facility
shall conduct a performance test for mercury emissions on a calendar
year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 12 calendar
months from the previous performance test), unless the owner or
operator follows the testing schedule specified in paragraph
(g)(5)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(7) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and
(e)(7)(ii) of this section for 75 percent of the operating hours per
day for 95 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that the
affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
* * * * *
(12) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or ASTM
D6784-02 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, or ASTM D6784-02 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of
subpart A of this part), as applicable, shall be used.
* * * * *
(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and/or zero and span adjustments, emissions data shall be
obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for
a minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day that the affected facility
is operated and combusting municipal solid waste for 95 percent of the
days per calendar quarter that the affected facility is operated and
combusting municipal solid waste.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or ASTM D6784-02
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part),
as applicable, shall be used for flue gas analysis.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For affected facilities, performance tests shall be conducted
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more
than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test.)
(ii) For the purpose of evaluating system performance to establish
new operating parameter levels, testing new technology or control
technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose
of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for
controlling facility emissions, the owner or operator of an affected
facility that qualifies for the performance testing schedule specified
in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, may test one unit and apply
the operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on
site by meeting the requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(5)(ii)(A)
through (g)(5)(ii)(D) of this section.
(A) Follow the testing schedule established in paragraph
(g)(5)(iii) of this section. For example, each year a different
affected facility at the municipal waste combustor plant shall be
tested, and the affected facilities at the plant shall be tested in
sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as applicable).
(B) Upon meeting the requirements in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this
section for one affected facility, the owner or operator may elect to
apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon injection
system operating parameter levels as established in paragraph (m) of
this section to similarly designed and equipped units on site.
(C) Upon testing each subsequent unit in accordance with the
testing schedule established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section,
the dioxin/furan and mercury emissions of the subsequent unit shall not
exceed the dioxin/furan and mercury emissions measured in the most
recent test of that unit prior to the revised operating parameter
levels.
(D) The owner or operator of an affected facility that selects to
follow the performance testing schedule specified in paragraph
(g)(5)(iii) of this section and apply the carbon injection system
operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on site
shall follow the procedures specified in Sec. 60.59b(g)(4) for
reporting.
(iii) Where all performance tests over a 2-year period indicate
that both dioxin/furan emissions are less than or equal to 7 nanograms
per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) and that mercury emissions
are less than or equal to 25 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
for all affected facilities located within a municipal waste combustor
plant, the owner or operator of the municipal waste combustor plant may
elect to conduct annual performance tests for one affected facility
(i.e., unit) per year at the municipal waste combustor plant. At a
minimum, a performance test for dioxin/furan and
[[Page 75367]]
mercury emissions shall be conducted on a calendar year basis (no less
than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 months following the
previous performance test) for one affected facility at the municipal
waste combustor plant. Each year a different affected facility at the
municipal waste combustor plant shall be tested, and the affected
facilities at the plant shall be tested in sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit
2, unit 3, as applicable). If each annual performance test continues to
indicate both a dioxin/furan emission level less than or equal to 7
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) and a mercury
emission level less than or equal to 25 micrograms per dry standard
cubic meter, the owner or operator may continue conducting a
performance test on only one affected facility per calendar year. If
any annual performance test indicates either a dioxin/furan emission
level greater than 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total
mass) or a mercury emission level greater than 25 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter, performance tests shall thereafter be conducted
annually on all affected facilities at the plant until and unless all
annual performance tests for all affected facilities at the plant over
a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/furan emission level less than or
equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) and
mercury emission level less than or equal to 25 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
* * * * *
(7) The owner or operator of an affected facility where activated
carbon is used to comply with the dioxin/furan and mercury emission
limits specified in Sec. 60.52b(c) or the dioxin/furan and mercury
emission limits specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this section
for measuring and calculating the carbon usage rate.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(6) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (h)(6)(i)
and (h)(6)(ii) of this section for 75 percent of the operating hours
per day for 95 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that
the affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as applicable, shall be used.
* * * * *
(12) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions data are not
obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, emissions
data shall be obtained using other monitoring systems as approved by
EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid
emissions data for a minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day for 95
percent of the days per calendar quarter the unit is operated and
combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as applicable, shall be used.
* * * * *
(10) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (i)(10)(i)
and (i)(10)(ii) of this section for 75 percent of the operating hours
per day for 95 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that
the affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
* * * * *
(11) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating the parameters specified under paragraph (i) of
this section even if the minimum data requirements of paragraph (i)(10)
of this section are not met. When carbon monoxide continuous emission
data are not obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained using other monitoring systems as
approved by EPA or EPA Reference Method 10 to provide, as necessary,
the minimum valid emission data.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) During operation of the affected facility, the carbon injection
system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of the
carbon mass feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) shall be averaged
over a block 8-hour period, and the 8-hour block average must equal or
exceed the level(s) documented during the performance tests specified
under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section, except as
specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) During the annual mercury performance test and the 2 weeks
preceding the annual mercury performance test, no limit is applicable
for average mass carbon feed rate.
(ii) The limit for average mass carbon feed rate may be waived in
accordance with permission granted by the Administrator for the purpose
of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control
technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose
of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for
controlling facility emissions.
* * * * *
19. Amend Sec. 60.59b by:
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) introductory text;
b. Revising (d)(2)(ii) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
d. Revising paragraph (d)(6) introductory text;
e. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(iv);
f. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(v);
g. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
h. Revising paragraph (d)(12) introductory text;
i. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
j. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii);
k. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
l. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v);
m. Revising paragraph (g)(4);
n. Revising paragraph (h)(1);
o. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E);
p. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E);
q. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi);
r. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
s. Adding paragraph (d)(12)(iv);
t. Adding paragraph (g)(5); and
u. Adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The measurements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through
(d)(2)(i)(E) of this section shall be recorded and be available for
submittal to the Administrator or review onsite by an EPA or State
inspector.
* * * * *
(E) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing
using EPA Method 5, all 1-hour average particulate matter emission
concentrations as specified under Sec. 60.58b(d)(10).
(ii) The average concentrations and percent reductions, as
applicable, specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A)
[[Page 75368]]
through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section shall be computed and recorded,
and shall be available for submittal to the Administrator or review on-
site by an EPA or State inspector.
* * * * *
(E) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing
using EPA Method 5, all 24-hour daily arithmetic average particulate
matter emission concentrations as specified under Sec. 60.58b(d)(10).
(3) Identification of the calendar dates when any of the average
emission concentrations, percent reductions, or operating parameters
recorded under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this
section, or the opacity levels recorded under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of
this section are above the applicable limits, with reasons for such
exceedances and a description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(6) Identification of the calendar dates for which the minimum
number of hours of any of the data specified in paragraphs (d)(6)(i)
through (d)(6)(vi) of this section have not been obtained including
reasons for not obtaining sufficient data and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit load data;
(v) Particulate matter control device temperature data; and
(vi) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of performance testing by EPA
Method 5, particulate matter emissions data.
(7) Identification of each occurrence that sulfur dioxide emissions
data, nitrogen oxides emissions data, particulate matter emissions data
(for owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor particulate
matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA
Method 5) or operational data (i.e., carbon monoxide emissions, unit
load, and particulate matter control device temperature) have been
excluded from the calculation of average emission concentrations or
parameters, and the reasons for excluding the data.
* * * * *
(10) The results of daily drift tests and quarterly accuracy
determinations for particulate matter continuous emission monitoring
systems (for owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing
using EPA Method 5), as required under appendix F of this part,
procedure 2.
* * * * *
(12) The records specified in paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through
(d)(12)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) Records of when a certified operator is temporarily off site.
Include two main items:
(A) If the certified chief facility operator and certified shift
supervisor are off site for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or
less, and no other certified operator is on site, record the dates that
the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor
were off site.
(B) When all certified chief facility operators and certified shift
supervisors are off site for more than 2 weeks and no other certified
operator is on site, keep records of four items:
(1) Time of day that all certified persons are off site.
(2) The conditions that cause those people to be off site.
(3) The corrective actions taken by the owner or operator of the
affected facility to ensure a certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor is on site as soon as practicable.
(4) Copies of the written reports submitted every 4 weeks that
summarize the actions taken by the owner or operator of the affected
facility to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor will be on site as soon as practicable.
* * * * *
(g) Following the first year of municipal combustor operation, the
owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit an annual report
that includes the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(5) of this section, as applicable, no later than February 1 of each
year following the calendar year in which the data were collected (once
the unit is subject to permitting requirements under title V of the
Act, the owner or operator of an affected facility must submit these
reports semiannually).
(1) * * *
(ii) A list of the highest emission level recorded for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (for
owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor particulate
matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA
Method 5), municipal waste combustor unit load level, and particulate
matter control device inlet temperature based on the data recorded
under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) The total number of days that the minimum number of hours of
data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate
matter (for owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing
using EPA Method 5), municipal waste combustor unit load, and
particulate matter control device temperature data were not obtained
based on the data recorded under paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(v) The total number of hours that data for sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (for owners and
operators who elect to continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA Method
5), municipal waste combustor unit load, and particulate matter control
device temperature were excluded from the calculation of average
emission concentrations or parameters based on the data recorded under
paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) A notification of intent to begin the reduced dioxin/furan
performance testing schedule specified in Sec. 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of
this section during the following calendar year and notification of
intent to apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon
injection system operating parameter levels as established in Sec.
60.58b(m) to similarly designed and equipped units on site.
(5) Documentation of periods when all certified chief facility
operators and certified shift supervisors are off site for more than 12
hours.
(h) * * *
(1) The semiannual report shall include information recorded under
paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter (for owners and operators who elect
to continuously monitor particulate matter emissions instead of
conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5), municipal waste
combustor unit load level, particulate matter control device inlet
temperature, and opacity.
* * * * *
(m) Owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing
using EPA Method 5 must notify the Administrator one month prior to
starting or stopping use
[[Page 75369]]
of the particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system.
[FR Doc. 05-23968 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P