[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63260-63344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25122]
[[Page 63259]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63260]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-9210-8]
RIN 2060-AP90
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address Clean Air Act
requirements to establish new source performance standards for new
units and emission guidelines for existing units for specific
categories of solid waste incineration units. In previous actions, EPA
has promulgated new source performance standards and emission
guidelines for large municipal waste combustion units, small municipal
waste combustion units, commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration units, and other solid waste incineration units. These
actions did not establish emission standards for sewage sludge
incineration units. In this action, EPA is proposing new source
performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage sludge
incineration units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 15,
2010, unless a public hearing is held. If a public hearing is held,
then comments must be received on or before November 29, 2010. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, since the Office of Management and Budget
is required to make a decision concerning the information collection
request between 30 and 60 days after October 14, 2010, a comment to the
Office of Management and Budget is best assured of having its full
effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives it by November
15, 2010.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by October 25, 2010
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing
on October 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0559, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
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-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be Confidential Business Information 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 http://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. Contact Ms. Joan Rogers at (919)
541-4487 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing,
to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the hearing
location. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing concerning this proposed rule by October 25, 2010, the hearing
will be cancelled, and a notification of cancellation will be posted on
the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html.
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. 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., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several acronyms and terms are used in
this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the
reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following
terms and acronyms are defined here:
7-PAH 7-polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AsvArsenic
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
[[Page 63261]]
CAA Clean Air Act
CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System
CBI Confidential Business Information
Cd Cadmium
CDD/CDF Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
Cr Chromium
CWA Clean Water Act
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
FF Fabric Filter
FB Fluidized Bed
FGR Flue Gas Recirculation
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration
ICR Information Collection Request
ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System
ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
MH Multiple Hearth
Mn Manganese
MWC Municipal Waste Combustion
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
Ni Nickel
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
OTM Other Test Method
OW Office of Water
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PM Particulate Matter
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPM Parts Per Million
PPMV Parts per Million by Volume
PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specifications
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SBA Small Business Administration
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TMB Total Mass Basis
TPD Tons per Day
TPY Tons per Year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
WWW Worldwide Web
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
A. What information is included in this preamble and how is it
organized?
B. Where in the CFR will these standards and guidelines be
codified?
C. What is the statutory background?
D. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
E. How are the EG implemented?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards
B. Summary of the Proposed EG
C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
D. Summary of Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
E. Other Requirements for New and Existing SSI Units
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Electronic Data Submittal
H. Title V Permit Requirements
I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the NSPS and EG
IV. Rationale
A. Subcategories
B. Format for the Proposed Standards and Guidelines
C. MACT Floor Determination Methodology
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
E. Rationale for Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Rationale for Operator Training and Qualification
Requirements
H. Rationale for Siting Requirements
I. What are the SSM provisions?
J. Delegation of Authority To Implement and Enforce These
Provisions
K. State Plans
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. Impacts of the Proposed Action for Existing Units
B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units
C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and EG
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to CAA Sections 112(c)(3)
and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii)
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Other SSI Rules for the
Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
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 and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Although there is not a specific NAICS code for
SSI, these units may be operated by municipalities or other entities.
The following NAICS codes could apply:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid waste combustors and incinerators.... 562213 Municipalities with SSI units.
Sewage treatment facilities................ 221320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in proposed 40 CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR
[[Page 63262]]
60.5005 of subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the proposed action 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 CBI
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
Ms. Amy Hambrick, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. 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:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the preceding section titled DATES.
3. Docket
The docket number for the proposed action regarding the SSI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
4. Worldwide Web
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the TTN Web site.
Following signature, EPA posted a copy of the proposed action on the
TTN Web site's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
II. Background
A. What information is included in this preamble and how is it
organized?
In this preamble, EPA summarizes the important features of these
proposed standards and guidelines that apply to SSI units. This
preamble describes the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of
these standards and guidelines; describes the basis for each of the
decisions made regarding the proposed standards and guidelines;
requests public comments on certain issues; and discusses
administrative requirements relative to this action.
B. Where in the CFR will these standards and guidelines be codified?
The CFR is a codification of the general and permanent rules
published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and
agencies of the Federal government. The code is divided into 50 titles
that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. These
proposed rules for solid waste incineration units would be published in
Title 40, Protection of the Environment. Part 60 of title 40 includes
standards of performance for new stationary sources and EG and
compliance times for existing sources. The table below lists the
subparts in which the standards and guidelines will be codified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of the regulation Subpart in Title 40, part 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards of Performance for New Subpart LLLL
Stationary Sources: Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units.
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times Subpart MMMM
for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the statutory background?
Section 129 of the CAA, titled, ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and EG for solid waste
incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. A SSI unit is
an incinerator that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing
the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new
SSI units, and CAA sections 111(d) and 129 (b) address emissions from
existing SSI units. The NSPS are directly enforceable Federal
regulations, and under CAA section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months
after promulgation. Under CAA section 129(f)(2), the EG become
effective and enforceable 3 years after EPA approves a State plan
implementing the EG or 5 years after the date they are promulgated,
whichever is sooner. Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies 5
categories of solid waste incineration units:
Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity
greater than 250 TPD.
Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal
to or less than 250 TPD.
Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious
waste.
Units that combust commercial or industrial waste.
Units that combust waste and which are not specifically
identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D) are referred to in
section 129(a)(1)(E) as ``other categories'' of solid waste
incineration units.
Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been
specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D), have been
interpreted to be part of the broader category of ``other categories''
of solid waste. EPA has issued emission standards for large and small
MWC, HMIWI, CISWI, and OSWI units. However, as explained further in
this section of the preamble, none of those emission standards apply to
SSI units.
Section 129(g)(1) of the CAA defines ``solid waste incineration
unit'' as ``a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts
any solid waste material from commercial or industrial establishments
or the general public.'' Section 129(g)(6) provides that ``solid
waste'' shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its
authority under the RCRA.
[[Page 63263]]
EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on December 16, 2005
(70 FR 74870). The OSWI standards did not include emission standards
for SSI units. EPA received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI
standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of certain
categories, including SSI.\1\ While EPA granted the petition for
reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became
effective January 22, 2007, concluded that no additional changes were
necessary to the 2005 OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is
currently being held in abeyance. However, EPA currently intends to
revise the emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that
rulemaking would address all OSWI units except SSI units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sierra Club v. EPA; DC Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA stated that we
were not issuing emission standards under CAA section 129 for SSI units
(70 FR 74870). We explained that we would instead regulate SSI units
under CAA section 112 because we interpreted CAA section 129(h)(2) as
giving EPA the discretion to choose the section of the CAA (i.e.,
section 112 or section 129) under which to regulate these sources. We
reiterated that decision in the response to the petition for
reconsideration on this issue. In addition, we stated in the final
action, on January 22, 2007, that the 4 specific statutory exemptions
from the definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' in CAA section
129 (g)(1) were not exclusive, and that section 129(a)(1)(E) does not
require EPA to establish emission standards for all other types of
incineration units in addition to those identified in section
129(a)(1)(A) through (D) (72 FR 2620). However, since the January 2007
action responding to the petition for reconsideration, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) \2\, in
June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA's December 1, 2000,
emission standards for CISWI units, held that any unit combusting any
solid waste must be regulated under section 129 of the CAA, as
explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of EPA's December 1, 2000, CISWI rulemaking, EPA defined
the term ``commercial and industrial waste'' to mean solid waste
combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion
without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any
commercial or industrial facility. On August 17, 2001, EPA granted a
request for reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B),
submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the
Louisiana Environmental Action Network, related to the definition of
``commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit'' and
``commercial or industrial waste'' in EPA's CISWI rulemaking. In
granting the petition for reconsideration, EPA agreed to undertake
further notice and comment proceedings related to these definitions. In
addition, on January 30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition for
review in the Court challenging EPA's final CISWI rule. On September 6,
2001, the Court entered an order granting EPA's motion for a voluntary
remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. On remand, EPA solicited
comments on the CISWI Rule's definitions of ``solid waste,''
``commercial and industrial waste'' and ``CISWI unit.'' On September
22, 2005, EPA issued the CISWI Definitions Rule, which contained
definitions that were substantively the same as those issued before
reconsideration. In particular, the 2005 CISWI Definitions Rule defined
``commercial or industrial waste'' to include only waste that is
combusted at a facility that cannot or does not use a process that
recovers thermal energy from the combustion for a useful purpose.
EPA received a petition for judicial review of the CISWI
Definitions Rule from several environmental organizations. The
petitioners challenged the CISWI Definitions Rule on the grounds that
its definition of ``commercial or industrial waste'' was inconsistent
with the plain language of CAA section 129, and, therefore,
impermissibly constricted the class of ``solid waste incineration
unit[s]'' that were subject to the emission standards of the CISWI
Rule. The Court agreed with petitioners and vacated the CISWI
Definitions Rule.
In its decision, the Court held that EPA's definition of
``commercial or industrial waste,'' as incorporated in the definition
of CISWI units, conflicted with the plain language of CAA section
129(g)(1). That provision defines ``solid waste incineration unit'' to
mean ``any facility which combusts any solid waste material'' from
certain types of establishments, with 4 specific exclusions. The Court
stated that, based on the use of the term ``any'' and the specific
exclusions for only certain types of facilities from the definition of
``solid waste incineration unit,'' CAA section 129 unambiguously
includes among the incineration units subject to its standards, any
facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid waste
material at all--subject only to the 4 statutory exclusions. The Court
held that the definitions EPA promulgated in the CISWI Definitions Rule
constricted the plain language of CAA section 129(g)(1), because the
CISWI Definitions Rule excluded from its universe operating units that
combusted solid waste and were designed for or operated with energy
recovery.
The rationale EPA provided in 2007 for not regulating SSI units
under section 129 is squarely in conflict with the Court's 2007 holding
in NRDC v. EPA. Specifically, the Court stated that the 4 enumerated
exemptions in section 129(g)(1) are in fact exclusive, and EPA lacked
authority to create additional exemptions. The Court also rejected
EPA's interpretation of section 129(h)(2), as articulated in the 2007
notice. The Court found that section 129(h)(2) ``simply directs EPA in
plain terms to subject a solid waste combustion facility exclusively to
section 129 standards, and not to section 112,'' and that the provision
confers no discretion in this respect \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPA has historically taken the position that sewage sludge
is solid waste under the RCRA. EPA has taken this position in an EPA
letter dated February 12, 1988, to Thomas A. Corbett, Environmental
Chemist I, New York State Department of Environmental Quality
addressing the regulatory status of certain sewage sludge, as well as
in its 1980 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste rulemaking
(45 FR 33097, May 19, 1980) (included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking).
Finally, on June 4, 2010, EPA proposed a definition of non-
hazardous solid waste (75 FR 31844) under the RCRA which is consistent
with this historical interpretation. In that proposal, EPA explained
its interpretation for purposes of that definition that sewage sludge
is solid waste, and, therefore, unit(s) combusting sewage sludge should
be regulated under CAA section 129. Although EPA has not taken final
action on that proposed rule and will consider all public comments
received before taking final action, the proposed rule represents EPA's
most recent interpretation regarding this issue and is consistent with
its historical interpretation under the RCRA. Therefore, EPA is
proposing emission standards for SSI units under CAA section 129.
On September 9, 2009, EPA received a letter from the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies stating that SSI units should be
regulated under section
[[Page 63264]]
112(d) of the Act (included in the docket of today's proposed
rulemaking). The National Association of Clean Water Agencies claimed
that SSI units are within the scope of the Clean Water Act's definition
of ``publicly owned treatment works,'' and that section 112(e)(5)
directs EPA to issue emissions standards under section 112(d) for
publicly owned treatment works as defined by the CWA. However, EPA
issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 and did not include
standards for SSI units in those regulations \4\. In fact, in the
proposed emissions standards for POTW, EPA stated that ``[s]ewage
sludge incineration will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA, and
will be included in the source category Other Solid Waste
Incinerators[.]'' \5\ Therefore, EPA has taken the position in its
regulation of POTW under the Clean Air Act that section 112(e)(5) does
not apply to SSI units and for this reason did not regulate them in its
POTW section 112(d) emissions standards. EPA solicits comment on
National Association of Clean Water Agencies' claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 64 FR 57572 (Oct. 26, 1999).
\5\ See 63 FR 66084, 66087 (Dec. 1, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA considers SSI units to be ``other solid waste incineration
units,'' since that category is intended to encompass all solid waste
incineration units that are not included in the first 4 categories
identified in CAA section 129 (a) through (d). EPA is proposing, and
intends to take final action on, emission standards for SSI units in
advance of its re-issuance of emission standards for the remaining OSWI
units because these emission standards are needed as part of EPA's
fulfillment of its obligations under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii). Clean Air Act section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for EPA to
identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area
sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas. EPA must then ensure that sources representing
90 percent of the aggregate area source emissions of each of the 30
identified HAP are subject to standards pursuant to section 112(d) \6\.
Sewage Sludge Incineration units are one of the source categories
identified for regulation to meet the 90 percent requirement for 7-PAH,
Cd, Cr, CDD/CDF, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. EPA is ordered by the Court to
satisfy its obligation under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by
January 16, 2011 \7\. Therefore, EPA is proposing and intends to
finalize the SSI standards prior to taking action on the remaining
source categories that will be regulated under section 129(a)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii).
\7\ Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by municipalities
or other entities. Incineration continues to be used to dispose of
sewage sludge, but is increasingly becoming less common. Combustion of
solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the release of a
wide array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed
material and are released unchanged during combustion, and some of
which are generated as a result of the combustion process itself. The
pollutants for which numerical limits must be established, as specified
in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, HCl, Hg,
NOX, opacity (where appropriate), PM, Pb, and
SO2. Emissions of the CAA section 129 pollutants from SSI
units come from the SSI unit's stack. Fugitive opacity and PM emissions
also occur from ash handling. Additional pollution controls will
increase costs for facilities that continue to use the incineration
disposal method. If the additional costs are high enough, many entities
may choose to adopt alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface
disposal in landfills or other beneficial land applications).
E. How are the EG implemented?
Standards of performance for solid waste incineration units
promulgated under CAA sections 111 and 129 consist of both NSPS
applicable to new units, and EG applicable to existing units. Unlike
the NSPS, the EG are not themselves directly enforceable. Rather, the
EG are implemented and enforced through either an EPA-approved State
plan or a promulgated Federal plan. States are required to submit a
plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval not later than
1 year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA section 129(b)(2)). The State
plan must be ``at least as protective as'' the EG and must ensure
compliance with all applicable requirements not later than 3 years
after the State plan is approved by EPA, but not later than 5 years
after the relevant EG are promulgated. Likewise, the requirements of
the State plan are to be effective as expeditiously as possible
following EPA approval of the plan, but must be effective no later than
3 years after the State plan is approved or 5 years after the EG are
promulgated, whichever is earlier (CAA section 129(f)(2)). EPA's
procedures for submitting and approving State plans are set forth in 40
CFR part 60, subpart B. When a State plan is approved by EPA, the plan
requirements become federally enforceable, but the State has primary
responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan.
EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan
for solid waste incineration units located in any State which has not
submitted an approvable State plan within 2 years after the date of
promulgation of the relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The Federal
plan must assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to the
Federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of the EG not later
than 5 years after the date the relevant guidelines are promulgated.
EPA views the Federal plan as a ``place-holder'' that remains in effect
only until such time as a State without an approved plan submits and
receives EPA approval of its State plan. Once an applicable State plan
has been approved, the requirements of the Federal plan no longer apply
to solid waste incineration units covered by that State plan.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
This preamble discusses the proposed standards and guidelines as
they apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI unit. This
preamble also describes the major requirements of the SSI regulations.
For a full description of the proposed requirements and compliance
times, see the attached regulations.
A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards
The proposed standards and guidelines apply to owners or operators
of an incineration unit burning solid waste at wastewater treatment
facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 CFR 60.5065). A SSI
unit is an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that burns
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter. The affected facility is each
individual SSI unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply
to new and existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as defined in the
subparts.
B. Summary of the Proposed EG
EPA is proposing 2 subcategories for existing sources based on
their incinerator design: (1) MH incinerators and (2) FB incinerators.
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the proposed
[[Page 63265]]
emission limits for existing SSI units for each subcategory. These
standards would apply at all times.
Table 1--Proposed Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Emission
Pollutant Units limit for MH limit for FB
incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.095 0.0019
CDD/CDF, TEQ............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.32 0.056
CDD/CDF, TMB............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 5.0 0.61
CO......................................... Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 3,900 56
HCl........................................ Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 1.0 0.49
Hg......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.02 0.0033
NOX........................................ Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 210 63
Opacity.................................... %.................................. 10 0
Pb......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.30 0.0098
PM......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 80 12
SO2........................................ Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 26 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
As explained in IV.C.2, EPA is proposing to require all new
sources, regardless of incinerator design, meet the emission limits
based on the best-performing FB incinerator. Table 2 of this preamble
summarizes the proposed emission limits for SSI units subject to the
NSPS. These standards would apply at all times.
Table 2--Proposed Emission Limits for New SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Emission
Pollutant Units limit for MH limit for FB
incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.00051 0.00051
CDD/CDF, TMB............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.024 0.024
CDD/CDF, TEQ............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.0022 0.0022
CO......................................... ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 7.4 7.4
HCl........................................ ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 0.12 0.12
Hg......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.0010 0.0010
NOX........................................ ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 26 26
Opacity.................................... %.................................. 0 0
Pb......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.00053 0.00053
PM......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 4.1 4.1
SO2........................................ ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 2.0 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Summary of Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
The proposed rule would require all new and existing SSI units to
demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the emission limits and
combustion stack opacity limits using EPA-approved emission test
methods.
For existing SSI units, the proposed rule would require initial and
annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring
as an alternative), continuous parameter monitoring, and annual
inspections of air pollution control devices that may be used to meet
the emission limits. Additionally, existing units would also be
required to conduct initial and annual opacity tests for the combustion
stack and a one-time Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7)
visible emissions test of the ash handling operations to be conducted
during the next compliance test.
For new SSI units, the proposed rule would require initial and
annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring
as an alternative), bag leak detection systems for FF controlled units,
as well as continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits. The proposal would require all new SSI units to install a CO
CEMS. New units would also be required to conduct initial and annual
opacity tests for the combustion stack and Method 22 visible emissions
testing of the ash handling operations would be required during each
compliance test.
For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb
or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling with
periodic sample analysis) would be approved alternatives to parametric
monitoring and annual compliance testing. For new SSI units, CO CEMS
would be required, and use of Cd, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or
SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling, with
periodic sample analysis) would be approved alternatives to parametric
monitoring and annual compliance testing.
E. Other Requirements for New and Existing SSI Units
Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units would be required
to meet operator training and qualification requirements, which
include: Ensuring that at least 1 operator or supervisor per facility
complete the operator training course, that qualified operator(s) or
supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course specified
in the regulation, and that they maintain plant-specific information,
updated annually, regarding training.
Owners or operators of new SSI units would be required to conduct a
siting analysis, which includes submitting a report that evaluates
site-specific air
[[Page 63266]]
pollution control alternatives that minimize potential risks to public
health or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts and any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS tests,
deviation reports, operating parameter data, continuous monitoring
data, maintenance and inspections on the air pollution control devices,
the siting analysis (for new units only), monitoring plan and operator
training and qualification must be maintained for 5 years. The results
of the stack tests and PS tests and values for operating parameters
would be required to be included in initial and subsequent compliance
reports.
G. Electronic Data Submittal
Electronic data collection is commonly employed to collect and
analyze data for a variety of applications, such as the CAA Acid Rain
Program. Both industry and the public benefit from electronic data
collection in that it increases the ease of submitting the data as well
as increasing the accessibility and transparency of these data.
EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes
including compliance determinations, emission factor development and
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for
us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators to
locate, collect, and submit emissions test data because of varied
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. One
improvement that has occurred in recent years is the availability of
stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement for cumbersome
paper copies.
In this action, EPA is proposing a step to improve data
accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of reporting for
sources. Specifically, we are proposing that owners and operators of
SSI facilities be required to submit to EPA's ERT database the
electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests required
under this rule. Data will be entered through an electronic emissions
test report structure called the ERT that will be used whenever
emissions testing is conducted. The ERT was developed with input from
stack testing companies who generally collect and compile performance
test data electronically and offices within State and local agencies
that perform field test assessments. The ERT is currently available,
and access to direct data submittal to EPA's electronic emissions
database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 2011.
The requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA
would not require any additional performance testing and would apply to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported
by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for
most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. The Web site listed
below contains a listing of the pollutants and test methods supported
by the ERT. In addition, when a facility submits performance test data
to WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for emissions test
data compilation. Moreover, we believe industry will benefit from
development of improved emission factors, fewer follow-up information
requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. The
information to be reported is already required for the existing test
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
One major advantage of submitting source test data through the ERT
is that it would provide a standardized method to compile and store
much of the documentation required to be reported by this rule while
clearly stating what testing information would be required. Another
important benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the
source test is conducted is that it should substantially reduce the
effort involved in data collection activities in the future. If EPA had
source category data, there would likely be fewer or less substantial
data collection requests in conjunction with prospective residual risk
assessments or technology reviews. This results in a reduced burden on
both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to
data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and
distributing data collection requests).
State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit from the reduced
burden associated with receipt of electronic information opposed to
having to process paper forms. Finally, another benefit of submitting
these data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data would improve
greatly the overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by
supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission
factor is based and by ensuring that data are more representative of
current industry operational procedures. A common complaint heard from
industry and regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not
representative of a particular source category. Receiving and
incorporating data for most performance tests would ensure that
emission factors, when updated, represent accurately the most current
operational practices. In summary, receiving test data already
collected for other purposes and using them in the emission factors
development program would save industry, State/local/tribal agencies
and EPA, time and money and work to improve the quality of emission
inventories and related regulatory decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that would be used is
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA's TTN Web.
The WebFIRE Web site was constructed to store emissions test data for
use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE
database can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The ERT would be able to transmit the electronic report through
EPA's CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is
not the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source
test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data
very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
H. Title V Permit Requirements
All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final SSI rule
would be required to apply for and obtain a Title V permit. These Title
V operating permits would assure compliance with all applicable
requirements for regulated SSI units, including all applicable CAA
section 129 requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source
applying for a Title V operating permit depends on when the source
first becomes subject to the relevant Title V permits program. If a
regulated SSI unit is a new unit and is not subject to an earlier
permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application must
be submitted on or before the relevant date below.
For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new source
on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL,
the source must submit a complete Title V permit application no
later than 12
[[Page 63267]]
months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL;
or
For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new source
after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source
must submit a complete Title V permit application no later than 12
months after the date the SSI unit commences operation as a new
source.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and
71.5(a)(1)(i).
If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject to an
earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a
complete Title V permit application by the earlier of the following
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dates:
Twelve months after the effective date of any
applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an EPA
approved State or tribal plan that implements the SSI EG); or
Twelve months after the effective date of any
applicable Federal plan; or
Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMMM.
For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the
promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, applies regardless of
whether or when any applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or
when any applicable CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is approved by EPA and
becomes effective. (See CAA sections 129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a)
and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of some
triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned above, for
example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or part of a major source),
then you may be required to apply for a Title V permit prior to the
deadlines specified above. If more than 1 requirement triggers a
source's obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time
frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered by the
requirement which first causes the source to be subject to Title V.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b),
70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional background information on the interface between CAA
section 129 and Title V, including EPA's interpretation of section
129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications
and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final ``Federal Plan
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,'' October 3,
2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the ``Summary of Public Comments and
Responses'' document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156).
I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the NSPS and EG
Under these proposed standards, new SSI units that commence
construction on or after October 14, 2010 or that are modified 6 months
or more after the date of promulgation, would have to meet the NSPS
emission limits of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within 6 months after
the promulgation date of the standards or upon startup, whichever is
later.
Under the proposed EG, and consistent with CAA section 129(b)(2)
and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, states are required to submit State
plans containing the existing source emission limits of subpart MMMM of
this part, and other requirements to implement and enforce the EG
within 1 year after promulgation of the EG. State plans apply to
existing SSI in the State (including SSI that are modified prior to the
date 6 months after promulgation) and must be at least as protective as
the EG.
The proposed EG would require existing SSI to demonstrate
compliance with the standards as expeditiously as practicable after
approval of a State plan, but no later than 3 years from the date of
approval of a State plan or 5 years after promulgation of the EG,
whichever is earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects
states to require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. However,
because we believe that many SSI units will find it necessary to
retrofit existing emissions control equipment and/or install additional
emissions control equipment in order to meet the proposed limits, EPA
anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3 year compliance
period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA does not approve a
State plan or issue a Federal plan, then the compliance date is 5 years
from the date of the final rule.
EPA intends to develop a Federal plan that will apply to existing
SSI units in any State that has not submitted an approved State plan
within 2 years after promulgation of the EG. The proposed EG would
allow existing SSI units subject to the Federal plan up to 5 years
after promulgation of the EG to demonstrate compliance with the
standards, as allowed by CAA section 129(b)(3).
IV. Rationale
All standards established pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2) must
reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of certain
listed air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for each category. This level of control is referred to as a
MACT standard.
The minimum level of stringency is called the ``MACT floor,'' and
CAA section 129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of minimum stringency
that EPA's standards must achieve, depending on whether they regulate
new or existing sources. For new units, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar unit. Emission standards for existing units may
be less stringent than standards for new units, but cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in the category. These requirements
constitute the MACT floor for new and existing sources; however, EPA
may not consider costs or other impacts in determining the MACT floors.
EPA must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts
and energy requirements in connection with any standards that are more
stringent than the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor controls).
In general, MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emissions
from the best-performing units in a source category. The assessment can
be based on actual emissions data, on knowledge of the air pollution
control in place in combination with actual emissions data, or on State
regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the actual
performance of the regulated units and other relevant emissions
information. For each source category, the assessment involves a review
of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be used provided
that the methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the
actual emissions performance of a source or sources.
As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no
less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar unit. Under CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA
determines the best control currently in use for a given pollutant and
establishes the MACT floor at the emission level achieved by that
control with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Once
the MACT floor determinations are done for new sources, we consider
regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control
that could result in reduced emissions. More
[[Page 63268]]
stringent potential regulatory options might reflect controls used on
other sources that could be applied to the source category in question.
For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine
some measure of the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in each subcategory to establish the
MACT floor for existing units. Once the MACT floor determinations are
done for each subcategory of existing units, we consider various
regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control
that could result in lower emissions. More stringent beyond-the-floor
regulatory options reflect other or additional controls capable of
achieving better performance.
A. Subcategories
The CAA allows EPA to subcategorize a source category based on
differences in class, type, or size. EPA is proposing to subcategorize
SSI units into 2 subcategories, based on differences in the design type
of the incineration units.
To EPA's knowledge, there are 2 types of incinerators currently
used to combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. Of the 218 SSI
units in operation, 55 use the FB design, while 163 use the MH design.
These two types use significantly different combustor designs. A. MH
incinerator consists of a vertical cylinder containing from 6 to 12
horizontal hearths and a rotating center shaft with rabble arms.
Biosolids (i.e., sewage sludge) enter the top hearth and flow downward
while combustion air flows from the bottom to the top. The MH is
divided into 3 zones. The upper hearths comprise the drying zone in
which water and some organic compounds are evaporated from the
biosolids. The middle hearths comprise the combustion zone. The
exposure to the combustion gas and biosolids to high temperature is
only in this section and residence time of the gas is short. The lower
hearths form the cooling zone, where ash is cooled as its heat is
transferred to the incoming combustion air. Some MH incinerators have
an additional zone above the drying hearths which can be used as an
afterburner to combust the organics and CO generated in the lower
hearths. Multiple hearth units are sensitive to any change in the feed,
such as feed moisture and feed rate. Since the emissions of CO and
organic compounds are dependent on the temperature of the top hearth,
any changes occurring in the biosolids input can cause operational
upset with momentary drop in top hearth temperature and an increase in
emissions. In order to assure proper startup, shutdown, and modulation
of combustion temperatures, fuels (e.g., natural gas and distillate
oil) may be added to the combustion chamber.
In a FB incinerator, the reactor is a vertical steel shell
comprised of 4 sections. The lower section is called the windbox and
acts as a plenum in which combustion air is received. Above the windbox
is a refractory arch. The section above the refractory arch is filled
with sand and is called the bed area or combustion zone. Hot air is
distributed homogeneously throughout the FB. The intensive mixing of
the solid and gas in the fluidized State results in a high heat
transfer resulting in rapid combustion of the biosolids. The section
above the bed is the freeboard or disengagement zone. The freeboard
provides 6 to 7 seconds of gas residence time, which completes the
combustion of any volatile hydrocarbons escaping from the bed.
The differences between the 2 combustor designs result in
significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas stream,
ability to handle variability in the feeds, control of temperature and
other process variables, auxiliary fuel use and other characteristics.
Generally, FB incinerators have lower emissions of NOX,
organic compounds, CDD/CDF and CO than MH incinerators due to the
combustion temperature, mixing, and residence time differences.
Intermittent operations, involving frequent shutdown and startup, are
generally easier and more rapid for FB incinerators than MH
incinerators. Additionally, FB incinerators have better capability of
handling feeds with varying moisture and volatile contents. Lower
excess air and auxiliary fuel is required to operate FB incinerators
resulting in smaller flue gas flow rates and consequently smaller sized
downstream control devices.
To reflect the differences in their combustion mechanisms, 2
subcategories, FB and MH, were developed for new and existing SSI
sources.
We are requesting comment on whether other combustor designs are
used at SSI units, and, if so, we are requesting emissions information
from stack tests conducted on those units.
We are also aware that sewage sludge may be incinerated in certain
commercial or industrial units and energy recovery units that are
subject to the recently proposed CISWI rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts
CCCC and DDDD of this part). Therefore, we are proposing that sewage
sludge that is incinerated in combustion units located at commercial
and industrial facilities be subject to the CISWI standards rather than
the SSI standards. We are requesting comment on the appropriateness of
this proposed decision. While we are not aware of other combustion
units that incinerate sewage sludge, we are requesting comment on
whether such other units exist, and, if so, what the content of the
combusted materials is (i.e., constituents in the sewage sludge), the
amount of sewage sludge incinerated, and whether these units should be
subject to SSI standards or subject to other section 129 standards.
B. Format for the Proposed Standards and Guidelines
The EPA selected emission limitations as the format for the
proposed SSI standards and guidelines. As required by section 129 of
the CAA, the proposed standards and guidelines would establish
numerical emission limitations for Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, HCl, Pb, Hg,
opacity, NOX, PM, and SO2. For regulating Cd, Pb,
Hg, and total PM, the EPA is proposing numerical concentration limits
in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). Emission limits
of CDD/CDF are in units of total ng/dscm, based on measuring emissions
of each tetra through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and dibenzofuran
and summing them. For CO, HCl, NOX, and SO2, the
proposed standards and guidelines are volume concentrations, ppmvd.
Standards and guidelines for opacity are proposed on a percentage
basis. All measurements are corrected to 7 percent oxygen to provide a
common basis.
The EPA selected an outlet concentration format because outlet data
are available for SSI units and characterize the best performing SSI
units. In addition to numerical emission limits, the SSI standards
include operator training and qualification provisions and siting
requirements (for new sources only) as required by section 129.
EPA understands that the metal emissions from SSI units are
influenced by the metals content in the sludge burned. It is not clear
from the data available to EPA whether the sludge burned during the
emissions tests (that were used to establish the MACT floor) represent
typical sludge composition/concentrations or are closer to minimum or
maximum levels. We are also requesting additional sludge metals content
information from the best performing sources collected during emissions
stack tests so that we can
[[Page 63269]]
appropriately account for any differences in metal content of the
sludge in the final standards.
C. MACT Floor Determination Methodology
Section 129 (a)(2) of the CAA requires that EPA determine the
emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled
similar unit when establishing the MACT floor for new units, and the
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent
of units when establishing the MACT floor for existing units. Section
129(a)(4) states that the standards promulgated under section 129 shall
specify a numerical emissions limitation for each pollutant enumerated
in that provision. Section 129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish
standards requiring the ``maximum degree of reduction of emissions.''
``Maximum degree of reduction of emissions,'' in turn is defined in
section 129(a)(2) as including a minimum level of control (known as the
MACT floor). EPA's long-standing interpretation is that the combination
of section 129(a)(4), requiring numerical standards for each enumerated
pollutant, and section 129(a)(2), requiring that each such standard be
at least as stringent as the MACT floor, supports that floors be
derived for each pollutant based on the emissions levels achieved for
each pollutant.
The emission limits proposed also account for variability. EPA must
exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors
and available data, to determine the level of emissions control that
has been achieved by the best performing SSI units under variable
conditions. The Court has recognized that EPA may consider variability
in estimating the degree of emission reduction achieved by the best-
performing sources and in setting MACT floors that the best performing
sources can expect to meet ``every day and under all operating
conditions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA; 370 F.3d at
1232, 1241-42 DC Cir 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Achievable Control Technology and other technology-based
standards are necessarily derived from short-term emissions test data,
but such data are not representative of the range of operating
conditions that the best-performing facilities face on a day-to-day
basis. In statistical terms, each test produces a limited data sample,
and not a complete enumeration of the available data for performance of
the unit over a long period of time \12\. EPA, therefore, often needs
to adjust the short-term data to account for these varying conditions.
The types of variability that EPA attempts to account for include
operational distinctions between and within tests at the same unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Natrella, Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of
Standards Handbook 91, chapter 1 revised ed., 1966.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Between-test variability'' can occur even where conditions appear
to be the same when 2 or more tests are conducted. Variations in
emissions may be caused by different settings for emissions testing
equipment, different field teams conducting the testing, differences in
sample handling or different laboratories analyzing the results.
Identifying an achieved emissions level for best-performing sources
needs to account for these differences between tests, in order for ``a
uniform standard [to] be capable of being met under most adverse
conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur[.]'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ National Lime Association I, 627 F.2d at 431, n. 46 and
Portland Cement Association, 486 F.2d at 396, ``a single test
offered a weak basis'' for inferring that plants could meet the
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same types of differences leading to between-test variability
also cause variations in results between various runs comprising a
single test, or ``within-test variability.'' A single test at a unit
usually includes at least 3 separate test runs. (See 40 CFR 63.7(e)(3)
for MACT standards under CAA section 112 and 40 CFR 60.8(f) for NSPS
under CAA section 111). Each data point should be viewed as a snapshot
of actual performance. Along with an understanding of the factors that
may affect performance, each of these snapshots gives information about
the normal and unavoidable variation in emissions that would be
expected to recur over time.
One approach to estimating future variability that may be used is
the UPL. The UPL is an appropriate statistical tool to use in
determining variability when there is a limited sampling of the source
category. An UPL (i.e., sample mean plus a multiplier times the
standard deviation) for a future observation is the upper end of a
range of values that will, with a specified degree of confidence,
contain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomly selected
observation from a population. In other words, UPL estimates the high
end of the range in which future values will fall, with a certain
probability, based on present or past background samples taken. Given
this definition, the UPL is the value below which the average result of
a future emissions test consisting of 3 test run observations (3-run
average) from the source to be tested is expected to fall below with a
stated level of confidence (e.g., 99 percent). Therefore, should a
future test condition be selected randomly from any of these sources,
we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall below
a MACT floor emissions limit calculated using an UPL. Since a source
must demonstrate compliance with the MACT floor using the average of a
3-run test, the appropriate test condition to use to assess variability
is 3 runs. If a source had to demonstrate compliance by showing that
each individual test run was below the MACT floor emission limit, it
would be appropriate to use a future test condition of 1 run. (See
further discussion in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.) We are
soliciting comment on all aspects of our variability analysis.
EPA understands that the metal emissions from a SSI unit may vary
due to the metals content in the sludge burned. We are requesting
additional sludge metals content information collected during emissions
stack tests so that we can appropriately account for any differences in
metal content of the sludge in the final standards.
1. MACT Floor Analyses Data Set
As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no
less stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar unit. For existing sources, the CAA requires
that MACT be no less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of units in a source
category. Because the number of units in different subcategories may be
different, the number of units that represent the best-performing 12
percent of sources in different subcategories may be different. Also,
mathematically, the number of units that represent the best-performing
12 percent of the units in a subcategory will not always be an integer.
To ensure that each MACT standard is based on at least 12 percent of
the units in a subcategory, EPA has determined that it is appropriate
to always round up to the nearest integer when 12 percent of a given
subcategory is not an integer. For example, if 12 percent of a
subcategory is 4.1, the standards will be based on the best-performing
5 units even though rounding conventions would normally lead to
rounding down to 4 units. As discussed earlier, there are 218 SSI
units, composed of 163 MH incinerators and 55 FB incinerators. This
procedure results in a top 12 percent comprised of
[[Page 63270]]
20 MH incinerators and 7 FB incinerators.
Information collection request surveys were sent to 9
municipalities operating SSI units to collect emissions information. To
select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the inventory of SSI units for
the control devices being operated, and identified a subset of units
expected to have the lowest emissions based on the type of unit and the
installed air pollution controls. EPA believes these controls achieve
the most reductions possible for the CAA section 129 pollutants, and
thereby allow EPA to identify for each pollutant the units with the
lowest emissions. For example, units were selected that operated more
than one of the following technologies: activated carbon injection to
reduce Hg and CDD/CDF; regenerative thermal oxidizer or afterburners to
reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; high
efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and impingement tray
scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg and acid gases such as
HCl and SO2; and units with multiple control devices that
could reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as a venturi scrubber in
combination with an impingement scrubber and a wet ESP or another
particulate control device. See the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis
for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category,'' which is in the
SSI docket for a list of municipalities that were sent an ICR and their
controls.
In contrast to MWC units or CISWI units, SSI units receive a
homogenous type of waste to burn. There are variations in the amount of
each of the CAA section 129 pollutants present, but because all SSI
units are required to meet the CWA SSI discharge and emission
requirements (40 CFR part 503), the variations are not as significant
as variations that would occur if different types of materials were
combusted (e.g., sewage sludge, coal, wood). Part 503 establishes daily
average concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage
sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also requires that
SSI meet the National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in
subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the
40 CFR part 503 standards, facilities are already incorporating
management practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the
concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as
segregating contaminated and uncontaminated wastes and establishing
discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for non-domestic users
discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus, SSI units burn a relatively
homogenous waste, and non-technology measures to reduce emissions are
already being taken. As a result, the data used to develop the MACT
emission limits reflect the control technologies used at each facility,
and the other HAP emission reduction approaches, such as management
practices each facility is following to comply with the CWA part 503
standards. For this reason, we believe that the sources identified for
testing and the resulting emissions information received from the
surveyed SSI units represent the best-performing SSI units.
From the 9 surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 16
units that were in operation (11 MH incinerators and 5 FB
incinerators). The surveyed information was supplemented with test
information for 9 MH SSI units collected from State environmental
agencies public databases. In total, emissions information was
collected from 5 FB incinerators and 20 MH incinerators from facilities
responding to the ICR and additional test reports provided by State
environmental agencies. However, not every test report contained
information on all pollutants. Except for CDD/CDF and SO2,
test information for most of the 9 CAA section 129 pollutants was
available from 5 FB incinerators. For CDD/CDF and SO2, data
from only 3 FB incinerators were available. Depending on the pollutant,
the number of MH incinerators with emissions information ranges from 5
to 19. The MACT floor analysis was then conducted using all the
emissions information for each pollutant in each subcategory (i.e., all
5 FB incinerators for Cd and all 14 MH incinerators for Cd), as this
information includes emissions data from the population of best-
performing units.
Test results from each of these units are based on the results of
at least 3 individual runs per test, meaning that one would expect MACT
floor calculations based on a population of 21 FB runs (7 FB multiplied
by 3 runs per FB) and on a population of 60 MH runs (20 MH FB
multiplied by 3 runs per MH). While EPA does not have actual emissions
test data for the population of units that represent the best-
performing 12 percent, the statistical technique described below is the
approach we used to establish the existing source MACT floor. The MACT
floor calculations are based on all the actual data received, for
example, a population of 15 MH runs from 5 MH incinerators for CDD/CDF.
Because the emissions data are normally distributed, or can be
transformed to be normally distributed (using the log-normal
transformation of the data), EPA is able to employ statistical
techniques to determine the minimum number of observations needed to
accurately characterize the distribution of the best performing 12
percent of units in each subcategory. This technique is necessary to
assure that the characteristics of the sampled data set mirror those of
the best-performing 12 percent of units in the source category.
EPA used this statistical technique because of the lack of data
from the full set of the best-performing 12 percent of sources. While
Congress adopted identical language describing the MACT floor
calculation in section 129(a)(2) as it did in section 112(d)(3), the
latter section includes a provision stating that the MACT floor for
existing sources cannot be less stringent than ``the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information).''
Section 129, however, simply states that the existing source MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved
by the best-performing 12 percent of the existing sources in the
category. Therefore, while we believe Congress intended for the MACT
floor calculation under each section of the CAA to be the same, this
difference in the text of the 2 sections requires us to establish the
MACT floor for section 129 source categories based on the best-
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. Because we do not
have that data at this time, the statistical technique described below
is the only manner in which we can establish the existing source MACT
floor on that basis. We request that commenters provide additional
emissions stack test data and supporting documentation, as that may
enable us to establish a final MACT floor based on a more complete data
set.
In order to assess whether or not the minimum number of samples
collected adequately characterizes the population, a statistical
equation was applied for each subcategory. If the number of
observations collected equals or exceeds the required minimum number of
observations calculated using the statistical equation, then the MACT
floor calculations of the sampled data set are consistent with what the
MACT floor calculations would have been had they been performed on the
complete data set from the best-performing 12 percent of the
population. The sample size calculation is discussed in more detail in
the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator
Source Category,'' which is
[[Page 63271]]
in the SSI docket. The results of the calculation show that for the
population of 7 FB incinerators, which comprises 12 percent of the
source category, the minimum number of test runs that need to be
collected is 10, and the actual number collected, for the pollutant
with the least amount of test data, including late arriving data, is
12. Similarly, the calculation shows that for the population of 20 MH
incinerators which comprise 12 percent of the source category, the
minimum number of test runs that need to be collected is 14, and the
actual number collected, for the pollutant with the least amount of
test data, is 15. Based on EPA's assessment, the data set meets the
minimum size needed to characterize the population of 12 percent of the
best-performing units for all pollutants, when late-arriving data are
included. EPA determined that the number of observations of data
collected accurately represent the 12 percent of the best-performing
sources in each subcategory. Data received too late to incorporate in
the analysis for the proposed rule will be included in the analysis for
the final rule along with any relevant data received during the comment
period. However, EPA conducted a preliminary review of the late data
received subsequent to the final analyses, e.g., MACT floor ranking,
impacts, etc., and determined that based on this preliminary review,
the data would have minimal impact on the proposed standards. For more
information on the outcome of this review, please refer to the ``MACT
Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category,''
memorandum, which is in the SSI docket.
2. Variability Calculation
To conduct the existing source MACT floor analysis for each
pollutant, individual SSI units in each subcategory for which we had
emissions test data were ranked based on their average emission levels
of the pollutant from lowest to highest. The MACT floor was calculated
as the average of the test runs from the best-performing (i.e., lowest
emitting) 12 percent of sources. For the SSI source category, all the
quality-assured emissions information from the ICR responses and
additional test reports collected were used in the MACT floor
calculation. That is, for each pollutant, the MACT floor emission level
was calculated as the average emission limit for all the test runs from
the quality assured emissions data collected.
The first step in the statistical analysis includes a determination
of whether the data used for each MACT floor calculation were normally
or log-normally distributed. If the data were normally distributed
(e.g., similar to a typical bell curve), then further variability
analyses could be conducted on the data set. If the data were not
normally distributed (for example, if the data were asymmetric or
skewed to the right or left), then the type of distribution (e.g., log-
normal) was determined and a data transformation was performed (e.g.,
taking the natural log of the data) to normalize the data prior to
conducting the variability analysis. Two statistical measures, skewness
and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the data were normally or
log-normally distributed. For details on the statistical analysis, see
the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator
Source Category,'' which is in the SSI docket.
For the existing source variability analysis, all the emissions
test runs reported for the best-performing 12 percent of units in each
subcategory were identified. By including multiple emissions tests from
units with a test average in the top 12 percent, EPA can evaluate
intra-unit variability of emissions tests over time, considering
variability in control device performance, unit operations, and fuels
fired during the test. As discussed previously, the UPL was used for
the SSI MACT floor variability analysis.
For the existing source analysis, the 99 percent UPL values were
calculated for each pollutant and for each subcategory using the test
run data for those units in the best-performing 12 percent. Since
compliance with the MACT floor emission limit is based on the average
of a 3-run test, Equation 1 shows the UPL is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC10.000
Where:
n = Number of test runs (i.e., sample size)
m = Number of test runs in the compliance average
s = Standard deviation of the emissions test data
x = Mean, i.e., average of the emissions test data
t0.99, (n-1) = t-statistic for 99 percent significance and a sample
size of n.
This calculation was performed using the following 2 Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet functions:
Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL = AVERAGE (Test Runs in Top 12
percent) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12 percent) x TINV(2 * 0.99, n-1
degrees of freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+1/3))], for a one-tailed t-value (with 2
x probability), probability of 0.01, and sample size of n.
Lognormal distribution: 99 percent UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log
Values of Test Runs in Top 12 percent) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values of
Test Runs in Top 12 percent) x TINV(2 * 0.99, n-1 degrees of freedom) *
SQRT((1/n)+1/3))]{time} , for a one-tailed t-value (with 2 x
probability), probability of 0.01, and sample size of n.
The 99 percent UPL represents the value which one can expect the
mean of future 3-run performance tests from the best-performing 12
percent of sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based
upon the results of the independent sample of observations from the
same best-performing sources. In establishing the limits, the UPL
values were rounded up to 2 significant figures. For example, a value
of 1.42 would be rounded to 1.5 because a limit of 1.4 would be lower
than the calculated MACT floor value.
The summary statistics and analyses are presented in the docket and
further described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this preamble. The
calculated UPL values for existing sources (which are based on
emissions data from the sources representing the best-performing 12
percent of sources and evaluate variability) were selected as the
proposed MACT floor emission limits for the 9 regulated pollutants in
each subcategory.
To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we used an UPL
calculation similar to that for existing sources, except the best-
performing similar source's data were used to calculate the MACT floor
emission limit for each pollutant instead of the average of the best-
performing 12 percent of units. In summary, the approach ranks
individual SSI units based on actual performance and establishes MACT
floors based on the best-performing similar source for each pollutant
and
[[Page 63272]]
subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of emissions variability.
In other words, the UPL was determined for the data set of individual
test runs for the single best-performing source for each regulated
pollutant from each subcategory.
For the FB new source subcategory, we considered the best-
performing FB incinerator to be the best-performing similar source. For
the MH new source subcategory, we also considered the best-performing
FB incinerator to be the best-performing similar source because these
types of units are both operated for the same purpose (e.g. to
incinerate sewage sludge and similar control technologies can be used
on both). We chose not to treat the best-performing MH incinerator as
the best-performing similar source for the MH new source subcategory
because we are not aware of any new MH sources that have been
constructed in the last 20 years. During that period, however, over 40
new FB incinerators have been installed, with at least 11 replacing MH
incinerators. Information provided by the industry indicates that
future units that will be constructed are likely to be FB incinerators.
Information provided by the industry also indicates that new FB units
have more efficient combustion characteristics resulting in lower
emissions. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider the
best-performing FB incinerator as the best-performing similar source
for the MH new source subcategory. We are aware that owners and
operators with modified MH units may have concerns regarding meeting
the new source limits. We request comment on this proposed approach. To
assist commenters with their evaluation of the proposal, we have
calculated what the MACT floor emission limits would be based on the
best-performing MH incinerator, and the emission limits for FB and MH
incinerators are shown in Table 3. These potential limits were
developed by analyzing the MH test data using the same new source MACT
floor methodology as discussed earlier in this section of this
preamble. See the MACT floor memorandum in the docket for additional
details.
Table 3--Potential Emission Limits for New MH Units Based on Best-
Performing MH Incinerator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential
emission limit
Pollutant Units for new MH
incinerators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd........................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2...... 0.0011
CDD/CDF, TEQ................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2...... 0.0022
CDD/CDF, TMB................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2...... 0.024
CO........................... ppmvd @ 7% O2........ 45
HCl.......................... ppmvd @ 7% O2........ 0.36
Hg\a\........................ mg/dscm @ 7% O2...... 0.02
NOX.......................... ppmvd @ 7% O2........ 150
Opacity...................... %.................... 0
Pb........................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2...... 0.0020
PM........................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2...... 5.8
SO2.......................... ppmvd @ 7% O2........ 6.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculation results in a limit of 0.069 which is greater than the
existing source beyond the floor limit.
The MACT floor limits for opacity from combustion stacks were
determined slightly differently from other pollutants. The opacity data
available for FB and MH SSI units were obtained using EPA Method 9 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, for 3 FB incinerators (providing 10
observations or test runs) and 10 MH incinerators (providing 29
observations). Similar to the amount of data collected for other
regulated pollutants, this constitutes less than 12 percent of the
sources, but meets or exceeds the minimum sample size needed to
characterize the population of the best-performing 12 percent of units.
Under Method 9, the opacity of emissions from stationary sources is
determined visually by a qualified observer. Opacity observations are
recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals on an
observational record sheet and the average opacity of the observation
period is calculated. For FB incinerators, all of the available average
opacity measurements were reported as 0 percent. Consequently, the MACT
floor for opacity from existing FB incinerators and all new units is 0
percent opacity. For MH incinerators, 60 percent of the available
average opacity measurements were greater than 0 percent and 40 percent
were reported as 0 percent. A review of the opacity data for MH
incinerators indicated that they are not normally distributed. However,
because the MH opacity data contain zero values, the log-normal
transformation of the data could not be calculated to normalize the
data set. Consequently, the procedures used to assess the variability
of the data were modified. For MH incinerators, the variability
analysis for existing sources was conducted on the opacity data set
without transforming the data using the log normal calculation.
Additionally, because the opacity readings are in 5 percent increments,
the calculated UPL was rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5. The
analysis results in an opacity limit of 10 percent for existing
sources. We request comment on the methodology used to set the opacity
limit. We are also requesting additional opacity information from SSI
units.
3. Incorporation of Non-Detect Data
Non-detect values comprise more than 50 percent of the emissions
data for HCl from FB incinerators and CDD/CDF from both MH and FB
incinerators. For these pollutants, EPA developed a methodology to
account for the imprecision introduced by incorporating non-detect data
into the MACT floor calculation.
At very low emission levels where emissions tests result in non-
detect values, the inherent imprecision in the pollutant measurement
method has a large influence on the reliability of the data underlying
the MACT floor emission limit. Because of sample and emission matrix
effects, laboratory techniques, sample size, and other factors, method
detection levels normally vary from test to test for any specific test
method and pollutant measurement. The confidence level that a value,
measured at the detection level is greater than zero, is about 99
percent. The expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value
occurring at or near the method detection level is about 40 to 50
percent. Pollutant measurement
[[Page 63273]]
imprecision decreases to a consistent level of 10 to 15 percent for
values measured at a level about 3 times the method detection
level.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One approach that we believe can be applied to account for
measurement variability in this situation starts with defining a method
detection level that is representative of the data used in the data
pool. The first step in this approach would be to identify the highest
test-specific method detection level reported in a data set that is
also equal to or less than the average emission calculated for the data
set. This approach has the advantage of relying on the data collected
to develop the MACT floor emission limit, while to some degree,
minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an inordinately high method
detection level (e.g., the sample volume was too small, the laboratory
technique was insufficiently sensitive or the procedure for determining
the detection level was other than that specified).
The second step is to determine the value equal to 3 times the
representative method detection level and compare it to the calculated
MACT floor emission limit. If 3 times the representative method
detection level were less than the calculated MACT floor emission
limit, we would conclude that measurement variability is adequately
addressed, and we would not adjust the calculated MACT floor emission
limit. If, on the other hand, the value equal to 3 times the
representative method detection level were greater than the calculated
MACT floor emission limit, we would conclude that the calculated MACT
floor emission limit does not account entirely for measurement
variability. We would, therefore, use the value equal to 3 times the
method detection level in place of the calculated MACT floor emission
limit to ensure that the MACT floor emission limit accounts for
measurement variability and imprecision.
The approach discussed above was used to calculate the proposed
MACT floor limit for HCl. The following additional procedures were
followed for CDD/CDF, TMB, and TEQ basis limits. To calculate a TMB
limit, all the 17 congeners of interest were identified and non-detect
values that are associated with each were indicated. The mean of the
non-detect values was calculated and multiplied by 17 (for the total
number of congeners of interest). The mean value was then used as the
detection limit of the run. Then, each data set was reviewed to
identify the highest test-specific method detection level reported that
was also equal to or less than the average emission level (i.e.,
unadjusted for probability confidence level) calculated for the data
set. The second step discussed above and also used for HCl was used to
set the limit.
To calculate a limit on a TEQ basis, first, the mean of the non-
detect values was calculated. Then the TEF for each congener was
multiplied by the mean to determine the TEQ for each congener. Toxic
Equivalencies for each congener were summed to calculate a TEQ sum
value. The TEQ sum was then used as the detection limit for the test
run. The second step discussed above and also used for HCl was used to
set the limit.
4. EG MACT Floor
Once the sources that represent the best 12 percent of units were
identified for each subcategory and pollutant, the individual test run
data for these units were compiled and a statistical analysis was
conducted to calculate the average and account for variability and,
thereby, determine the MACT floor emission limit.
The summary results of the UPL analysis and the MACT floor emission
limits for existing units are presented in Table 4 of this preamble for
each subcategory and each pollutant.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA interprets CAA section 129 as supporting the pollutant-
by-pollutant approach (74 FR 51380, Oct. 6, 2009).
Table 4--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FB Incinerators MH Incinerators
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Units MACT floor MACT floor
Avg of top 99% of UPL emission Avg of top 99% of UPL emission
12% limit \a\ 12% limit \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................ 0.00055 0.00189 0.0019 0.030 0.0947 0.095
CDD/CDF TEQ................................ ng/dscm@7% O2................ 0.027 0.0559 0.056 0.047 0.314 0.32
CDD/CDF TMB................................ ng/dscm@7% O2................ 0.32 0.602 0.61 0.69 4.95 5.0
CO......................................... ppmvd@7% O2.................. 28 55.1 56 1,013 3,885 3,900
HCl........................................ ppmvd@7% O2.................. 0.17 0.489 0.49 0.53 0.982 1.0
Hg......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................ 0.0019 0.00325 0.0033 0.10 0.162 0.17
NOX........................................ ppmvd@7% O2.................. 30 62.4 63 130 207 210
Opacity.................................... %............................ 0 0 0 2.0 6.4 10
Pb......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................ 0.0030 0.0098 0.0098 0.082 0.295 0.30
PM......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................ 2.6 11.9 12 42.6 79.8 80
SO2........................................ ppmvd@7% O2.................. 3.3 21.5 22 9.4 25.7 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures except that opacity limits were rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 for reasons explained in
section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
Information gathered indicates that all of the units have some
level of air pollution control and management practice in place either
as a result of CWA part 503, State and local requirements, or previous
Federal standards to address air emissions. MACT floor emissions
reductions were calculated assuming that units needing to meet the
limits for Cd and Pb would install a FF, units needing to meet the
limits for Hg and CDD/CDF would apply activated carbon injection, and
units needing to meet the limits for HCl and SO2 would apply
a packed bed scrubber. We are requesting comment on whether there are
space constraints at wastewater treatment facilities that would affect
the feasibility and cost of installing air pollution control devices.
The results of the analysis indicate that all existing FB and MH units
would meet the MACT floor levels of control for NOX, CO, and
PM without applying any additional control. (However, PM would be
reduced from applying controls to meet the Cd and Pb emissions limits.)
Additionally, all existing MH units would also meet the MACT floor
levels of control for CDD/
[[Page 63274]]
CDF without applying any additional control. These results for
NOX, CO, PM, and CDD/CDF are attributable to the relatively
high 99 percent UPL values computed from the submitted data. The small
sample sizes and the high degree of variability observed in the data
for these pollutants resulted in large 99 percent UPL values.
Given the smaller than desired data sets for these pollutants, we
computed the 95 percent UPL values to account for the influence of the
limited data set. The results are presented in Table 5 of this
preamble. We are requesting comment on whether it is appropriate to use
these alternative UPLs for this source category due to the limited
availability of data.
Table 5--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units Using Alternative Percent UPL a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FB Incinerators MH Incinerators
Pollutant Units -------------------------------------
95% Of UPL 95% Of UPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd...................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................... 0.0011 0.048
CDD/CDF TEQ............................. ng/dscm@7% O2................... 0.046 0.12
CDD/CDF TMB............................. ng/dscm@7% O2................... 0.51 1.8
CO...................................... ppmvd@7% O2..................... 47 2,200
HCl..................................... ppmvd@7% O2..................... \b\ 0.49 0.84
Hg...................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................... 0.0018 0.14
NOX..................................... ppmvd@7% O2..................... 48 190
Opacity................................. %............................... 0 10
Pb...................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................... 0.0052 0.14
PM...................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................... 6.1 69
SO2..................................... ppmvd@7% O2..................... 8.6 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures except that opacity limits were rounded up to the nearest
multiple of 5 for reasons explained in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
\b\ Value shown is the result of the non-detect analysis, which results in using the limit that is based on 3
times the highest detection limit that is less than the average of the data. The calculated UPL values without
the non-detect analysis are 0.25, 0.23, and 0.22 for percent UPLs of 95 percent, 90 percent, and 85 percent,
respectively.
5. NSPS MACT Floor
New source MACT floors are based on the best-performing single
source for each regulated pollutant, with an appropriate accounting for
emissions variability. In other words, the best-performing unit was
identified by ranking the units from lowest to highest for each
subcategory and pollutant and selecting the unit with the lowest 3-run
test average emissions test data for each pollutant. To determine the
MACT floor for new sources, an UPL calculation similar to that for
existing sources was conducted, except the best-performing unit's data
within a subcategory were used to calculate the MACT floor emission
limit for each pollutant. The best-performing unit was identified as
the lowest emitting source with at least 3 test runs. In summary, the
approach ranks individual SSI units based on actual performance and
establishes MACT floors based on the best-performing source for each
pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of emissions
variability. In other words, the UPL was determined for the data set of
individual test runs for the single best-performing source for each
regulated pollutant from each subcategory. As discussed in IV.C.2, EPA
is proposing 2 subcategories for new sources. However, we are proposing
to require that all new sources meet the emission limits for the best-
performing FB incinerator. Table 6 of this preamble presents the
analysis summaries and the new source MACT floor limits.
Table 6--Summary of MACT Floor Emission Limits for All New SSI Units (FB and MH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All new SSI units (fluidized bed and multiple hearth)
--------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Units MACT floor limit
Avg of top 12% 99% of UPL \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd............................. mg/dscm@7% O2......... 0.00017 0.000510 0.00051
CDD/CDF TEQ.................... ng/dscm@7% O2......... 0.00094 0.00213 0.0022
CDD/CDF TMB.................... ng/dscm@7% O2......... 0.0095 0.0226 0.024
CO............................. ppmvd@7% O2........... 2.6 7.31 7.4
HCl............................ ppmvd@7% O2........... 0.044 0.111 0.12
Hg............................. mg/dscm@7% O2......... 0.00036 0.000992 0.0010
NOX............................ ppmvd@7% O2........... 14.9 25.3 26
Opacity........................ %..................... 0 0 0
Pb............................. mg/dscm@7% O2......... 0.00031 0.000527 0.00053
PM............................. mg/dscm@7% O2......... 1.4 4.06 4.1
SO2............................ ppmvd@7% O2........... 0.62 1.99 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures.
6. Assessment of PM2.5 Data
EPA's collection of emissions information also included filterable
PM2.5 measured using OTM 27 and condensable PM measured
using OTM 28. Other Test Method 27 and OTM 28 are equivalent to the
proposed revisions of Methods 201A and 202. Emissions information for
PM2.5 and condensable PM was obtained from 5 FB incinerators
and 6 MH incinerators. Other Test Method 27/OTM 28 combination testing
can be used to determine primary PM2.5, which includes
filterable PM from OTM 27 and condensibles from OTM 28. A
[[Page 63275]]
variability analysis was conducted on the data to calculate a MACT
floor level of control, and the results are provided in Table 7 of this
preamble.
Table 7--Variability Calculation for PM2.5
[Mg/Dscm@7%O2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Avg of top 12% 99% of UPL Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing FB Incinerators............................... 4.2 11.7 12
Existing MH Incinerators............................... 17 57.6 58
All New Units.......................................... 1.5 2.29 2.3
Potential New MH Incinerators (See Discussion In 2.6 10.7 11
IV.C.2)...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are potential concerns with the emissions data and whether it
is appropriate to set PM2.5 standards for SSI units. Other
Test Method 27 is not an appropriate test method for sizing particulate
at 2.5 [mu]m when there are entrained water droplets in the stack gas,
which will bias the measurements. All SSI units use wet scrubbers to
control emissions, and water droplet entrainment may be an issue at
some portion of these sources, resulting in them not being able to
measure PM2.5 using OTM 27. A review of the temperature and
moisture data collected during the PM2.5 emissions tests
indicates that water droplet entrainment is not an issue with the
emissions data collected from the sources tested. Other test reports,
at sources with stack gas moisture levels in excess of the vapor
capacity, and thus with entrained water droplets, did not provide
PM2.5 information. Additional information on the emission
characteristics would be necessary to make a conclusion about general
stack gas parameters in the SSI source category.
Because of this concern, we decided not to include PM2.5
standards in this proposal. We are requesting comment on whether the
PM2.5 limits in Table 6 of this preamble should be set for
the promulgated rule, and whether the combination of OTM 27 and 28 are
appropriate measurement techniques. We are also requesting additional
PM2.5 emissions stack test data and supporting documentation
for both MH and FB incinerators.
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
As discussed above, EPA may adopt emission limitations and
requirements that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-
the-floor). Unlike the MACT floor methodology, EPA must consider costs,
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
when considering beyond-the-floor standards.
1. Beyond-the-Floor-Analysis for Existing Sources
In order to identify beyond-the-floor options, we first identified
control requirements for each pollutant that would be more stringent
than required to meet the MACT floor level of control and determined
whether they were technically feasible. If the more stringent controls
were technically feasible, a cost and emission impacts analysis was
conducted for applying them. The cost, emission reduction, and cost-
effectiveness of the technically feasible controls were reviewed, and
controls that were relatively cost-effective in reducing emissions were
selected as possible beyond-the-floor control options.
The control technologies that would be needed to achieve the MACT
floor levels (i.e., FF and packed bed scrubbers) are generally the most
effective controls available for reducing PM, Cd, Pb, HCl and
SO2. Therefore, no beyond-the-floor technologies were
identified for these pollutants. We analyzed options of applying FF and
packed bed scrubbers to units that did not have these controls already
or did not need them to meet the MACT floor emissions limits. A
preliminary cost and emission reduction analysis was performed for
these options. The results indicate that the application of FF (to
control Cd and Pb), or application of a packed bed scrubber (to control
HCl and SO2), as a beyond-the-floor option results in high
costs for the emission reduction achieved, and is not cost-effective.
Consequently, the FF and packed bed beyond-the-floor options were not
further analyzed. This analysis is documented in the memorandum
``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' found in the SSI docket. We
identified and analyzed impacts of beyond-the-floor technologies for
the other pollutants (CO, NOX, Hg, and CDD/CDF). These
analyses are summarized in the following paragraphs.
As discussed in section IV.C.4 of this preamble, our analysis
indicates that all existing FB and MH units would meet the MACT floor
levels of control for NOX and CO without applying any
additional control; therefore, no control technologies were costed for
these pollutants at the MACT floor level. For the beyond-the-floor
analysis, we analyzed applicable controls, as discussed below, to
provide reductions of NOX and CO from all SSI units.
For NOX, we reviewed add-on control technologies that
achieve NOX reduction at other combustion sources, such as
MWC units, CISWI units, and boilers. These include SCR, SNCR, and FGR.
However, none of these technologies were determined to be appropriate
for SSI units. To our knowledge, SSI units do not use SCR or SNCR.
Additionally, we are not aware of any successful applications of SCR
technology to waste combustion units. This may be due to the
difficulties operating SCR where there is significant PM or sulfur
loading in the gas stream. Application of SNCR also may not be
technically feasible because the combustion mechanism of MH
incinerators provides inadequate mixing of combustion gas and SNCR
reagent. Additionally, SSI operating conditions (e.g., low temperatures
and residence times for MH incinerators and low uncontrolled
NOX emissions for FB incinerators) are not well suited for
application of SNCR. Flue gas recirculation has been used on combustion
devices to reduce NOX emissions. Emissions information
collected by EPA contains data from one MH incinerator with FGR.
However, its emission levels are similar to units without FGR.
Therefore, no conclusion could be made on FGR performance.
Additionally, there are no FB incinerators that currently use any add-
on NOX control because, due to their design, FB incinerators
achieve low NOX emission levels without add-on controls.
With regard to Hg and CDD/CDF, the most effective control
technology to reduce these emissions is activated
[[Page 63276]]
carbon injection. We estimate that this source category is currently
the sixth highest Hg emitting source category in the United States,
emitting about 3.1 TPY of Hg (or about 3 percent of the total Hg
emissions from anthropogenic sources in the United States). This
category emits about 0.0001 TPY of dioxin (or 0.0000081 tons of dioxin
TEQ), which is about 1 percent of the total estimated dioxin emissions
in the U.S.
Our analysis indicates that 53 SSI units would need to use
activated carbon injection to meet the MACT floor level of control, so
costs for activated carbon injection were included in the cost analysis
for the MACT floor for such units. All of these units, except for two,
are FB units. Control of the FB units at the MACT floor will result in
estimated emissions reductions of about 0.06 tons of Hg and 0.0000065
tons dioxins TEQ. However, the other units (especially the MH units)
would not need additional control to meet the ``floor'' level of
control. Additional beyond-the-floor reductions for the MH units would
be achieved by applying activated carbon injection. Data gathered by
EPA indicate that activated carbon injection applied to combustion
sources with particulate control can achieve 85-95 percent reduction of
Hg, depending on the type of particulate control, with higher
reductions achieved by units with FF and lower reductions achieved by
units with electrostatic precipitators or venturi scrubbers. Based on
these data, a beyond-the-floor reduction of 88 percent for Hg was used
for carbon injection applied to existing MH unit controls, resulting in
an emission level of 0.02 mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
Previous EPA studies also show that CDD/CDF can be reduced by as much
as 98 percent using activated carbon injection.
For CO, the MACT floor emission level for existing MH sources is
3,900 ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen. An add-on combustion device,
such as an afterburner, was analyzed as a more stringent control device
that could be applied. Some units may use a RTO to comply with the CWA
``503 Rule'' (40 CFR part 503). We request comment on the use of an
afterburner or RTO as a means to control CO from MH SSI units. Carbon
monoxide emissions data collected show that MH incinerators using an
add-on afterburner or RTO can achieve CO emission levels less than 100
ppmv. The CWA part 503 Rule limits SSI to 100 ppmv THC as propane, dry
basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, averaged for 30 days. The CWA
part 503 Rule allows substitution of 100 ppmv CO dry basis, corrected
to 7 percent oxygen for the THC originally required. The 100 ppm CO
level was selected because this level was determined to be a level that
would be indicative of THC concentrations below 100 ppmv. This allows
the use of a lower cost, easier to maintain CO monitor in place of the
difficult to keep on-line THC monitor. Consistent with the CWA part 503
regulations for disposal of sewage sludge, for the beyond-the-floor
analysis, a value of 100 ppmv was used as the emission level that a MH
incinerator with an afterburner could achieve. Although we do not have
data to quantify the impacts, the afterburner is also expected to
reduce emissions of organic compounds, such as 7-PAH. We also evaluated
whether there were any beyond-the-floor options for CO for existing FB
incinerators. The proposed SSI MACT floor CO level for existing FB
incinerators (56 ppmv) is well below the 100 ppmv emission level of the
CWA part 503 Rule. We determined that application of an afterburner to
FB units would not achieve appreciable CO reduction from the proposed
limit for the cost incurred. This analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.'' Therefore,
no beyond-the-floor CO limit was analyzed for the FB subcategory.
Table 8 of this preamble summarizes the costs of the MACT floor
emission level (referred to as option 1), and 2 beyond-the-floor
options. Option 2 is the same as option 1 plus application of activated
carbon injection with existing particulate control to reduce Hg
emissions. Option 3 is the same as option 2 plus applying an
afterburner to MH units to reduce CO emissions.
Table 8--Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units To Comply With MACT
Control Options (2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital Total annualized
Option costs ($) costs ($/Yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--MACT Floor..................... 220,000,000 73,000,000
2--Option 1 + Activated carbon 225,000,000 105,000,000
injection........................
3--Option 2 + CO Afterburner...... 370,000,000 148,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a 7 percent discount factor.
Table 9 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions of each
pollutant for the MACT control options.
Table 9--Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units To Comply
With the MACT Control Options Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reductions for each MACT
option (TPY)
Pollutant --------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd............................... 1.41 1.41 1.41
CDD/CDF TEQ...................... 0.0000065 0.0000078 0.0000078
CDD/CDF TMB...................... 0.000079 0.000099 0.000099
CO............................... 0 0 25,691
HCl.............................. 93 93 93
Hg............................... 0.09 2.71 2.71
NOX.............................. 4.3 4.3 4.3
Pb............................... 2.63 2.63 2.63
[[Page 63277]]
PM............................... 318 318 318
SO2.............................. 2,192 2,192 2,192
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results provided in Tables 8 and 9 of this preamble were
calculated using data gathered for each source, as well as default
emissions, sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate information for
sources where data were unavailable. We estimate that applying
activated carbon injection to all MH units to control Hg and CDD/CDF
would result in total annualized costs of $32 million dollars (using a
discount rate of 7 percent) and would achieve Hg reductions of 2.62 TPY
and CDD/CDF reductions of 0.000020 TPY. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of adding activated carbon injection to all MH units is
estimated to be $12 million per ton of pollutants (Hg and CDD/CDF)
removed (or $6,000 per pound). More than 99.9 percent of these
estimated reductions are for Hg, thus these cost estimates mainly
reflect the costs of Hg removal (i.e., about $6,000 per pound of Hg
removed). However, it is important to note that activated carbon
injection cannot be applied alone. It requires particulate control
devices to remove the carbon that is injected to adsorb the Hg. Based
on our available data, all of these units have some type of PM control
device in place so they would not need to install new PM control
equipment. We believe this beyond-the-floor option is cost-effective
for Hg, which is a persistent bio-accumulative toxic (PBT) pollutant.
Thus, we are proposing this beyond-the-floor limit for Hg of 0.02 mg/
dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. Because more than 99.9 percent of
the emissions reduction is associated with Hg, a specific beyond-the-
floor option of controlling CDD/CDF emissions using activated carbon
injection was not further considered. However, co-control of CDD/CDF
would occur from the option of applying activated carbon injection to
meet the beyond-the-floor emission limit for Hg.
Information collected by EPA shows that several FB units, but no MH
units, currently use activated carbon injection. We believe activated
carbon injection is applicable to both types of SSI combustors and do
not know of any technical reason that activated carbon injection could
not be applied to reduce Hg emissions at MH units. We are requesting
comment and additional information on the feasibility of using this
technology on MH units.
Thus, given the factors discussed above, we are proposing limits
for Hg based on the beyond-the-floor option described above. However,
we are requesting comment on this approach and the beyond-the-floor
limits for Hg at MH units and request information on other factors and
any data available that we should consider in our final rulemaking.
We also considered whether we should set beyond-the-floor emission
limits for CO. The emissions reductions and cost associated with this
are referred to as option 3 in Tables 8 and 9 of this preamble. We
estimate that to apply MACT control option 3, which would require
either the use of an afterburner or thermal oxidizer, could require as
much as 1,700 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to be burned,
resulting in NOX and CO emissions of 84 and 70 TPY,
respectively. Therefore, given these factors, we are not recommending
going beyond-the-floor with option 3. We are requesting comment on
whether to require MH units to meet the 100 ppmv CO limit, considering
the potential emissions of NOX and the cost impacts on
municipalities of applying this option.
The results of the beyond-the-floor analysis are documented in the
memorandum ``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' found in the
SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 1 in this preamble summarizes
the proposed emissions limits for existing SSI units.
2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for New Sources
We did not identify any technologies or methods to achieve emission
limits more stringent than the MACT floor limits for new units based on
the lowest emitting FB incinerators. The control technologies necessary
to achieve the MACT floor levels are generally the most effective
controls available: FF for PM, Cd and Pb control; packed bed scrubbers
for SO2 and HCl control; afterburners for CO control; and
activated carbon injection for CDD/CDF and Hg control. In addition,
incremental additions of activated carbon have not been proven to
achieve further reductions above the projected flue gas concentration
estimated to achieve the limits for new sources. Data gathered do not
indicate that any FB incinerators operate NOX controls, such
as SNCR, SCR, or FGR because the NOX emissions are already
low. In light of the technical feasibility, costs, energy, and nonair
quality health and environmental impacts discussed in this section, we
have determined it is not reasonable to establish beyond-the-floor
limits for existing and new SSI units. Table 2 in this preamble
summarizes the proposed emissions limits for new SSI units.
E. Rationale for Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
We are proposing that all new and existing SSI units meet the
following requirements:
Initial and annual emissions performance tests (or
continuous emissions monitoring as an alternative).
Annual inspections of scrubbers, FF, and other air
pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits.
Annual visual emissions test of ash handling
procedures.
Control device parameter monitoring for wet scrubbers,
FF, ESP, activated carbon injection, and afterburners, and other
approved control devices.
Monitoring of bypass stack use if installed at an
affected unit.
Periodic performance evaluations of continuous
monitoring systems.
These proposed requirements were selected to provide additional
assurance that sources continue to operate at the levels established
during their initial performance test. The visual emissions test of ash
handling procedures and annual control device inspections have been
adopted for HMIWI, another CAA section 129 source category. Hospital,
Medical, and Infectious Waste Incineration standards (74 FR 51367)
contain these requirements to ensure that the ash which may contain
metals, is not emitted to the atmosphere through fugitive emissions and
that control devices are maintained properly.
[[Page 63278]]
The large and small MWC standards also have similar fugitive ash
monitoring requirements. In addition, the CISWI rule requires a Method
22 (of appendix A-7) visible emissions test of the ash handling
operations to be conducted during the annual compliance test for all
subcategories except waste-burning kilns, which do not have ash
handling systems. We propose to require the fugitive ash monitoring
provisions that are contained in the HMIWI, CISWI, and MWC rules. The
HMIWI, CISWI, and MWC units are incineration devices combusting waste
and have ash handling similar to SSI units. Consequently, we believe
that the requirements for fugitive ash handling in the HMIWI and MWC
standards can be applied to SSI units. We request comment on whether
the ash handling requirements for MWC and HMIWI are appropriate for
SSI, and if not, what requirements should be imposed.
The proposed rules would allow sources to use the results of
emissions tests conducted within the previous 2 years to demonstrate
initial compliance with the proposed emission limits for all the CAA
section 129 pollutants as long as the sources certify that the previous
test results are representative of current operations. Such tests must
have been conducted using the test methods specified in the SSI rules
and must be the most recent tests performed on the unit. Those sources,
whose previous emissions tests do not demonstrate compliance with 1 or
more of the revised emission limits, would be required to conduct
another emissions test for those pollutants. This allowance to use
previous tests would minimize the burden to affected sources.
Information collected by EPA shows tests have been conducted on SSI for
Title V, State testing requirements, and OW 503 rule requirements for
many of the CAA section 129 pollutants. We seek comment on the
appropriateness of the use of previously-conducted performance tests.
The proposed rule also would allow for reduced testing of PM, Cd,
Pb, Hg, SO2, HCl, NOX and CO (for existing
sources only). We are proposing to allow facilities with test data for
listed pollutants that show emissions are less than 75 percent of the
applicable emission limits to be able to qualify for testing for these
pollutants once every 3 years. The reduced testing allowance and
compliance margin provides flexibility and incentive to sources that
operate well within the emission standard, and timelier follow-through
on assuring that sources that are marginally in compliance will remain
in compliance.
The proposed rule would allow for the following optional CEMS use:
CO CEMS for existing sources; and NOX CEMS, SO2
CEMS, PM CEMS, HCl CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS,
ISTMMS and ISTDMS for existing and new sources and COMS. Some existing
SSI units may have CO CEMS, NOX CEMS, or SO2 CEMS
already to meet other regulatory or permit requirements, and we propose
to allow them to continue to use these monitors to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the SSI standards. The optional use of HCl
CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS, ISTMMS, and ISTDMS would be
available on the date a final PS for these monitoring systems is
published in the Federal Register. The proposed monitoring provisions
are discussed in more detail below.
Monitoring Provisions for All Control Devices. The proposed rules
would require monitoring the dry sludge feed rate, combustion chamber
temperature (or afterburner temperature), and sludge moisture content
to ensure that the incinerator operation parameters measured during the
compliance test are continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for Wet Scrubbers. The proposed rules would
require monitoring the scrubber liquor flow rate and pH, and the
minimum pressure drop across each scrubber (or amperage to each
scrubber), to ensure that the scrubber operation parameters measured
during the compliance test are continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for Activated Carbon Injection (Hg sorbent
injection). The proposed rules would require monitoring of activated
carbon (i.e., Hg sorbent) injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or
carrier gas pressure drop) to ensure that the minimum sorbent injection
rate, measured during the compliance test, is continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for FF. The proposed rules would require bag
leak detection system monitoring to ensure that the FF is operating
properly and that leaks in the filter media are quickly identified and
corrected on a continuous basis.
Monitoring Provisions for Electrostatic Precipitators. The proposed
rules would require monitoring of the secondary voltage and secondary
amperage of the collection plates, calculating the secondary power
input to the collection plates (voltage multiplied by amperage) per ESP
section, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the ESP (for wet
ESP) to ensure that the ESP operating parameters measured during the
compliance test are maintained on a continuous basis.
Monitoring Provisions for Afterburners. The proposed rules would
require monitoring of the temperature of afterburners.CO CEMS. The
proposed rules would require the use of CO CEMS on new SSI units. The
proposed rules would allow the use of CO CEMS on existing sources.
Owners and operators that use CO CEMS would be able to discontinue
their annual CO compliance test. The continuous monitoring of CO
emissions is an effective way of ensuring that the combustion unit is
operating properly. The proposed rules incorporate the use of PS-4B
Specifications and Test Procedures for Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen
Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of
40 CFR part 60.
The proposed CO emission limits are based on data from annual stack
tests and compliance would be demonstrated by stack tests. The change
to use continuously-operated CO CEMS for measurement and enforcement of
the stack test-based emission limits must be carefully considered in
relation to an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. In past
EPA rulemakings for incineration units, EPA has selected averaging
times between 4 hours and 24 hours based on statistical analysis of
long-term CEMS data for a particular subcategory. Because CO CEMS data
available for SSI to perform such an analysis are insufficient to
determine an emission level that would correspond to a shorter
averaging period, EPA is proposing the use of a 24-hour block average
as appropriate to address potential changes in CO emissions. The 24-
hour block average would be calculated using Equation 19-19 in section
12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. Existing
facilities electing to use CO CEMS as an optional method would be
required to notify EPA 1 month before starting use of CO CEMS and 1
month before stopping use of the CO CEMS. In addition, EPA specifically
requests comment on whether continuous monitoring of CO emissions
should be required for all existing SSI.
PM CEMS. The proposed rules would allow the use of PM CEMS as an
alternative testing and monitoring method. Owners or operators who
choose to rely on PM CEMS would be able to discontinue their annual PM
compliance test. In addition, because units that demonstrate compliance
with the PM emission limits with a PM CEMS would also be meeting the
opacity standard, compliance demonstration with PM CEMS would be
[[Page 63279]]
considered a substitute for opacity testing or opacity monitoring.
Owners and operators who use PM CEMS also would be able to discontinue
their monitoring of ESP and scrubbers used to comply with the PM
emission limit for the following operating parameters: Wet scrubber
pressure drop, scrubber liquor flow rate, scrubber liquor pH, secondary
voltage of ESP collection plates, secondary amperage of ESP collection
plates, effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the ESP, and opacity
monitoring or testing to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
opacity limits. These operating parameters may still need to be
monitored to demonstrate compliance for other pollutants (e.g., HCl).
These parameter monitoring requirements were designed to ensure the
scrubber continues to operate in a manner that reduces PM emissions and
would not be necessary if PM is directly measured on a continuous
basis. The proposed amendments incorporate the use of PS-11
(Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous
Emissions Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40
CFR part 60 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.
The proposed PM emission limits are based on data from (normally
distributed or transferred to be normally distributed) annual stack
tests and compliance would generally be demonstrated by stack tests.
The use of PM CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the same stack
test-based emission limits must be carefully considered in relation to
an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. Because PM CEMS
data are unavailable for SSI, EPA is proposing that the use of a 24-
hour block average is appropriate to address potential changes in PM
emissions that cannot be accounted for with short term stack test data.
The 24-hour block average would be calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. An
owner or operator of a SSI unit who wishes to use PM CEMS would be
required to notify EPA 1 month before starting use of PM CEMS and 1
month before stopping use of the PM CEMS.
Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems. EPA also is proposing the
optional use of NOX CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS,
multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS, ISTMMS, and ISTDMS as
alternatives to the existing monitoring methods for demonstrating
compliance with the NOX, SO2, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg,
and CDD/CDF emission limits. Because CEMS data for SSI are unavailable
for all subcategories for NOX, SO2, HCl and
metals, EPA concluded that the use of a 24-hour block average was
appropriate to address potential changes in emissions of
NOX, SO2, HCl and metals that cannot be accounted
for with short term stack test data. EPA has concluded that the use of
24-hour block averages would be appropriate to address emissions
variability, and EPA has included the use of 24-hour block averages in
the proposed rule. The 24-hour block averages would be calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A of 40
CFR part 60. The proposed amendments incorporate the use of PS-2 of
appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for NOX and SO2
CEMS. Although final PS are not yet available for HCl CEMS and multi-
metals CEMS, EPA is considering development of PS. The proposed rule
specifies that these options would be available to a facility on the
date a final PS is published in the Federal Register.
The use of HCl CEMS would allow the discontinuation of monitoring
of the following operating parameters associated with scrubbers used to
comply with the HCl emission limits: scrubber liquor flow rate,
scrubber liquor pH, pressure drop across the scrubber (or amperage to
the scrubber), and the annual testing requirements for HCl. However,
some of these monitoring parameters may still be necessary to
demonstrate compliance with other pollutant emission limits. These
parameter monitoring requirements were designed to ensure the scrubber
continues to operate in a manner that reduces HCl emissions and would
not be necessary if HCl emissions are directly measured on a continuous
basis. EPA has proposed PS-13 (Specifications and Test Procedures for
Hydrochloric Acid Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources)
of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 and expects that PS-13 can serve as the
basis for HCl CEMS use at SSI. The procedures used in proposed PS-13
for the initial accuracy determination use 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 (Performance Specification for Extractive FTIR
Continuous Emissions Monitor Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix
B of 40 CFR part 60 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can be used in many applications,
including SSI. EPA has monitored side-by-side evaluations of multi-
metals CEMS with EPA Method 29 of appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 at
industrial waste incinerators and found good correlation. EPA also
approved the use of multi-metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring
method at hazardous waste combustors. EPA believes that proposed PS-10
(Specifications and Test Procedures for Multi-metals Continuous
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40 CFR part
60 or other EPA PS to allow the use of multi-metals CEMS at SSI is an
appropriate alternative. We request comment on the appropriateness of
using multi-metals CEMS as a substitute for Cd and Pb performance
testing. The procedures used in proposed PS-10 for the initial accuracy
determination use 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.
EPA proposes the optional use of Hg CEMS (Performance Specification
12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor Phase Mercury
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources) or
ISTMMS (Performance Specification 12B--Specifications and Test
Procedures for Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems from Stationary Sources Using a Sorbent Trap
Monitoring System or Appendix K of part 75).\16\ An owner or operator
of a SSI unit who wishes to use any CEMS or CASS would be required to
notify EPA 1 month before starting use of the CEMS or CASS and 1 month
before stopping use of the CEMS or CASS. The source would also have to
perform the annual performance test within 60 days of ceasing to use
the CEMS or CASS for compliance with the standard. Mercury sorbent flow
rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop)
monitoring could be eliminated in favor of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg
CEMS; however CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate and carrier gas monitoring
would still be required as an indicator of CDD/CDF
[[Page 63280]]
control if ISTDMS or CDD/CDF CEMS are not used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA originally added PS-12A and PS-12B to Part 75 as part
of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated CAMR on grounds
unrelated to the PS. New Jersey v. EPA; 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008).
The Court's decision did not, in any way, address the
appropriateness of the procedures set forth in Appendix K. In 2009,
as part of the Portland Cement MACT, EPA proposed amending part 75
to add PS-12A and PS-12B. EPA currently intends to finalize those
specifications at the same time it takes final action on the
Portland cement MACT rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISTMMS would entail use of a CASS with analysis of the samples
at set intervals using any suitable determinative technique that can
meet appropriate criteria. The option to use a CASS would take effect
on the date a final PS is published in the Federal Register. As with Hg
and multi-metal CEMS, use of integrated sorbent trap monitoring would
eliminate the requirement to monitor Hg sorbent injection rate but
would not eliminate the requirement to monitor CDD/CDF sorbent
injection rate because it also is an indicator of CDD/CDF control.
The ISTDMS would entail use of a CASS and analysis of the sample
according to EPA Reference Method 23 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60.
The option to use a CASS would take effect on the date a final PS is
published in the Federal Register. Dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate
and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) monitoring and
CDD/CDF annual testing could be eliminated in favor of ISTDMS, but Hg
sorbent injection rate monitoring would not be eliminated because it
also is an indicator of Hg control.
If integrated sorbent trap monitoring of CDD/CDF as well as multi-
metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, or ISTMMS are used, both Hg sorbent injection
rate monitoring and CDD/CDF sorbent injection rate monitoring could be
eliminated. These parameter monitoring requirements were designed to
ensure that control devices continue to be operated in a manner to
reduce CDD/CDF, metals and Hg emissions, and corresponding monitoring
is not needed if all of these pollutants are directly measured on an
ongoing basis. EPA requests comment on other parameter monitoring
requirements that could be eliminated upon use of any or all of the
optional CEMS and CASS discussed above. Table 10 of this preamble
presents a summary of the SSI operating parameters, the pollutants
influenced by each parameter and alternative monitoring options for
each parameter.
Table 10--Summary of SSI Operating Parameters and Control Device
Inspections, Pollutants Influenced by Each Parameter and Alternative
Monitoring Options for Each Parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutants
Operating parameter (control influenced by
device type associated with operating Alternative
monitoring requirement) parameter/control monitoring options
device
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sludge feed rate (All).......... All............... None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sludge moisture level (All)..... All............... None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of combustion All............... None.
chamber (or afterburner
combustion chamber) (All).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate CDD/CDF........... ISTDMS or CDD/CDF
(Activated carbon injection). CEMS.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier
gas pressure drop (Activated
carbon injection using CDD/CDF
sorbent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg sorbent flow rate (Activated Hg................ ISTMMS, Hg CEMS,
carbon injection). or multi-metals
CEMS.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier
gas pressure drop (Activated
carbon injection using Hg
sorbent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber pressure drop from each PM, Cd, Pb........ PM CEMS, Pb CEMS,
scrubber (Wet scrubber). or Cd CEMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber liquor flow rate from PM, Cd, Pb........ PM CEMS, multi-
each scrubber (Wet scrubber). metals CEMS, Cd
CEMS, or Pb CEMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber liquor flow rate from HCl, SO2.......... HCl CEMS or SO2
each scrubber (Wet scrubber). CEMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber liquor pH from each HCl, SO2.......... HCl CEMS or SO2
scrubber (Wet scrubber). CEMS.
Secondary voltage and secondary PM, Cd, Pb, Hg.... PM CEMS, Pb CEMS,
amperage of collection plates or Cd CEMS.
(All ESP).
Effluent flow rate (Wet ESP)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of afterburner...... CO................ None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag leak detection monitoring PM, Cd, Pb, Hg.... None.
system alarm time (FF).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air pollution control device All............... None.
inspections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time of visible emissions from PM................ None.
ash handling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opacity from combustion stacks.. PM................ PM CEMS or COMS
(only if wet
scrubber is not
used).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11 of this preamble presents a summary of the SSI test
methods and approved alternative compliance methods.
[[Page 63281]]
Table 11--Summary of SSI Test Methods and Approved Alternative Test Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved Alternative
Pollutant/parameter Test Methods \1\ methods \1\ Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................... Method 29 at 40 CFR part Cd CEMS or Multi-metals Cd CEMS or multi-metal
60, appendix A-8. CEMS. CEMS are optional for all
sources in lieu of annual
Cd test.
CDD/CDF.................... Method 23 at 40 CFR part ISTDMS.................... ISTDMS are optional for
60, appendix A-7. all sources in lieu of
annual CDD/CDF testing.
CO......................... CO CEMS (new sources) and CO CEMS (for existing CO CEMS are optional for
Method 10, 10A, or 10B at sources). existing sources in lieu
40 CFR part 60 appendix A- of annual CO test; CO
4. CEMS are required for new
sources.
Flue and exhaust gas Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR ASME PTC 19.10-1981 part ..........................
analysis. part 60, appendix A-2. 10.
HCl........................ Method 26 or Method 26A at HCl CEMS.................. HCl CEMS are optional for
40 CFR part 60, appendix A- all sources in lieu of
8. annual HCl test.
Hg......................... Method 29 at 40 CFR part Method 30B at 40 CFR part Multi-metal CEMS, Hg CEMS,
60, appendix A-8. 60, appendix A (when or ISTMMS are optional
published in the Federal for all sources in lieu
Register); Multi-metals of annual Hg test.
CEMS; Hg CEMS (PS-12A);
ISTMMS (PS-12B of
Appendix B of part 75);
or ASTM D6784-02,
Standard Test Method for
Elemental Oxidized,
Particle Bound and Total
Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-fired
Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method).
NOX........................ Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR NOX CEMS.................. NOX CEMS are optional for
part 60, appendix A-4. all sources in lieu of
annual NOX test.
Opacity.................... Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, PM CEMS, COMS............. PM CEMS and COMS are
appendix A-4. optional for all sources
in lieu of annual opacity
testing.
Pb......................... Method 29 at 40 CFR part Pb CEMS or Multi-metals PB CEMS or multi-metal
60, appendix A-8. CEMS. CEMS are optional for all
sources in lieu of annual
Pb test.
PM......................... Method 5, at 40 CFR part PM CEMS................... PM CEMS are optional for
60, appendix A-3; Method all sources in lieu of
26A or 29 at 40 CFR part annual PM test required.
60, appendix A-8.
PM, Pb, Cd, Hg............. Bag leak detection system .......................... Bag leak detection systems
or PM CEMS. are required for units
equipped with FF.
SO2........................ Method 6 or Method 6C at 40 HCl CEMS.................. SO2 CEMS are optional for
CFR part 60, appendix A-4. all sources in lieu of
annual SO2 test.
Visible emissions of Method 22 of appendix A-7 None......................
fugitive ash. of this part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
This proposal contains no specific data availability requirements
for continuous monitoring systems. Generally, monitoring must be
conducted and emissions data must be collected at all times the SSI
unit is operating, except for periods of monitoring system malfunction,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunction, and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities. We
seek comment on approaches to provide this data, e.g., redundant CEMS,
prescribed missing data procedures, owner- or operator-developed
missing data procedures, or parametric monitoring. EPA is considering
changing the averaging times for all CEMS and CASS from 24-hour block
averages to 12-hour rolling averages to be consistent with the
averaging times of the PS tests. We are requesting comment on the
change. Additionally, we seek comment on the proposed 4-hour rolling
averaging time for compliance with operating limits.
The proposed rules would require repeat performance tests and
updates to the monitoring plan if any of the following process changes
occur: (1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment
facility that affects the SSI unit, (2) a change in the air pollution
control devices used to comply with the emission limits and (3) an
increase in the allowable wastewater received from an industrial source
to the wastewater treatment facility. We are requesting comment on
these requirements and on the designation of what a process change is
at a SSI unit.
The OW 503 standards allow compliance demonstration by analyzing
the pollutant concentration in the sludge ensuring the concentrations
are sufficiently low that emission limits may be met. We request
comment on whether facilities should be allowed to comply with the EG
and NSPS based on monitoring the content of the sludge entering the SSI
unit.
In previous CAA section 129 standards, a waste management plan was
required to identify both the feasibility and the approach to
separating certain components of solid waste from the waste stream to
reduce the amount of toxic emissions from incinerated waste. Elements
of the waste management plan included identifying reasonably available
additional waste management measures, the cost and emission reductions
of the additional measures and other associated environmental or energy
impacts.
As previously discussed, all SSI units are required to meet the
EPA's OW part 503 standards. Part 503 establishes daily average
concentration limits for Pb, Cd
[[Page 63282]]
and other metals in sewage sludge that is disposed of by incineration.
Part 503 also requires that SSI units meet the National Emission
Standards for Beryllium and Mercury in subparts C and E, respectively,
of 40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 standards,
facilities are already incorporating management practices and measures
to reduce waste and limit the concentration of pollutants in the sludge
sent to SSI units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated
wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for
non-domestic users discharging wastewater to POTW. We are requesting
comment on the need for a waste management plan for SSI units in the
promulgated rules.
F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Section 129 of the CAA requires the EPA to develop regulations that
include requirements for reporting the results of testing and
monitoring performed to determine compliance with the standards and
guidelines. The requirements must specify the form and frequency of the
reports demonstrating compliance. If there are no exceedances,
compliance reports are submitted annually. However, if there is an
exceedance, reports showing the exceedance of any standard or guideline
must be submitted separately for review and potential enforcement
action. Copies of testing and monitoring results must be maintained on
file at the affected facility. Other types of records are necessary to
ensure that all provisions of the standards or guidelines are being
met. Examples include siting analyses and operator training and
qualification records.
G. Rationale for Operator Training and Qualification Requirements
The proposed standards and guidelines include operator training and
qualification requirements for SSI unit operators. These requirements
provide flexibility by allowing State approved training and
qualification programs. Where there are no State approved programs, the
proposed regulations include minimum requirements for training and
qualification. The minimum requirements include completion of a
training course covering specified topics.
In developing these requirements, training and qualification
programs currently proposed or promulgated for other types of solid
waste incineration units were reviewed to develop requirements
appropriate for the SSI source category.
H. Rationale for Siting Requirements
Section 129 of the CAA states that performance standards for new
solid waste incineration units must incorporate siting requirements
that minimize, on a site-specific basis and to the maximum extent
practicable, potential risks to public health or the environment. In
accordance with section 129, the EPA is proposing site selection
criteria for SSI units that commence construction on or after the date
of proposal of this rule (i.e., ``new'' units). The siting requirements
would not apply to existing SSI units.
The siting requirements in this proposal would require the owner or
operator of a new unit to prepare an analysis of the impacts of the new
unit. The owner or operator must consider air pollution control
alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the maximum
extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the
environment. In considering such alternatives, the owner or operator
may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts, or
any other factors related to the practicability of the alternatives. To
avoid duplication, analyses of facility impacts prepared to comply with
State, local, or other Federal regulatory requirements may be used to
satisfy this requirement, provided they include the consideration of
air pollution control alternatives specified previously. Such State,
local, or Federal requirements may include, but are not limited to,
State-specific criteria or national criteria established by the
National Environmental Policy Act or new source review permitting
requirements. The owner or operator must submit the siting information
to EPA prior to commencing construction of the facility.
I. What are the SSM provisions?
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of 2 provisions in EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), (the ``General
Provisions Rule,'') that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA.
When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific
source categories, these 2 provisions exempt sources from the
requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standard during periods of SSM. The Court found that the
definition of ``emission standards,'' which appears at 42 U.S.C.
7602(k), and which applies equally to sections 112 and 129, requires
EPA to apply MACT emissions standards on a continuous basis, thereby
precluding exemptions applied for malfunctions or other singular
events.\17\ Thus, the legality of source category-specific SSM
exemptions in rules promulgated pursuant to section 129 is
questionable. Therefore, consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is
proposing that the standards in this rule apply at all times. EPA has
attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into proposed
regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary,
or redundant in the absence of a SSM exemption. We are specifically
seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions that we have
inadvertently incorporated or overlooked. If we receive relevant data
that would warrant different standards, we may set those standards in
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 551 F.3d at 1027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60 include
provisions that are inconsistent with the proposed requirement that the
SSI emissions standards apply at all times. For example, the General
Provisions states that exceedances during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction are generally not considered violations of the
standards.\18\ To avoid confusion between the General Provisions and
the SSI emissions regulations, we are proposing that, in circumstances
where the requirements of the General Provisions are inconsistent with
the requirements of the SSI emissions regulations, the provisions in
the SSI regulations will control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 40 CFR 60.8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not established different standards for those periods.
We are not proposing a separate emission standard for the source
category that applies during periods of startup and shutdown. Based on
the information available at this time, we believe that SSI units will
be able to meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units we
have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to
start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion
temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill gas or
distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be lower than from
burning solid wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown
[[Page 63283]]
are also generally lower than emissions during normal operations
because the materials in the incinerator would be almost fully
combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for
establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units
based on actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with an
appropriate accounting of emissions variability. Because we accounted
for emissions variability, we believe we have adequately addressed any
minor variability that may potentially occur during startup or
shutdown.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and,
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be
factored into development of CAA section 129 standards, which, once
promulgated, apply at all times. It is reasonable to interpret section
129 as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting
emissions standards. For example, we note that section 129 uses the
concept of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the level of
stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the concept
of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning presents
significant difficulties. The goal of best performing sources is to
operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units.
Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above,
by definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, and it
would be difficult to set a standard that takes into account the myriad
different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in
the category. Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and
duration, further complicating standard setting.
For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be reported in
deviation reports. We will then review the deviation reports to
determine if the deviation is a violation of the standards.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 129 standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the
CAA section 129 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can fail and that such failure can sometimes
cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard.\20\ EPA is
therefore proposing to add to the final rule an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by
malfunctions.\21\ We also added other regulatory provisions to specify
the elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense;
the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has
met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 40 CFR
60.5180. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available
only where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit
meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance and or careless operation). The criteria also are designed
to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize
emissions in accordance with section 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL and 40
CFR part 60 subpart MMMM and to prevent future malfunctions. In any
judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge
the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not
met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with
section 113 of the Clean Air Act (see also 40 CFR Part 22.77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown
(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,
Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983).
\21\ See proposed definition 40 CFR 60.4930 and 40 CFR 60.5250
(defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof,
and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated
in a judicial or administrative proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Delegation of Authority To Implement and Enforce These Provisions
We are proposing a section on delegation of authority to clarify
which authorities can be delegated or transferred to State, local, and
tribal air pollution control agencies in this rulemaking and which are
retained by EPA. For previous rules, there has been some confusion
about what authority can be delegated to and exercised by State, local,
and tribal air pollution control agencies and what authority must be
retained by EPA. In some cases, State, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies were making decisions, such as allowing waivers of
some provisions of this subpart, which cannot be delegated to those
agencies.
In the proposed SSI NSPS, the authorities that would be retained by
EPA are listed in 40 CFR 60.4785 of subpart LLLL. They include
authorities that must be retained by EPA for all NSPS: Approval of
alternatives to the emission limits, approval of major alternatives to
test methods, or monitoring and approval of major alternatives to
recordkeeping and reporting. The list also specifically includes
establishment of operating limits for control devices other than those
listed in the rule per proposed 40 CFR 60.4855; and review of status
reports submitted when no qualified operators are available per
proposed 40 CFR 60.4835(b)(2). It also includes the approval of
performance test and data reduction waivers under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and
preconstruction siting analysis in proposed 40 CFR 60.4800. These
authorities may affect the stringency of the emission standards or
limitations, which can only be amended by Federal rulemaking; thus they
cannot be transferred to State, local, or tribal air pollution control
agencies. We are also including 40 CFR 60.5050 in the proposed EG to
make the provisions regarding the implementation and enforcement
authorities in both subparts LLLL and MMMM consistent. We are seeking
comment on whether these or other authorities should be retained by EPA
or delegated to State, local, or tribal air pollution control agencies.
K. State Plans
We are proposing regulatory language to clarify how states and
eligible tribes can fulfill their obligation under CAA section 129
(b)(2) in lieu of submitting a State plan for review and approval. We
are adding proposed 40 CFR 60.5045 that will clarify how states and
eligible tribes can fulfill the obligation under
[[Page 63284]]
CAA section 129 (b)(2) by submitting an acceptable, as specified in 40
CFR 60.2541, written request for delegation of the Federal plan.
Proposed 40 CFR 60.5045 lists specific requirements, such as a
demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to implement
and enforce the Federal plan, that must be met in order to receive
delegation of the Federal plan. We are seeking comment on this
provision.
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. Impacts of the Proposed Action for Existing Units
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the proposed emission limits. Table
12 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT
compliance for each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.''
Table 12--Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI Units If All
Entities Comply With the Proposed Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions achieved
through meeting MACT by
subcategory (TPY) Total
Pollutant -------------------------- reductions
Fluidized Multiple (TPY)
bed hearth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd............................... 0.0010 1.4 1.4
CDD/CDF TEQ...................... 0.0000065 0.0000013 0.0000078
CDD/CDF TMB...................... 0.000079 0.000020 0.000099
CO............................... 0 0 0
HCl.............................. 1.5 92 93
Hg............................... 0.058 2.7 2.7
NOX.............................. 0 4.3 4.3
Pb............................... 0.0053 2.6 2.6
PM............................... 41 278 319
SO2.............................. 60 2,100 2,200
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 102 2,510 2,610
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
We anticipate affected sources would need to apply additional
controls to meet the proposed emission limits. These controls may
utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated.
We estimate an annual requirement of 346 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater would be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbents.
Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls
already in place would increase the amount of particulate collected
that would require disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon injection
may be utilized by some sources, which would result in additional solid
waste needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that would
require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 364 TPY from PM
capture and 11,400 TPY from activated carbon injection. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum ``Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge
Incineration Source Category.''
3. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed emission
limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run
added or improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased
scrubber pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity
consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. We anticipate that an additional
33,800 megawatt-hours per year would be required for the additional and
improved control devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum
``Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source
Category.''
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For SSI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission limits,
we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel
needed to generate additional electricity would yield slight increases
in emissions, including NOX, CO, PM and SO2 and
an increase in CO2 emissions. Since NOX and
SO2 are covered by capped emissions trading programs, and
methodological limitations prevent us from quantifying the change in CO
and PM, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for
this rule from additional electricity demand.
5. What are the cost and economic impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with Option 2
(i.e., the proposed SSI standards). Based on this analysis, we
anticipate an overall total capital investment of $225 million with an
associated total annualized cost of $105 million, in 2008 dollars (and
using a discount rate of 7 percent), as shown in Table 13 of this
preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will need to install 1 or
more air pollution control devices for 214 of the 218 affected units to
meet the proposed emission limits. We are requesting comment on whether
there are space constraints at wastewater treatment facilities that
would affect the feasibility and cost of installing air pollution
control devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum
``Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.''
[[Page 63285]]
Table 13--Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities Comply With
Proposed Emission Limits
[Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost
Subcategory Capital cost ($ ($ million/yr)
million) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluidized Bed..................... 86.7 32.3
Multiple Hearth................... 138.0 72.7
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 224.7 105.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent.
Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. We have also
evaluated the possibility that existing SSI owners would dispose of
sewage sludge through alternative methods rather than incineration,
such as landfilling, land application, or sending sewage sludge to
another SSI unit. The alternative method we analyzed was landfilling,
which is generally more expensive than land application, but would
provide a more conservative estimate of the cost of alternative
disposal.
We conducted this analysis by determining the cost of landfilling
and then subtracting the existing cost of operating the SSI unit
(because this cost would no longer be incurred). The cost of
landfilling sewage sludge included landfill tipping fees as well as
transportation costs. The cost of storing dewatered sewage sludge on-
site for up to four days was also included in the landfilling cost.
Sewage sludge incineration unit operating costs were obtained from ICR
questionnaires sent to 9 facilities. These costs are discussed in more
detail in the memorandum ``Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT
Floor Level of Control,'' which is in the SSI docket. We request
comment on the assumptions and cost estimates used for the landfilling
option. The results of the analysis shows that, for most facilities,
landfilling sewage sludge is a more economically advantageous disposal
option than continuing to operate their SSI unit. It was assumed that
smaller sources presented with the option of applying MACT controls or
landfilling would select landfilling because the analysis shows a cost
savings, even when not considering the additional cost of MACT
controls. If the cost of the MACT controls were also included, it would
be even more advantageous to landfill.
However, there are several uncertainties with the analysis that may
significantly impact the results. These include:
The operating cost information was based on only the 9
ICR respondents, which are larger units. Smaller units may have
lower or different operating costs that are not captured in the
operating cost factors or different capacity utilizations or
operating hours.
For some SSI units, the nearest landfill accepting
sewage sludge may be farther than assumed in the analysis.
To confirm the results of the analysis, we contacted 9 owners of
wastewater treatment facilities that would be considered small
entities, that is, the population of the municipalities or regional
authorities that own the facility were less than or equal to 50,000
people. We also reviewed company Web sites for other small entities to
find the status of the SSI units. The results of the data collection
showed that the majority of small entities have shut down their SSI
unit and are either land applying or landfilling. Others are planning
on landfilling in the future. The data collection, as well as the cost
estimate for the landfilling option is discussed in the memorandum,
``Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control.''
While we are able to confirm this analysis for smaller entities, we
were unable to conduct it for larger entities. We also believe that
facilities that use larger SSI units may have more difficulty in
landfilling sewage sludge due to potential capacity issues at
landfills. This may result in higher tipping fees and transportation
costs to find landfills with available capacity. As a result of these
concerns, we do not believe that larger entities would necessarily find
it more advantageous to landfill sewage sludge.
We believe that smaller entities (i.e., with populations less than
50,000 people) are likely to landfill. This would result in lowered
costs of compliance with the MACT for existing sources, as well as
minor changes in the emission reductions achieved. We also believe that
based on our estimates there will be no increased cost to small
entities using this alternative option. However, it does not change the
result that option 2 (MACT floor levels plus meeting the beyond-the-
floor Hg limit of 0.02 mg/dscm) would be appropriate due to the
significant Hg emissions reductions that would still occur for larger
sources. The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Analysis of
Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls
for Existing SSI Units.''
Table 14 of this preamble summarizes the costs associated with
small entities landfilling and large entities complying with the MACT
control levels. For the option selected, we estimate that 196 (90%) of
the affected units will need to install 1 or more air pollution control
devices.
Table 14--Summary of Costs for Existing SSI Units If Large Entities
Comply With the Proposed Emission Limits and Small Entities Utilize
Alternative Disposal (i.e., Landfill)
[Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost
Subcategory Capital cost ($ ($ million/yr)
million) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluidized Bed...................... 70.0 26.2
Multiple Hearth.................... 130.9 62.5
------------------------------------
Total.......................... 200.9 88.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent.
[[Page 63286]]
We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the proposed emission limits. For
the case where small entities choose to landfill, some emission
reductions are offset by emissions resulting from hauling, landfill gas
generation, and flaring. The estimation of these emissions is
documented in the memorandum ``Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT
Floor Level of Control.'' Emissions from landfilling are subtracted
from the total reductions resulting from units complying or shutting
down. Table 15 of this preamble summarizes the net emission reductions
for each pollutant.
Table 15--Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI If Large Entities Comply With the Emission Limits and
Small Entities Utilize Alternative Disposal (i.e., Landfill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions achieved
through meeting MACT by Emissions Emissions
subcategory (TPY) from from Total
Pollutant -------------------------- hauling landfill reductions
Fluidized Multiple (TPY) and flare (TPY)
bed hearth (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd............................................. 0.0028 1.55 0 0 1.6
CDD/CDF TEQ.................................... 0.0000065 0.0000013 0 0 0.0000078
CDD/CDF TMB.................................... 0.000080 0.000020 0 0 0.000099
CO............................................. 19 3,100 6.0 240 2,900
HCl............................................ 1.8 95 0 0.38 96
Hg............................................. 0.061 2.7 0 0.00000023 2.8
Pb............................................. 0.15 3.0 0 0 3.0
PM............................................. 43 350 1.3 0.90 390
NOX............................................ 53.0 794 22 2.1 823
SO2............................................ 77 2,200 0.052 0.75 2,300
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 190 6,410 30 244 6,330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to water and solid waste impacts in the case where
large entities comply and small entities landfill, we estimate an
annual requirement of 319 million gallons per year of additional
wastewater would be generated as a result of operating additional
controls or increased sorbents for the units that add controls to
comply with the rule. Additionally, the annual amounts of solid waste
that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 324 TPY
from PM capture and 10,000 TPY from activated carbon injection. The
largest impact on solid waste, however, would come from small entities
choosing to discontinue the use of their SSI and instead send the waste
to a landfill. We estimate approximately 359,000 TPY of waste would be
diverted to landfills. The analysis is documented in the memorandum
``Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source
Category.'' We request comment on whether landfilling is more
advantageous environmentally than the incineration of sewage sludge.
As described in section V.A.3 of this preamble, the energy impacts
associated with meeting the proposed emission limits would consist
primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or improved air
pollution control devices. For the scenario where only large entities
comply, we anticipate that an additional 29,200 megawatt-hours per year
would be required for the additional and improved control devices. The
analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Secondary Impacts for the
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
For SSI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission limits,
we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. As previously noted, in
the case where small entities choose to landfill, there would be
additional air impacts due to emissions generated by trucks hauling
waste and emissions from landfill gas and flaring. Table 16 of this
preamble summarizes the estimated results.
Table 16--Summary of Secondary Impacts for Existing Sources If Large
Entities Comply With the Proposed Emission Limits and Small Entities
Utilize Alternative Disposal (i.e., Landfill)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary air impacts from
diverting SSI waste to
landfills (TPY) Total
Pollutant ---------------------------- secondary
Waste- impacts
hauling Landfill gas (ton/yr)
vehicles and flare
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd............................ -- -- --
CDD/CDF, TEQ.................. -- -- --
CO............................ 6.03 240.2 246.23
HCl........................... -- 0.38 0.38
Hg............................ -- 0.000000233 0.000000233
NOX........................... 21.84 2.11 23.95
Pb............................ -- -- --
PM............................ 1.30 0.90 2.20
PM2.5......................... 1.12 -- 1.12
SO2........................... 0.05 0.75 0.80
-----------------------------------------
[[Page 63287]]
Total..................... 30.35 244.3 274.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the proposed regulatory option affects governmental
entities (96 of the 97 owners are governmental entities) providing
services not provided in a market, the economic analysis focused on the
comparison of control cost to total governmental revenue. (See Table 17
of this preamble.) Table 17 sets forth the overall costs to large and
small municipalities and shows that there will be no increased costs to
small municipalities and a net, relatively small, increase for large
municipalities.
Table 17--Revenue Tests for Government Entities If Large Entities Comply
With the Emission Limits and Small Entities Utilize Alternative Disposal
(i.e., Landfill)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample statistic for cost-revenue-ratios Small Large
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean.............................................. -0.6% 0.2%
Median............................................ -0.2% 0.1%
Minimum........................................... -2.6% 0.0%
Maximum........................................... 0.7% 1.0%
Number of Entities................................ 18 79
Number of Entities >1%............................ 0 0
Number of Entities >3%............................ 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than 1 percent.
B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units
As discussed in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, based on trends of
SSI units constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB
incinerators, and information provided by the industry on likely units
constructed, we believe that new SSI units constructed are likely to be
FB incinerators.
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the proposed emission limits on 2
new FB incinerators potentially being constructed in the next 5 years.
Table 18 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT
compliance for each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5
Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS.''
Table 18--Emission Reductions for 2 New SSI Units (i.e., Fluidized Bed
Incinerators) Constructed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
Pollutant reduction
(TPY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................................... 0.00047
CDD/CDF, TEQ............................................... 0.00000038
CDD/CDF, TMB............................................... 0.0000044
CO......................................................... 3.022
HCl........................................................ 0.033
Hg......................................................... 0.0036
NOX........................................................ 1.07
Pb......................................................... 0.0031
PM......................................................... 2.43
PM2.5...................................................... 2.76
SO2........................................................ 1.01
------------
Total...................................................... 10.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
We anticipate affected sources would need to apply controls in
addition to what they would have planned to include in the absence of
this rule to meet the proposed emission limits. These controls may
utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated.
We estimate an annual requirement of 18.2 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater would be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbents for the 2 new units expected
to come online in the next 5 years. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration
Source Category Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge
Incineration Source Category.''
Likewise, the application of PM controls results in particulate
collected that would require disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon
injection may be used by some sources, which would result in solid
waste needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that would
require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 4 TPY from PM
capture and 97 TPY from activated carbon injection for the 2 units.
3. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed emission
limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run
added or improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased
scrubber pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity
consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate
that an additional 1,350 megawatt-hours
[[Page 63288]]
per year would be required for the additional and improved control
devices for the 2 new units modeled to come online in the next 5 years.
The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Analysis of Secondary
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category Analysis of
New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For SSI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission limits,
we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum ``Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
5. What are the cost impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units coming online
in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on a model plant, the
assumption that 2 new units will come online and will add the necessary
controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to comply with the proposed SSI standards. Based
on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital investment of
$7.81 million (2008$) with an associated total annualized cost of $2.70
million (2008$ and using a 7 percent discount rate). This analysis
assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB incinerators, as
discussed in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and EG
We estimate the monetized benefits of this proposed regulatory
action to be $130 million to $320 million (2008$, 3 percent discount
rate) in the implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the
proposed regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $120
million to $290 million (2008$). These estimates reflect energy
disbenefits valued at $0.5 million. Using alternate relationships
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts,
higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between these 2 estimates.\22\ A summary of
the monetized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent is in Table 19 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.
Table 19--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for New and Existing SSI Units in 2015
[Millions of 2008$] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
emission Total monetized benefits Total monetized benefits
Pollutant reductions (3% discount rate) (7% discount rate)
(TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................................. 254 $58 to $140............... $52 to $130.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Precursors:
SO2................................ 2,298 $68 to $170............... $61 to $150.
NOX................................ 824 $4.0 to $9.8.............. $3.6 to $8.8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. .............. $130 to $320.............. $120 to $290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to 2 significant figures so numbers may
not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton
estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to
come online by 2015, and the assumption that some small entities will landfill. These estimates do not include
the energy disbenefits valued at $0.5 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits
were calculated using the social cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA.
These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 2015 from
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these
standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the monetized
value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with
reducing a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. To estimate human health benefits derived from reducing
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we utilized
the general approach and methodology laid out in Fann et al.
(2009).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos
Health. (2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another
model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that
change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were
divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of
their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would
support the development of differential effects estimates by particle
type. Directly emitted PM, SO2, and NOX are the
primary PM2.5 precursors affected by this rule. Even though
we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of
precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5.
For example, SO2 has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate than
direct PM2.5 because it does not form as much
PM2.5, thus the exposure would be lower, and the monetized
health benefits would be lower.
For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of
assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this
proposed rule, we cite two key
[[Page 63289]]
empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort
study \24\ and the extended Six Cities cohort study.\25\ In the RIA for
this proposed rule, which is available in the docket, we also include
benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Pope et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association. 287:1132-
1141.
\25\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. After
reviewing the scientific literature and recent scientific advice, we
have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent advice, we are
replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new
``LML'' assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into
the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA
does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-
related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality
concentrations.
Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule would accrue
to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed at
or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006)
study, 40 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10
[mu]g/m\3\. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence
in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major
cohort studies. This fact is important, because as we estimate PM-
related mortality among populations exposed to levels of
PM2.5 that are successively lower, our confidence in the
results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that the great majority
of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits
model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for
this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis \26\
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by
Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects,
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing HAP have not been
monetized in this analysis, including reducing 2,900 tons of CO, 96
tons of HCl, 3.0 tons of Pb, 1.6 tons of Cd, 5,500 pounds of Hg and 78
grams of total CDD/CDF each year. Although we do not have sufficient
information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for
this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health
effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this proposed rule,
which is available in the docket.
In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 19
do not reflect the disbenefits associated with increased electricity
and fuel consumption to operate the control devices. We estimate that
the increases in emissions of CO2 would have disbenefits
valued at $0.5 million for the proposed option assuming that small
entities landfill at a 3 percent discount rate. CO2-related
disbenefits were calculated using the social cost of carbon, which is
discussed further in the RIA. However, these disbenefits do not change
the rounded total monetized benefits of the proposed option, which are
still $130 million to $320 million and $120 million to $290 million, at
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
The social costs of this proposed rulemaking are estimated to be
$92 million (2008$) in the implementation year and the monetized
benefits including energy disbenefits are $130 million to $320 million
(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) for that same year. The monetized
benefits including energy disbenefits at a 7 percent discount rate are
$120 million to $290 million (2008$). Thus, net benefits of this
rulemaking including energy disbenefits estimated at $37 million to
$220 million (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and $26 million to $190
million (2008$, 7 percent discount rate).
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to CAA Sections 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B)(ii)
Clean Air Act sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) instruct EPA to
identify and list area source categories representing at least 90
percent of the emissions of the 30 ``listed'' HAP (64 FR 38706, July
19, 1999), that are, or will be, subject to standards under section
112(d) of the CAA. The 30 HAP are the result of emissions from area
sources that pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas. Under the provisions of section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA, SSI was added to the inventory. Each of the
source categories added, including SSI, contributes a certain
percentage of the total area source emissions for at least 1 of the 30
area source HAP and makes progress towards meeting our requirement to
address 90 percent of the emissions of each of the 30 area source HAP.
As required by the statute, the CAA section 129 SSI standards
include numeric emission limits for the 9 pollutants specified in
section 129(a)(4) and opacity. The combination of wastewater
pretreatment, good combustion practices and add-on air pollution
control devices (e.g., FF, scrubbers, activated carbon injection,
afterburners) effectively reduces emissions of the pollutants for which
emission limits are required under CAA section 129: Cd, CO, CDD/CDF,
HCl, Hg, Pb, NOX, PM and SO2.
Although, CAA section 129 standards for SSI will not set separate
specific numerical emission limits for sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii) urban air HAP, the SSI standards will result in
substantial reductions of 7-PAH, Cr, Mn, Ni, and PCB. These additional
emission reductions are due to co-control of pollutants by the same air
pollution control devices used to comply with the CAA section 129 SSI
standard. Air pollution control devices are necessary to comply with
the requirements of the SSI NSPS and EG. Add-on air pollution control
devices to control PM will also reduce emissions of compounds that
coalesce to form on PM (e.g., Mn, Ni, Cr, etc.). The addition of any
post-combustion device to control organics such as CO and CDD/CDF will
also reduce emissions for any byproducts of incomplete combustion such
as additional organic pollutants (e.g., 7-PAH and PCB). The addition of
wet scrubbers will also reduce emissions of compounds that are water
soluble. Additionally, the NSPS emission limits will promote the
construction of new FB incinerators rather than MH incinerators.
Fluidized bed incinerators have significantly lower emissions of all
organic compounds and NOX.
While the proposed rule does not identify specific numerical
emission limits for 7-PAH, Cr, Mn, Ni and PCB,
[[Page 63290]]
emissions of those pollutants are for the reasons noted above,
nonetheless, subject to regulation for the purposes of section
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA. In lieu of establishing
numerical emission limits for pollutants such as PCB and 7-PAH, CAA
section 129 (a)(4) allows EPA to regulate surrogate substances. While
we have not identified specific numerical limits for 7-PAH or PCB, we
believe CO serves as an effective surrogate of those pollutants,
because CO, like 7-PAH and PCB, is formed as a byproduct of combustion.
We believe that CDD/CDF also serve as an effective surrogate for PCB,
because the compounds act similarly and, thus, are expected to be
controlled similarly using SSI emission control devices (e.g., wet
scrubbers, FF, activated carbon injection).
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Other SSI Rules for the Use
or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, as amended 33
U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated regulations on February 19,
1993, at 40 CFR part 503 designed to protect public health and the
environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain
pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 503
regulations establish requirements for the final use and disposal of
sewage sludge when: (1) The sludge is applied to the land for a
beneficial use (e.g., for use in home gardens); (2) the sludge is
disposed on land by placing it on surface disposal sites; and (3) the
sewage sludge is incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate
or treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who uses or
disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment works.
The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in a SSI are in
subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E includes general requirements;
pollutant limits; operational standards; management practices; and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the National
Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E,
respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The regulations also require that the
allowable concentration of 5 other inorganic pollutants be calculated
using equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants included
are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the equations must be
determined on a case-by-case basis, except for the risk-specific
concentration for the inhalation exposure pathway to protect
individuals when these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific
variables for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor,
control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be used to
calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Pb and Ni in
the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.
Also included in subpart E is an operational standard for THC. The
value for THC in the final part 503 regulation cannot be exceeded in
the exit gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and frequency of
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are also included
in this subpart.
Under today's proposed rule, EPA is establishing limits for 3 of
the inorganic pollutants covered by the current part 503 regulations
(Cd, Pb and Hg) and the following 7 additional pollutants: HCl, CO,
opacity, NOX, SO2, PM, and total CDD/CDF. Besides
the pollutants covered here, there are other differences between the
part 503 regulations and this proposed rule. The emission limits for
inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based numbers rather than
technology-based. Also, part 503 does not distinguish between new and
existing units or between incinerator types (i.e., MH or FB
incinerator) for setting emission limits since emission limits are
based on risks to a highly exposed individual.
Because both part 503 and this proposed rule cover the same
universe of facilities, there are certain issues that arise in terms of
potential impacts to current SSI facilities. First, we expect that the
regulation of sewage sludge under CAA section 129 under the proposed
rule would result in stricter emission standards than under the current
CWA rule. Consequently, a potential impact of this rule is that some of
the estimated 112 facilities that operate SSI as the primary means of
disposal could discontinue this practice and would instead landfill
their sewage sludge (see earlier discussion in section V of this
preamble on the analysis of alternative sewage sludge disposal).
Second, one must consider the available capacity of surface disposal
sites to receive additional sewage sludge and the potential for added
costs if the use of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI would be subject to
2 different sets of requirements (numeric standards, operational
standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) under the 2
different statutes if the proposed rule is implemented, creating an
additional burden to these facilities unless alternative regulatory
approaches are implemented. EPA plans to evaluate the requirements
under both statutes once this proposed rule is finalized to determine
what changes, if any, should be made to the part 503 regulations. EPA
requests comments on other potential impacts of this proposed rule on
SSI.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action. In addition, EPA prepared a RIA of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action.
When estimating the PM2.5- and ozone-related human
health benefits and compliance costs in Table 20 below, EPA applied
methods and assumptions consistent with the State-of-the-science for
human health impact assessment, economics, and air quality analysis.
EPA applied its best professional judgment in performing this analysis
and believes that these estimates provide a reasonable indication of
the expected benefits and costs to the nation of this rule. The RIA
available in the docket describes in detail the empirical basis for
EPA's assumptions and characterizes the various sources of
uncertainties affecting the estimates below.
When characterizing uncertainty in the PM-mortality relationship,
EPA has historically presented a sensitivity analysis applying
alternate assumed thresholds in the PM concentration-response
relationship. In its synthesis of the current State of the PM science,
EPA's ``2009 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate
Matter'' concluded that a no-threshold log-linear model most adequately
portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. In the
RIA accompanying this rule, rather than segmenting out impacts
predicted to be associated levels above and below a `bright line'
threshold, EPA includes a ``LML'' that illustrates the increasing
uncertainty that characterizes exposure attributed to levels of
PM2.5 below the LML for each study. Figures provided in the
RIA show the distribution of baseline exposure to PM2.5, as
well as the lowest air quality levels measured in each of the
epidemiology cohort studies. This
[[Page 63291]]
information provides a context for considering the likely portion of
PM-related mortality benefits occurring above or below the LML of each
study; in general, our confidence in the size of the estimated
reduction PM2.5-related premature mortality diminishes as
baseline concentrations of PM2.5 are lowered. Using the
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed to
annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/
m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006) study, 40 percent of the
population is exposed above the LML of 10 [mu]g/m\3\. While the LML
analysis provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the
estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a
threshold and continues to quantify PM-related mortality impacts using
a full range of modeled air quality concentrations.
A summary of the monetized benefits, social costs and net benefits
for the proposed option, as well as a less stringent option and more
stringent option, at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in
Table 18 of this preamble.
Table 20--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs and Net
Benefits for New and Existing SSI Units in 2015
[Millions of 2008$] \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed: Option 2 MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Controls for Hg and
CDD/CDF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\.... $120 to $310...... $110 to $280.
Total Social Costs \3\.......... $92............... $92.
Net Benefits.................... $33 to $220....... $23 to $190.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits.......... 2,900 tons of CO.
96 tons of HCl.
5,500 pounds of Hg.
1.6 tons of Cd.
3.0 tons of Pb.
90 grams of CDD/CDF.
Health effects from NOX and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 MACT Floor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\.... $120 to $310...... $110 to $280.
Total Social Costs \3\.......... $63............... $63.
Net Benefits.................... $62 to $240....... $52 to $220.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits.......... 2,900 tons of CO.
96 tons of HCl.
820 pounds of Hg.
1.6 tons of Cd.
3.0 tons of Pb.
74 grams of CDD/CDF.
Health effects from NOX and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3 MACT Floor, Beyond-the-Floor Controls for Hg and CDD/CDF, and
Beyond-the-Floor Controls for CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\.... $120 to $300...... $110 to $280.
Total Social Costs \3\.......... $132.............. $132.
Net Benefits.................... -$9.6 to $170..... -$18 to $150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits.......... 26,000 tons of CO.
96 tons of HCl.
5,500 pounds of Hg.
1.6 tons of Cd.
3.0 tons of Pb.
90 grams of CDD/CDF.
Health effects from NOX and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded
to 2 significant figures. These results include 2 new FB incinerators
anticipated to come on-line by 2015 and the assumption that small
entities will landfill.
\2\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits
associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of
directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is
important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all
health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a
range from Pope, et al., (2002) to Laden, et al., (2006). These models
assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical
composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the
development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These
results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to come online by
2015, as well as energy disbenefits of $4.5 to $9.7 million.
\3\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the
multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social
costs for both discount rates.
[[Page 63292]]
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The ICR documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number
2369.01 for subpart LLLL, and 2403.01 for subpart MMMM.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
would be based on the information collection requirements in CAA
section 129 and EPA's NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart
A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General
Provisions are mandatory pursuant to CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).
All information other than emissions data submitted to EPA pursuant to
the information collection requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c)
and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The requirements in this proposed action result in industry
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review of the
amendments for all SSI and initial and annual compliance with the
emission limits using EPA approved emissions test methods. The burden
also includes continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits. Operators are required to obtain qualification and complete
annual training. New units are also required to submit a report prior
to construction, including a siting analysis.
The annual average burden associated with the EG over the first 3
years following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated to be
$14.2 million. This includes 21,900 hours at a total annual labor cost
of $1.2 million and total annualized capital/startup and O&M costs of
$13 million per year, associated with the monitoring requirements,
storage of data and reports and photocopying and postage over the 3-
year period of the ICR. The annual inspection costs are included under
the recordkeeping and reporting labor costs.
The annual average burden associated with the NSPS over the first 3
years following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated to
involve 518 hours at a total annual labor cost of $29,000. The total
annualized capital/startup costs are estimated at $292,000 per year.
This gives a cumulative annual burden of $321,000 per year for the
NSPS. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it currently displays
a valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after October 14, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by November 15, 2010. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The 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 action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small government
organizations, and small government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, a small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small
business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the
18 small entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than 1 percent. Thus,
this is not considered to be a significant impact.
Although the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by allowing
optional CEMS instead of requiring them, allowing information from
tests conducted in recent years to show compliance rather than require
all new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued compliance.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal
agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and
the private sector. This rule contains 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. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a
written statement that is summarized in this section of the preamble. A
copy of the UMRA written statement can be found in the docket. The UMRA
written statement further describes EPA's statutory authority, a
qualitative and quantitative cost-benefits assessment, and a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with elected
representatives (or their designated authorized employees) of the
affected State, local, and tribal governments, and a summary of their
oral or written comments and concerns and EPA's evaluation of them.
EPA's statutory authority for this action is contained in CAA
section 129, as described in section II.C of this preamble and in the
UMRA written statement in the docket. These emission standards are also
needed as part of EPA's fulfillment of its obligations under CAA
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii). Regarding the cost-benefits
assessment, the RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the EPA's
assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units'' in the docket. Based on estimated compliance costs
associated with the proposed rule and the predicted change in prices
and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs
of the proposed rule are $92 million (2008$). The estimated costs
account for 18 small
[[Page 63293]]
entities choosing alternative disposal methods to SSI.
Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA has initiated consultations with
governmental entities affected by this proposed rule. EPA invited 10
organizations of elected State and local officials who have been
identified by EPA as the ``Big 10'' organizations appropriate to
contact for purposes of consultation with elected officials. The
following national organizations representing State and local officials
attended a meeting held on May 27, 2010, in Washington, DC: (1)
National Governors' Association, (2) National Conference of State
Legislatures, (3) National League of Cities, (4) U.S. Conference of
Mayors, (5) National Association of Counties, (6) Association of State
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, (7) Council of State
Governments and (8) Environmental Council of the States, to inform them
and seek their input for this rulemaking. Two of the Big 10
organizations were unable to attend. Additionally, the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National Association of Clean
Air Agencies and the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators participated, to serve as technical
advisors to the national organizations during this consultation.
The purpose of the consultation was to provide general background
on the proposal, answer questions, and solicit input from State and
local governments. Prior to the meeting, EPA provided the officials
with a copy of the SSI inventory and presentation. During the meeting,
officials expressed uncertainty with regards to how EPA calculated the
costs to comply with the standard. Officials also expressed uncertainty
with regards to how viable the alternative to the standard is with
respect to small governments and entities located in certain geographic
regions. Technical memoranda, which can be found in the docket,
document EPA's cost analysis, beyond-the-floor options, and the
regulatory impacts analysis. EPA determined that the alternative to the
standard is a viable option for some entities.
Consistent with section 205 of the UMRA, EPA has identified and
considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Incineration
continues to be used to dispose of sewage sludge, but is increasingly
becoming less common. Additional pollution controls will increase costs
for facilities that continue to use the incineration disposal method.
If the additional costs are high enough, many POTW may choose to adopt
alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface disposal in landfills or
other beneficial land applications). However, the use of alternative
disposal methods may be limited in some areas because of landfill
capacity constraints, local geography, or other legal or economic
constraints.
One alternative option is landfilling. Landfilling, in some cases,
provides a simple and low-cost option for sewage sludge disposal.
Sewage sludge may be placed in landfills used for other municipal solid
waste or in landfills constructed specifically for sewage sludge. The
landfill disposal option is attractive for low-volume incinerators;
landfill capacity constraints limit disposal opportunities for large
sludge volumes.
Land application is a second alternative. Sewage sludge that has
undergone treatment to make it safe for use on other land application
(e.g., fertilizer) is commonly referred to as biosolids. Biosolids can
be sold to agricultural or landscaping entities for land application,
so the organic material in biosolids is reused to contribute to crop
production. Land application has also been used in mine reclamation to
re-establish vegetation.
Further analysis can be found in the ``Regulatory Impacts
Analysis.'' The regulatory alternative selected is landfilling. EPA
recognizes that the landfilling option may be utilized by some
facilities but not all depending on a number of factors such as cost,
geographic location, and State regulations.
This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While some small
governments may have SSI units that would be affected by this rule,
EPA's analysis shows that for the more likely scenario that small
governmental entities switch to landfilling, none of the ratios was
greater than 1 percent. Because the proposed rule's requirements apply
equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by governments or SSI units
owned and/or operated by private entities, there would be no
requirements that uniquely apply to such government or impose any
disproportionate impacts on them.
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'' are 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.''
This proposed rule will have federalism implications, as defined by
Agency guidance for implementing the Order, due to substantial direct
compliance costs on State or local governments. As specified by the
Order, EPA must consult with elected State and local government
officials, or their representative national organizations, when
developing regulations and policies that impose substantial compliance
costs on State and local governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA
conducted a briefing for the Big 10 intergovernmental organizations
representing elected State and local government officials, to formally
request their comments and input on the action. Please reference the
UMRA discussion above for further details regarding the Big 10
consultation.
The Big 10 is currently in the process of providing EPA with
feedback on its proposed standards and EG for SSI units. In the spirit
of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA is not
aware of any SSI owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials in the proposal period via the National
Tribal Air Association and other mechanisms.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is
not subject to Executive Order
[[Page 63294]]
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. We note
however, that reductions in air emissions by these facilities will
improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for children's
health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in
this proposed action would cause most SSI to modify existing air
pollution control devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet
scrubbers) or install and operate new control devices, resulting in
approximately 29,200 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity
being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this proposed action, EPA does not expect any significant price
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should
not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would
not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any
impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse
outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be
significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any
adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, they would
be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its regulatory activities unless to
do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
EPA conducted searches for the ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units'' through the Enhanced National Standards
Service Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of
the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the
ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' is an acceptable
alternative to Method 29 and 30B. The EPA has also decided to use EPA
Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 22, 23, 26A, 29 and 30B. No
VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 22.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to EPA's reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the
standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All
potential standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the
VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation
data which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting
alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence
to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when additional information is
available for particular VCS.
The search identified 23 other VCS that were potentially applicable
for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that 23 candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-
1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSIIASME PTC PTC[not]38-1980
(1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSIIASME
PTC 19-10-1981, ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95
(2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 7934:1998,
ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 (2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-
MI983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996),
EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-
MI987) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data,
and other important technical and policy considerations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, PS, or procedures in the final rule and any amendments.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS
and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this proposed
rule to determine if there was existing disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of
demographic data showed that the average of populations in close
proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be effected by the
sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.
In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities
near affected sources, EPA used census data at the block group level to
identify demographics of the populations considered to be living near
affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to current
emissions from these sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the
distributions of
[[Page 63295]]
different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected
emission reductions from this rule. The review identified those census
block groups within a circular distance of a half, 3, and 5 miles of
affected sources and determined the demographic and socio-economic
composition (e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block
groups. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) has been
used in other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential
sources.27-30 EPA's demographic analysis has shown that
these areas in aggregate have similar proportions of American Indians,
African-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and ``Other and Multi-racial''
populations, and similar proportions of families with incomes below the
poverty level as the national average.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office; 1995.
\28\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research.'' Demography.
2006;43(2): 383-399.
\29\ Mennis J. ``Using Geographic Information Systems to Create
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for
Environmental Justice Analysis.'' Social Science Quarterly,
2002;83(1):281-297.
\30\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March 2007.
\31\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts,'' June 2010, a copy of
which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action establishes national emission standards for
new and existing SSI units. The EPA estimates that there are
approximately 218 such units covered by this rule. The proposed rule
will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this source.
This includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, Hg, and CDD/CDF. Adverse health
effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of the lungs,
skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous system and
damage to the kidneys and acute health disorders. The rule will also
result in substantial reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO,
NOX, PM and PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur
dioxide and NOX are precursors for the formation of
PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions will reduce ozone
and PM2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as
adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma and
other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. For additional
information, please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this
rulemaking. EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To
promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communication and
outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to
this proposed rule, are aware of its content and have an opportunity to
comment during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA will
publicize the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, tribal newsletters, EJ
listservs, and the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway Web
site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will also
provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for
my community) for EJ community groups and conduct conference calls with
interested communities. In addition, State and Federal permitting
requirements will provide State and local governments and members of
affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit
conditions associated with permitting the sources affected by this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 30, 2010.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 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.
2. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and MMMM to read as
follows:
Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
Sec.
Introduction
60.4760 What does this subpart do?
60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?
Applicability and Delegation of Authority
60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration
unit?
60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?
60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from this
subpart?
60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.4790 How are these new source performance standards structured?
60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?
Preconstruction Siting Analysis
60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
Operator Training and Qualification
60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge incineration unit
operators and other plant personnel who may operate the unit
according to the provisions of Sec. 60.4835(a)?
Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits
60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.4850 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and operating
limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for exceedance of an
emission limit or standard during malfunction?
Initial Compliance Requirements
60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by
what date must I conduct an initial performance
[[Page 63296]]
evaluation of my continuous monitoring systems and bag leak
detection system?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements
60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
Recordkeeping and Reporting
60.4910 What records must I keep?
60.4915 What reports must I submit?
Title V Operating Permits
60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating
permit for my unit?
60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application for my new
SSI unit?
Definitions
60.4930 What definitions must I know?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Summary of Reporting
Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Introduction
Sec. 60.4760 What does this subpart do?
This subpart establishes new source performance standards for
sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the extent any requirement
of this subpart is inconsistent with the requirements of subpart A of
this part, the requirements of this subpart will apply.
Sec. 60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?
This subpart takes effect on [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Some of the
requirements in this subpart apply to planning an SSI unit and must be
completed even before construction is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e.,
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.4800 and 60.4805).
Other requirements such as the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins operation.
Applicability and Delegation of Authority
Sec. 60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration
unit?
Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets all the
criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for which construction commenced
after October 14, 2010 or for which modification commenced after [THE
DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as defined in Sec. 60.4930.
(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under Sec. 60.4780.
Sec. 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?
(a) A new SSI unit is an SSI unit that meets either of the two
criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010.
(2) Commenced modification after [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI unit to comply
with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM of this part (Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) do not qualify as a modification under this subpart.
Sec. 60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from
this subpart?
This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge
that are located at an industrial or commercial facility subject to
subpart CCCC of this part, provided the owner or operator of such a
combustion unit notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim under
this section.
Sec. 60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the
Administrator, as defined in Sec. 60.2, or a delegated authority such
as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the Administrator has
delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement
and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office
to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency, the authorities contained
in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and
are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards
in Table 1 to this subpart and operating limits established under Sec.
60.4850.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting.
(5) The requirements in Sec. 60.4855.
(6) The requirements in Sec. 60.4835(b)(2).
(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.8(b).
(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in Sec. 60.4800 and Sec.
60.4805.
Sec. 60.4790 How are these new source performance standards
structured?
These new source performance standards contain the nine major
components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
(a) Preconstruction siting analysis.
(b) Operator training and qualification.
(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
(d) Initial compliance requirements.
(e) Continuous compliance requirements.
(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
(g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(h) Definitions.
(i) Tables.
Sec. 60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?
No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis requirements
before you commence construction of the SSI unit. The operator training
and qualification, emission limits, emission standards, operating
limits, performance testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit
begins operation.
[[Page 63297]]
Preconstruction Siting Analysis
Sec. 60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of an SSI unit after October 14, 2010.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to
submit an initial application for a construction permit under 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
modification of your SSI unit.
Sec. 60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution control
alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the maximum
extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the
environment, including impacts of the affected SSI unit on ambient air
quality, visibility, soils, and vegetation. In considering such
alternatives, the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
(b) Analyses of your SSI unit's impacts that are prepared to comply
with State, local, or other Federal regulatory requirements may be used
to satisfy the requirements of this section, provided they include the
consideration of air pollution control alternatives specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) You must complete and submit the siting requirements of this
section as required under Sec. 60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing
construction.
Operator Training and Qualification
Sec. 60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit.
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you
must follow the procedures in Sec. 60.4835.
(b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a
State-approved program or by completing the requirements included in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Training must be obtained by completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a minimum, the three elements
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (x) of this section.
(i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions.
(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion.
(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by
the operator, including proper startup, sewage sludge feeding, and
shutdown procedures.
(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring.
(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors
affecting performance (if applicable).
(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air
pollution control devices.
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures.
(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards.
(x) Pollution prevention.
(2) An examination designed and administered by the State-approved
program.
(3) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.
Sec. 60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?
The operator training course must be completed by the later of the
two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
(b) The date before an employee assumes responsibility for
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the
operation of the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
(a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under Sec. 60.4810(b).
(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training
course is completed and the operator successfully passes the
examination required under Sec. 60.4810(c)(2).
Sec. 60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or
refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Update of regulations.
(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown
procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash handling.
(c) Inspection and maintenance.
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.
Sec. 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
You must renew a lapsed operator qualification by one of the two
methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, you must complete a standard
annual refresher course described in Sec. 60.4825.
(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial
qualification requirements in Sec. 60.4820(a).
Sec. 60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
If a qualified operator is not at the facility and cannot be at the
facility within 1 hour, you must meet the criteria specified in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, depending on the length of time
that a qualified operator is not accessible.
(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for more than 8
hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other
plant personnel who are familiar with the operation of the SSI unit who
have completed a review of the information specified in Sec. 60.4840
within the past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a
qualified operator was not accessible and include this deviation in the
annual report as specified under Sec. 60.4915(d).
(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions that are described in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10
days. In the notice, State what caused this deviation, what you are
doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you
anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible.
(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks
outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will
be accessible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to
continue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first status
report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
[[Page 63298]]
(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is
accessible as required under Sec. 60.4810(a) and you notify the
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having
a qualified operator accessible.
Sec. 60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and how
often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge incineration unit
operators and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according
to the provisions of Sec. 60.4835(a)?
(a) You must maintain at the facility the documentation of the
operator training procedures specified under Sec. 60.4910(c)(1) and
make the documentation readily accessible to all SSI unit operators.
(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information
listed in Sec. 60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified incinerator operator
and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the
provisions of Sec. 60.4835(a), according to the following schedule:
(1) The initial review of the information listed in Sec.
60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the effective
date of this subpart or prior to an employee's assumption of
responsibilities for operation of the SSI unit, whichever date is
later.
(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in Sec.
60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 months following the
previous review.
Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits
Sec. 60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by
when?
You must meet the emission limits and standards specified in Table
1 to this subpart within 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed
rate at which it will operate or within 180 days after its initial
startup, whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards apply
at all times the unit is operating, including, and not limited to,
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The emission limits and
standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.4850 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section, according to the schedule specified in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The operating parameters are
listed in Table 2 to this subpart. The operating limits apply at all
times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including periods of
malfunction.
(a) You must meet site-specific operating limits for maximum dry
sludge feed rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of
the combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) that you
establish in Sec. 60.4870.
(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator, or
activated carbon injection to comply with an emission limit, you must
meet the site-specific operating limits that you establish in Sec.
60.4870 for each operating parameter associated with each air pollution
control device.
(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits,
you must install the bag leak detection system specified in Sec.
60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag leak detection system such that
the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time
during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time as specified
in Sec. 60.4870.
(d) You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the
feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its
initial startup, whichever comes first.
(e) For the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, you may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward. You must confirm or reestablish operating limits during:
(1) Annual performance tests required under Sec. 60.4885(a).
(2) Performance tests required under Sec. 60.4885(a)(2).
(3) Periodic performance evaluations required under Sec.
60.4885(b)(6) to meet the operating limits specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
Sec. 60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or limit emissions in some other manner (e.g.,
materials balance) to comply with the emission limits in Sec. 60.4845,
you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
(a) Establish an operating limit each for maximum dry sludge feed
rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of the
combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) according to
Sec. 60.4870.
(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating parameters,
operating limits, and averaging periods to be established during the
initial performance test and to be monitored continuously thereafter.
(1) You must not conduct the initial performance test until after
the petition has been approved by the Administrator, and you must
comply with the operating limits as written, pending approval by the
Administrator.
(2) Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to
monitor.
(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters, and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters that will establish the operating limits on
these parameters, including a discussion of the averaging periods
associated with those parameters for determining compliance.
(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
Sec. 60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The emission limits and standards apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The operating limits
apply at all times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including
periods of malfunction.
Sec. 60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for exceedance
of an emission limit or standard during malfunction?
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec. 60.4845 you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined in Sec. 60.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed; however, if the respondent
[[Page 63299]]
fails to meet its burden of proving all of the requirements in the
affirmative defense, then the affirmative defense shall not be
available for claims for injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this
section are met.
(1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance.
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs.
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions.
(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage.
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health.
(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible.
(7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions.
(9) You have prepared a written root cause analysis to determine,
correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(b) If your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its emission
limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the Administrator by
telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no
later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if you wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to assert an
affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report to the
Administrator within 30 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance of the standard in Sec. 60.4845 to demonstrate, with all
necessary supporting documentation, that you have met the requirements
set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and
standards in Table 1 to this subpart, use the procedures specified in
paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, opacity, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and
follow the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for
carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, you also have the option to demonstrate initial
compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this
section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity.
You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this
section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
according to the performance testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements in Sec. 60.4900(a) and (b). Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days after your SSI unit
reaches the feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days
after its initial startup, whichever comes first, you must demonstrate
that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards specified in
Table 1 to this subpart.
(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test
required in Sec. 60.8. You must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets
the emission limits and standards specified in Table 1 to this subpart
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, and fugitive
emissions from ash handling using the performance test. The initial
performance test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging
methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 1
to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements specified in Sec. 60.4900(a).
(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.
60.4900(b)(6) and use the following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limit, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous emissions
monitoring system specified in Sec. 60.4900(b).
(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans total mass,
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, you may substitute the use of a
continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section
(except opacity) in lieu of conducting the initial performance test for
that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of
conducting the initial opacity and particulate matter performance tests
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) You may substitute the use of a continuous particulate matter
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial opacity performance
test in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the initial
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) or (2) of this section, you must use the continuous emissions
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in
[[Page 63300]]
Sec. 60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13
to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a
24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(ii) Comply with the provisions in Sec. 60.58b(q) to develop a
monitoring plan. For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you
must use Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and
Procedure 1 of appendix F of this part.
(5) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.4900(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages
as specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
(6) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your initial performance evaluations required under your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems no later than 60 days after the date of initial
startup of the affected SSI unit, as specified under Sec. 60.8. Your
performance evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and
acceptance criteria specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as
follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency
factor specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an initial compliance report, as specified in
Sec. 60.4915(c).
(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a performance test
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the provisions of
this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force
majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as specified in
Sec. 60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial performance test as soon
as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the extension to the initial
performance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval
or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
Sec. 60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
(a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified
in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section during the initial
performance tests and performance evaluations required in Sec. 60.4865
and the most recent performance tests and performance evaluations
required in Sec. 60.4885. Follow the data measurement and recording
frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 2 to this
subpart and follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4900 and 60.4905. You are not
required to establish operating limits for the operating parameters
listed in Table 2 to this subpart for a control device if you use a
continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart for the applicable
pollutants, as follows:
(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of hydrogen
chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber (or
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.
60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide.
(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of particulate
matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber (or
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.
60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead.
(3) You are not required to establish an operating limit and
monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage
of the collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of
the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring
system specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or
lead.
(4) You are not required to establish an operating limit and
monitor mercury sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or
carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for mercury.
(5) You are not required to establish an operating limit and
monitor dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate
(or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring
system specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits for dioxins/furans.
(b) For each operating parameter specified in paragraphs (c)
through (k) of this section, determine the average operating parameter
level during the initial or most recent performance test or performance
evaluation for the applicable pollutant(s) according to the procedures
specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as
applicable.
[[Page 63301]]
(1) For continuous monitoring systems that collect multiple data
points each hour. (i) Collect the incremental data for the operating
parameter (e.g., scrubber liquor flow rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride). For each applicable performance
test run period, calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter
level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of
the applicable performance test run periods specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section represents the average operating parameter
level (e.g., average scrubber liquor flow rate) during the performance
test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average operating
parameter level to establish the respective operating limit, as
specified in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
(2) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on an
hourly basis. (i) Collect the hourly data for the operating parameter
(e.g., mercury sorbent injection rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g.,
mercury). For each applicable performance test run period, calculate
the arithmetic average operating parameter level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of
the applicable performance test runs specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i)
of this section represents the average operating parameter level (e.g.,
average mercury sorbent injection rate) during the performance test(s)
for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average operating parameter
level to establish the respective operating limit, as specified in
paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
(3) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on a daily
basis. Collect the daily data for the operating parameter (e.g., sludge
moisture content) for each day that a performance test is conducted for
the applicable pollutant(s). The highest daily arithmetic average
operating parameter level for the applicable performance tests
represents the average operating parameter level (e.g., average sludge
moisture content) during the performance test(s) for the applicable
pollutant(s). Use this average operating parameter level to establish
the respective operating limit, as specified in paragraphs (c) through
(k) of this section.
(c) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber, calculated as
90 percent of the average pressure drop across each wet scrubber,
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(d) Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate (measured at the inlet to the
wet scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor flow
rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(e) Minimum scrubber liquor pH (measured at the inlet to the wet
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor pH,
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(f) Minimum combustion chamber temperature (or minimum afterburner
temperature), calculated as 90 percent of the average combustion
chamber temperature (or afterburner temperature), determined according
to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(g) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates, calculated as 90 percent of the average power input.
Average power input must be calculated as the product of the average
secondary voltage and average secondary amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator, both determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(h) Maximum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the
electrostatic precipitator, calculated as 70 percent of the average
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator, determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) For activated carbon injection:
(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90
percent of the average mercury sorbent injection rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90
percent of the average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure
drop, as follows:
(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, calculated as 90 percent of the
average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, calculated as 90 percent of
the average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(j) Maximum dry sludge feed rate, calculated as 110 percent of the
average dry sludge feed rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(k) Sludge moisture content, measured on a daily basis as a
percentage, must be no less than 10 percent less than and no more than
10 percent greater than the average sludge moisture content, determined
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For example, if your
average sludge moisture content is measured as 20 percent, your sludge
moisture level must be greater than or equal to 18 percent and less
than or equal to 22 percent.
Sec. 60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device inspection
according to Sec. 60.4900(c) within 60 days of achieving the maximum
feed rate at which the affected SSI unit will be operated or within 180
days of initial startup of the SSI unit, whichever comes first. For air
pollution control devices installed after the SSI unit achieves the
maximum feed rate at which it will be operated, you must conduct the
air pollution control device inspection within 60 days after
installation of the control device or within 180 days of initial
startup of the SSI unit, whichever comes later.
(b) Within 10 operating days following the air pollution control
device inspection under paragraph (a) of this section, all necessary
repairs must be completed unless you obtain written approval from the
Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the
SSI unit must be completed.
Sec. 60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by what
date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous
monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?
You must develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system
required under this subpart, according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i) and paragraph (d) of this
section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system to comply
with the mercury or dioxin/furan emission limits, you must develop your
monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 60.58b(q), and you are not
required to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section. You must submit your monitoring plan at least 60 days before
your initial performance evaluation of your continuous monitoring
system(s), as specified in paragraph (c) of this
[[Page 63302]]
section. You must update your monitoring plan as specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your monitoring plan
must address the elements and requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in Sec. 60.13.
(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., relative
accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part.
(C) The applicable procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration drift tests) in appendix F of this
part.
(ii) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in Sec. 60.13.
(B) Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part.
(iii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but not be limited to,
the associated performance specifications and quality assurance
procedures.
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f), and (g).
(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous monitoring system is
out of control, as follows:
(i) A continuous emissions monitoring system is out of control if
the conditions in any one of paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A), (a)(7)(i)(B), or
(a)(7)(i)(C) of this section are met.
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fails a performance
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit,
relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit.
(C) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
(ii) When the continuous emissions monitoring system is out of
control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you must
take the necessary corrective action and must repeat all necessary
tests that indicate that the system is out of control. You must take
corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance
requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-
of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance check (e.g.,
calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance
requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control
period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and
successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable
limits.
(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance
evaluations of your continuous monitoring systems in accordance with
your site-specific monitoring plan.
(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your monitoring plan
must include a description of the following items:
(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established.
(3) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures.
(4) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(5) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored.
(c) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as
applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan, and within 60 days
of installation of the continuous monitoring system and bag leak
detection system, as applicable.
(d) You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval
of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the
standards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(d)(1) through (d)(6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section, unless you document, using data or
information, that the longer averaging period will ensure that
emissions do not exceed levels achieved during the performance test
over any increment of time equivalent to the time required to conduct
three runs of the performance test.
(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring requirement
is approved, you must continue to use the original monitoring
requirement until approval is received to use another monitoring
requirement.
(3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate
monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance
test. The application must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(iii) of this section:
(i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the
required approach.
(ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit,
and how the limit is to be calculated.
(iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or
better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard.
Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the
Administrator will provide the following:
[[Page 63303]]
(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based.
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting
information before final action is taken on the application. This
notice will specify how much additional time is allowed for you to
provide additional supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the
application prior to the performance test. Neither submittal of an
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case
basis that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.
(e) You must update your monitoring plan if there are any changes
in your monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as
defined in Sec. 60.4930.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and
standards specified in Table 1 to this subpart, use the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, and fugitive emissions from ash
handling, and follow the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this
section for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option to
demonstrate continuous compliance using the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, and opacity. You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragraphs
(c) through (e) of this section, according to the performance testing,
monitoring, and calibration requirements in Sec. 60.4900(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test.
Within 10 to 12 months following the initial performance test (except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section), demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 1 to this
subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, and
fugitive emissions from ash handling using a performance test. The
performance test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging
methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 1
to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements specified in Sec. 60.4900(a). Conduct
subsequent annual performance tests within 10 to 12 months following
the previous one.
(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward. The Administrator may request a repeat performance test at any
time.
(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 days of a
process change, as defined in Sec. 60.4930.
(3) You have the option to perform less frequent testing to
demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead emission
limits.
(i) To perform less frequent testing, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive years.
(B) The test data results for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, carbon monoxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, or lead are less than 75 percent of the applicable emission
limits.
(C) There are no changes in the operation of the SSI unit or air
pollution control equipment that could increase emissions. In this
case, you do not have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant
for the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the
third year and no more than 36 months following the previous
performance test.
(ii) If your SSI unit continues to emit less than 75 percent of the
emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, carbon monoxide, or lead and
there are no changes in the operation of the SSI unit or air pollution
control equipment that could increase emissions, you may choose to
conduct performance tests for these pollutants every third year, but
each test must be within 36 months of the previous performance test.
(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, carbon
monoxide, or lead, you must conduct annual performance tests for that
pollutant until all performance tests over the next 3-year period are
within 75 percent of the applicable emission limit.
(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.
60.4900(b)(6) and use the following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limit, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous emissions
monitoring system specified in Sec. 60.4900(b).
(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans total mass,
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, you may substitute the use of a
continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant (except opacity) specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section in lieu of conducting the annual performance test for
that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of
conducting the annual opacity and particulate matter performance tests
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) You may substitute the use of a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual opacity
performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the annual
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in either
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, you must use the continuous
emissions monitoring system and follow the requirements
[[Page 63304]]
specified in Sec. 60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to
Sec. 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7
percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial
compliance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic
average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 60.4880(e).
For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use
Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 1
of appendix F of this part.
(5) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.4900(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages
as specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
(6) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your periodic performance evaluations required under your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems, according to the schedule specified in your
monitoring plan. If you were previously determining compliance by
conducting an annual performance test, you must complete the initial
performance evaluation required in your monitoring plan in Sec.
60.4880 for the continuous monitoring system within 60 days of
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring, or continuous
automated sampling system. Your performance evaluation must be
conducted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in
Sec. 60.4880(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you
must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using EPA Method 23.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency
factor specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in Sec.
60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation report specified in Sec.
60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet each emission limit
in Table 1 to this subpart.
(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance
test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the
provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in Sec. 60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance test as
soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator
will determine whether or not to grant the extension to the performance
test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval or
disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
Sec. 60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my
operating limits?
You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section, according to the monitoring and calibration requirements
in Sec. 60.4905.
(a) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section using the
continuous monitoring equipment and according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.4905, except as provided in Sec. 60.4855. Four-
hour rolling average values are used to determine compliance (except
for sludge moisture content and alarm time of the baghouse leak
detection system) unless a different averaging period is established
under Sec. 60.4855 for an air pollution control device other than a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection. A daily average must be used to determine compliance
for sludge moisture content.
(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limits established according to Sec. Sec. 60.4855 and 60.4870 for each
applicable operating parameter.
(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limit for bag leak detection systems as follows:
(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must calculate the alarm
time as follows:
(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time shall be
counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is counted as the
actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action.
(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period, as specified in Sec. 60.4850(c).
(b) Operation above the established maximum, below the established
minimum, or outside the allowable range of the operating limits
specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from
your operating limits established under this subpart, except during
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. You must
submit the deviation report specified in Sec. 60.4915(e) for each
instance that you did not meet one of your operating limits established
under this subpart.
(c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in Sec.
60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous compliance.
[[Page 63305]]
Sec. 60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution
control device used to comply with the emission limits, according to
Sec. 60.4900(c), within 10 to 12 months following the previous annual
air pollution control device inspection.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless you
obtain written approval from the Administrator establishing a date
whereby all necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be
completed.
Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements
Sec. 60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the monitoring requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control
device inspections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(a) Performance testing requirements. (1) All performance tests
must consist of a minimum of three test runs conducted under conditions
representative of normal operations, as specified in Sec. 60.8(c).
Emissions in excess of the emission limits or standards during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered deviations from
the applicable emission limits or standards.
(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the
performance test is representative of the sludge burned under normal
operating conditions by:
(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned
during the performance test.
(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the sewage sludge
burned during the performance test.
(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the test methods,
minimum sampling volume, observation period, and averaging methods
specified in Table 1 to this subpart.
(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to select
the sampling location and number of traverse points.
(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used
for gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen
concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be
used simultaneously with each method.
(6) All pollutant concentrations, except for opacity, must be
adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC10.001
Where:
Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent
oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis.
(20.9-7) = 20.9 percent oxygen-7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,
percent.
(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in this
subpart unless the Administrator does one of the following.
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a method
with minor changes in methodology.
(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the results of
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a
specific source is in compliance.
(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests because you have
demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the affected SSI unit is in compliance with the standard.
(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this
paragraph is construed to abrogate the Administrator's authority to
require testing under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as specified under other
subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present. If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.)
in conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify the
Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the original test
date, either by providing at least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled
date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.
(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods applicable to the
SSI unit, as follows:
(A) Constructing the air pollution control system such that
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately
determined by applicable test methods and procedures.
(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each performance
test must consist of three separate runs using the applicable test
method. Each run must be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each
emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of
the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally lost or
conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued
because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the
sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the
Administrator's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of
the results of the two other runs.
(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet the following
requirements, as applicable, when using a continuous monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart. The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for
[[Page 63306]]
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the
date a final performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register.
If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring system or
continuous opacity monitoring system instead of conducting annual
performance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(1) through (6) of this section. If you elect to use a continuous
automated sampling system instead of conducting annual performance
testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) of this
section. The option to use a continuous automated sampling system for
mercury or dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a final performance
specification for such a continuous automated sampling system is
published in the Federal Register.
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity
monitoring system.
(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity
monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance
test within 60 days of ceasing operation of the system.
(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the emissions to
the atmosphere or opacity in accordance with the following:
(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(ii) The following performance specifications of appendix B of this
part, as applicable:
(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11 of
appendix B of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 15 of appendix
B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B of appendix B
of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of appendix B of
this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(J) For opacity, Performance Specification 1 of appendix B of this
part.
(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, the quality
assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests) of appendix F of this part specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section. For each
pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system
is two times the applicable emission limit, expressed as a
concentration.
(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure
1 shall be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B
of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emissions monitoring system using the performance specifications in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data for each regulated
pollutant and oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph
(b)(5) of this section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30-
to 60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions monitors and the
test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (viii) of this
section. Relative accuracy testing must be at normal operating
conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used.
(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, shall be used.
(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4, shall be used.
(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
shall be used.
(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02, shall be used.
(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, shall be used.
(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, or as an alternative American National Standards
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981 Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] must be
used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts
per million dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet
sulfur dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system should be no
greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data in
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry
volume absolute value of the mean difference between the method and the
continuous emissions monitoring system, whichever is greater.
(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph
(a)(2)(v) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-2, or as an alternative American National Standards Institute/
American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as
applicable, must be used.
(5) You may request that compliance with the emission limits
(except opacity) be determined using carbon dioxide measurements
corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon dioxide is
selected for use in diluent corrections, the relationship between
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be established during the initial
performance test according to the procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. This relationship
may be re-established during subsequent performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-2 must be used to determine the relationship between oxygen
and carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR
part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National Standards
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.-10-1981--
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as
applicable, must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the
same location as the carbon dioxide monitor.
(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.
(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed.
[[Page 63307]]
(6) You must collect data with the continuous monitoring system as
follows:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous opacity monitoring system data in
accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(1), and you must collect continuous
emissions monitoring system data in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 60.4930, constitute a deviation from
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (iv) of this
section in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system
instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system according to the site-specific monitoring
plan developed in Sec. 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10),
and (q).
(ii) Collect data according to Sec. 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You must conduct air
pollution control device inspections that include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation,
if applicable.
(2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed
systems, and any other monitoring equipment.
(3) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(4) Ensure that the air pollution control device meets manufacturer
recommendations.
(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that sewage
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an emissions standards
deviation for all pollutants listed in Table 1 to this subpart. The use
of the bypass stack during a performance test invalidates the
performance test.
Sec. 60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring systems for measuring flow, pressure,
pH, and temperature according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (2) of this section:
(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, pressure, pH,
and temperature measurement devices:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring system data
in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 60.4930, constitute a deviation from
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this
section in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all recorded readings,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(vii) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(2) Meet the following requirements for each type of measurement
device:
(i) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
(A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent
of the flow rate.
(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi-annually.
(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy, according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75
of this chapter.
(ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure.
(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of
water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure range.
(D) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(E) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy.
(iii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH
measurement
[[Page 63308]]
device, you must meet the following requirements:
(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(C) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
temperature measurement device, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary equipment in
a position that provides a representative temperature.
(B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic temperature
range.
(C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a cryogenic temperature
range.
(D) Conduct a temperature measurement device calibration check at
least every 3 months.
(b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring systems for voltage, amperage, mass
flow rate, and bag leak detection system as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary amperage (or power
input) of an electrostatic precipitator, you must use secondary voltage
and secondary amperage monitoring equipment to measure secondary
voltage and secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator.
(2) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent injection (e.g., weigh
belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet
the following requirements:
(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with
the manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the requirements of
this subpart, you must:
(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your bag leak
detection system as follows:
(A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
(B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, operated,
calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in
accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September
1997.
(C) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
(D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm
must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a bag leak detection
system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in
continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under
Sec. 60.4880.
(ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every
alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you must alleviate the cause of
the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective
action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not
limited to the following:
(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
particulate matter emissions.
(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing
the control device.
(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(F) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous parameter
monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required
under Sec. 60.4880.
(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install,
calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a
device or method for measuring the use of the bypass stack including
date, time, and duration.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Sec. 60.4910 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs
(a) through (m) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All
records must be available on site in either paper copy or computer-
readable format that can be printed upon request, unless an alternative
format is approved by the Administrator.
(a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result of the siting
requirements of Sec. Sec. 60.4800 and 60.4805.
(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training
procedures and records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section. You must make available and readily accessible at the
facility at all times for all SSI unit operators the documentation
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) Documentation of the following operator training procedures and
information:
(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart.
(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding sewage sludge.
(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction procedures.
(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply
levels.
(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and associated air
pollution control systems within the standards established under this
subpart.
(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating compliance with the
incinerator operating limits.
(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
(viii) Procedures for handling ash.
[[Page 63309]]
(ix) A list of the materials burned during the performance test, if
in addition to sewage sludge.
(x) For each qualified operator and other plant personnel who may
operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec. 60.4835(a), the
phone and/or pager number at which they can be reached during operating
hours.
(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec.
60.4835(a), as follows:
(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who have completed review of the information in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section as required by Sec. 60.4840(b), including the
date of the initial review and all subsequent annual reviews.
(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators who have
completed the operator training requirements under Sec. 60.4810, met
the criteria for qualification under Sec. 60.4820, and maintained or
renewed their qualification under Sec. 60.4825 or Sec. 60.4830.
Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of
their initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such
qualifications.
(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks, as required in
Sec. 60.4835(a).
(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for 2 weeks or more along with copies of reports submitted
as required in Sec. 60.4835(b).
(d) Air pollution control device inspections. Records of the
results of initial and annual air pollution control device inspections
conducted as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including
any required maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days
of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(e) Performance test reports. (1) The results of the initial,
annual, and any subsequent performance tests conducted to determine
compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to establish
operating limits, as applicable.
(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test report,
including calculations.
(3) Keep a record of the log of the quantity of sewage sludge
burned during the performance tests, as required in Sec.
60.4900(a)(2).
(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that the performance
test was conducted under conditions representative of normal
operations.
(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, all 6-minute average
and 1-hour block average levels of opacity.
(2) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 1-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, and lead emissions.
(3) For continuous automated sampling systems, all average
concentrations measured for mercury and dioxins/furans at the
frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(4) For continuous parameter monitoring systems:
(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the following operating
parameters, as applicable:
(A) Dry sludge feed rate and combustion chamber temperature (or
afterburner temperature).
(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the rule, pressure
drop across the wet scrubber system, liquor flow rate to the wet
scrubber, and liquor pH as introduced to the wet scrubber.
(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to comply with the
rule, voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates or
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, and
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrostatic
precipitator.
(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop,
as applicable.
(ii) Daily average values and composite sample values for sludge
moisture content.
(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the rule, the date,
time, and duration of each alarm and the time corrective action was
initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the
alarm and the corrective action taken. You must also record the percent
of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm sounds,
calculated as specified in Sec. 60.4850(b).
(iv) For other control devices for which you must establish
operating limits under Sec. 60.4855, you must maintain data collected
for all operating parameters used to determine compliance with the
operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. You must keep
the following records, as applicable:
(1) Keep records of any notifications to the Administrator in Sec.
60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring
system for determining compliance with any emissions limit.
(2) Keep records of any requests under Sec. 60.4900(b)(5) that
compliance with the emission limits (except opacity) be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen.
(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
the type of sorbent used and any changes in the type of sorbent used.
(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation reports submitted
under Sec. 60.4915(e) and (f).
(i) Equipment specifications and operation and maintenance
requirements. Equipment specifications and related operation and
maintenance requirements received from vendors for the incinerator,
emission controls, and monitoring equipment.
(j) Calibration of monitoring devices. Records of calibration of
any monitoring devices as required under Sec. Sec. 60.4900 and
60.4905.
(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for continuous
monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plan required under Sec.
60.4880, and records of performance evaluations required under Sec.
60.4885(b)(6).
(l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that
your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent testing under Sec.
60.4885(a)(3).
(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass
stack, including dates, times, and durations as required under Sec.
60.4905(c).
Sec. 60.4915 What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (a) through (j)
of this section. See Table 4 to this subpart for a summary of these
reports.
(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a notification
prior to commencing construction that includes the four items listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) A statement of intent to construct.
(2) The anticipated date of commencement of construction.
(3) All documentation produced as a result of the siting
requirements of Sec. 60.4805.
(4) Anticipated date of initial startup.
(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this
section prior to initial startup:
(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity.
(2) The anticipated maximum dry sludge feed rate.
(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits
specified in Sec. 60.4855.
[[Page 63310]]
(4) The anticipated date of initial startup.
(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under Sec. 60.4880,
at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation of your
continuous monitoring system.
(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following
information no later than 60 days following the initial performance
test.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report.
(4) The complete test report for the initial performance test
results obtained by using the test methods specified in Table 1 to this
subpart.
(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring
system was conducted, the results of that initial performance
evaluation.
(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits established
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 60.4850 and 60.4855 and the calculations and
methods used to establish each operating limit.
(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with the emission
limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been
installed and is being operated, calibrated, and maintained as required
by Sec. 60.4850(b).
(8) The results of the initial air pollution control device
inspection required in Sec. 60.4875, including a description of
repairs.
(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an annual compliance
report that includes the items listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (15)
of this section for the reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3)
of this section. You must submit your first annual compliance report no
later than 12 months following the submission of the initial compliance
report in paragraph (c) of this section. You must submit subsequent
annual compliance reports no more than 12 months following the previous
annual compliance report. (If the unit is subject to permitting
requirements under title V of the Clean Air Act, you may be required by
the permit to submit these reports more frequently.)
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting
period, the results of that performance test.
(i) If operating limits were established during the performance
test, include the value for each operating limit and the method used to
establish each operating limit, including calculations.
(ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test,
include the type of activated carbon used.
(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a
continuous monitoring system, the highest recorded 3-hour average and
the lowest recorded 3-hour average during the reporting period, as
applicable.
(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting period from any
emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to
you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limits, emission standard, or operating limits.
(7) Information for bag leak detection systems recorded under Sec.
60.4910(f)(4)(iii).
(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system
was conducted, the results of that performance evaluation. If new
operating limits were established during the performance evaluation,
include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
(9) If you met the requirements of Sec. 60.4885(a)(3) and did not
conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you must
include the dates of the last three performance tests, a comparison of
the emission level you achieved in the last three performance tests to
the 75 percent emission limit threshold specified in Sec.
60.4885(a)(3)(i)(B), and a statement as to whether there have been any
process changes and whether the process change resulted in an increase
in emissions.
(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI unit operators
were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks.
(11) Results of annual air pollution control device inspections
recorded under Sec. 60.4910(d) for the reporting period, including a
description of repairs.
(12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your
continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction.
(13) If there were no periods during the reporting period when a
continuous monitoring system was out of control, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems were
out of control.
(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a statement
that there were no such deviations during the reporting period.
(15) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring
plan during the reporting period, a statement that you did not make any
revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan during the reporting
period. If you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan.
(e) Deviation reports. (1) You must submit a deviation report if:
(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average parameter level is above
the maximum operating limit or below the minimum operating limit
established under this subpart.
(ii) Any recorded daily average sludge moisture content is outside
the allowable range.
(iii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5
percent of the operating time for the 6-month reporting period.
(iv) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average emissions level is above
the emission limit, if a continuous monitoring system is used to comply
with an emission limit.
(v) Any opacity level recorded under Sec. 60.4865(b)(5) that is
above the opacity limit, if a continuous opacity monitoring system is
used.
(vi) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash
conveying system for more than 5 percent of the hourly observation
period.
(vii) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
(viii) A continuous monitoring system was out of control.
(ix) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system
malfunction) that caused or may have caused any applicable emission
limit to be exceeded.
(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 1 of that year
for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January
1 to June 30), and by February 1 of the following year for data you
collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to
December 31).
(3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring
system to comply with an associated emission limit or operating limit,
report the items described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (viii) of
this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of
the report.
(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission
[[Page 63311]]
limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents.
(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each
deviation and any test report that documents the emission levels.
(viii) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system had a malfunction or was out of control, you must include the
following information for each deviation from an emission limit or
operating limit:
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out of control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction, during
a period when the system as out of control, or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the SSI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the SSI unit.
(I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(4) For each deviation where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system to comply with the associated emission limit or
operating limit, report the following items:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI during the
reporting period.
(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standard, or operating limits requirements.
(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating limits, and
your corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vii) A copy of any performance test report that showed a deviation
from the emission limits or standard.
(viii) A brief description of any malfunction reported in paragraph
(e)(1)(viii) of this section, including a description of actions taken
during the malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with
60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction.
(f) Qualified operator deviation. (1) If all qualified operators
are not accessible for 2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions
in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 days that
includes the three items in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) A statement of what caused the deviation.
(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
available.
(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks that
includes the three items in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of
this section.
(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
accessible.
(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to continue
operation of the SSI unit.
(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, under the
provisions of Sec. 60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an
accessible qualified operator, you must notify the Administrator within
5 days of meeting Sec. 60.4835(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming
operation.
(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure:
(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date you first knew, or through due diligence
should have known that the event may cause or caused a delay in
conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but the
notification must occur before the performance test deadline unless the
initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the
notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as soon as
practicable.
(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct the
performance test.
(h) Other notifications and reports required. You must submit other
notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7 and as follows:
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting or
stopping use of a continuous monitoring system for determining
compliance with any emission limit.
(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 days prior to any
performance test conducted to comply with the provisions of this
subpart, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.4900(a)(8), you must notify the
Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled
performance test for which notification was previously made in
paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
(i) Report submission form. (1) Submit initial, annual, and
deviation reports electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or
before the submittal due dates.
(2) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or performance test conducted to
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative
accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity, to
EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically into EPA's
Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic
[[Page 63312]]
Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
(j) Changing report dates. If the Administrator agrees, you may
change the semi-annual or annual reporting dates. See Sec. 60.19(c)
for procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.
Title V Operating Permits
Sec. 60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are required to apply
for and obtain a title V operating permit unless you meet the relevant
requirements for an exemption specified in Sec. 60.4780.
Sec. 60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application for my
new SSI unit?
(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is not subject to
an earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V permit
application must be submitted on or before one of the dates specified
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(1) For an SSI unit that commenced operation as a new SSI unit as
of [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
then a complete title V permit application must be submitted not later
than [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operation as a new SSI
unit until after [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title V permit application must be
submitted not later than 12 months after the date the unit commences
operation as a new source.
(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is subject to
title V as a result of some triggering requirement(s) other than this
subpart (for example, a unit subject to this subpart may be a major
source or part of a major source), then your unit may be required to
apply for a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one requirement triggers a
source's obligation to apply for a title V permit, the 12-month
timeframe for filing a title V permit application is triggered by the
requirement that first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See
section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(c) A ``complete'' title V permit application is one that has been
determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority
under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40
CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the
relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in
compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)
Definitions
Sec. 60.4930 What definitions must I know?
Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean
Air Act and Sec. 60.2.
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, fuel
oil, or diesel fuel.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on January 1 and
ending on December 31.
Co-fired combustor means a unit combusting sewage sludge or
dewatered sludge pellets with other fuels or wastes (e.g., coal, clean
biomass, municipal solid waste, commercial or institutional waste,
hospital medical infectious waste, unused pharmaceuticals, other solid
waste) and subject to an enforceable requirement limiting the unit to
combusting a fuel feed stream, 10 percent or less of the weight of
which is comprised, in aggregate, of sewage sludge.
Continuous automated sampling system means the total equipment and
procedures for automated sample collection and sample recovery/analysis
to determine a pollutant concentration or emission rate by collecting a
single integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of the
pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on- or off-site analysis;
integrated sample(s) collected are representative of the emissions for
the sample time as specified by the applicable requirement.
Continuous emissions monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording the emissions of a pollutant
from an affected facility.
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous automated sampling system, continuous
parameter monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or
other manual or automatic monitoring that is used for demonstrating
compliance with an applicable regulation on a continuous basis as
defined by this subpart. The term refers to the total equipment used to
sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a
permanent record of emissions or process parameters.
Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording operating conditions
associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g.,
temperature, pressure, and power).
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic precipitator means
an air pollution control device that uses both electrical forces and,
if applicable, water to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage
sludge incinerator stack.
Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter
media, also known as a baghouse.
Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in which organic
matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge are combusted in a bed of
particles suspended in the combustion chamber gas.
[[Page 63313]]
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the
operator shall operate within established emissions and operating
limits and shall continue monitoring of all applicable operating
parameters until all waste has been combusted or until the malfunction
ceases, whichever comes first.
Maximum feed rate means 110 percent of the highest 3-hour average
dry charge rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits or
standards.
Modification means a change to an SSI unit later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] and that meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit
exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the
SSI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of SSI
unit.
(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of
operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted for
which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established
standards.
Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an SSI unit
that undergoes a modification, as defined in this section.
Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel furnace that
contains a number of solid refractory hearths and a central rotating
shaft; rabble arms that are designed to slowly rake the sludge on the
hearth are attached to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at
the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to
hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms.
New sewage sludge incineration unit means an SSI unit the
construction of which is commenced after October 14, 2010 which would
be applicable to such unit or a modified solid waste incineration unit.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of sewage sludge is
combusted at any time in the SSI unit.
Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter emitted from
SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or
Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8.
Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of
the test-run average secondary voltage and the test-run average
secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
Process change means that any of the following have occurred:
(1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment
facility associated with the affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of
tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for
disposing of process solids and processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply
with the emission limits for the affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
(3) An allowable increase in the quantity of wastewater received
from an industrial source by the wastewater treatment facility.
Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated
during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage
sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or
solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment
processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incineration unit or grit and screenings generated during
preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage sludge is
fed into the incinerator unit.
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an incineration unit
combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the
sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge
incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.
Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage sludge has been
combusted in the primary chamber.
Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid,
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, agricultural operations, and from community
activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return
flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2014).
Standard conditions, when referring to units of measure, means a
temperature of 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere
(101.3 kilopascals).
Startup means the period of time between the activation, including
the firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or distillate oil), of the
system and the first feed to the unit.
Toxic equivalency means the product of the concentration of an
individual dioxin congener in an environmental mixture and the
corresponding estimate of the compound-specific toxicity relative to
tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency
factor for that compound. Table 3 to this subpart lists the toxic
equivalency factors.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that
utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate
matter (including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to
absorb and neutralize acid gases.
You means the owner or operator of an SSI unit that meets the
criteria in Sec. 60.4770.
[[Page 63314]]
Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining compliance
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or using this method
durations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter.......... 4.1 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method 5
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 3 dry at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-3; Method 26A
run). or Method 29 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride........... 0.12 parts per million by 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
dry volume. 26, collect a minimum 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part
volume of 200 liters per 60, appendix A-8).
run. For Method 26A,
collect a minimum volume
of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Carbon monoxide............. 7.4 parts per million by 4-hour rolling average Continuous emissions
dry volume. (using 1-hour averages of monitoring system.
data).
Dioxins/furans (total mass 0.024 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
basis). standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 3 dry 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-7).
run).
Dioxins/furans (toxic 0.0022 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
equivalency basis). standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 3 dry 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-7).
run).
Mercury..................... 0.0010 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. 29 and ASTM D6784-02, 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
collect a minimum volume appendix A-8; Method 30B
of 3 dry standard cubic at 40 CFR part 60,
meters per run. For appendix A (when
Method 30B, collect a published in the Federal
minimum sample as Register); or ASTM D6784-
specified in Method 30B 02, Standard Test Method
at 40 CFR part 60, for Elemental, Oxidized,
appendix A). Particle Bound and Total
Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method).
Oxides of nitrogen.......... 26 parts per million by 3-run average (Collect Performance test (Method 7
dry volume. sample for a minimum or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
duration of one hour per appendix A-4).
run).
Sulfur dioxide.............. 2.0 parts per million by 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method 6
dry volume. 6, collect a minimum or 6C at 40 CFR part 40,
volume of 200 liters per appendix A-4; or ANSI/
run. For Method 6C, ASME PTC-19.10-1981 Flue
collect sample for a and Exhaust Gas Analysis
minimum duration of one [Part 10, Instruments and
hour per run). Apparatus]).
Cadmium..................... 0.00051 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 3 dry 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-8).
run).
Lead........................ 0.00053 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 3 dry 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-8).
run).
Opacity..................... 0 percent................. 6-minute averages, three 1- Performance test (Method 9
hour observation periods. at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4).
Fugitive emissions from ash Visible emissions of Three 1-hour observation Visible emission test
handling. combustion ash from an periods. (Method 22 of appendix A-
ash conveying system 7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for no
more than 5 percent of
the hourly observation
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
Table 2--to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
You must establish these -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these operating parameters operating limits Averaging time for
Data measurement Data recording \b\ compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All SSI units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry sludge feed rate.............. Maximum dry sludge feed rate.. Continuous.................. Hourly.................... 4-hour rolling.\c\
Combustion chamber temperature or Minimum combustion temperature Continuous.................. Every 15 minutes.......... 4-hour rolling.\c\
afterburner temperature. or afterburner temperature.
Sludge moisture content........... Range of moisture content Composite of three samples Daily..................... Daily.
(percent). taken 6 hours apart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63315]]
Scrubber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure drop across each wet Minimum pressure drop or Continuous.................. Every 15 minutes.......... 4-hour rolling.\c\
scrubber or amperage to each wet minimum amperage.
scrubber.
Scrubber liquor flow rate......... Minimum flow rate............. Continuous.................. Every 15 minutes.......... 4-hour rolling.\c\
Scrubber liquor pH................ Minimum pH.................... Continuous.................. Every 15 minutes.......... 4-hour rolling.\c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time of the bag leak Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in Sec. 60.4850 and is
detection system alarm. not established on a site-specific basis)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrostatic precipitator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage of the Minimum power input to the Continuous.................. Hourly.................... 4-hour rolling.\c\
electrostatic precipitator electrostatic precipitator
collection plates. collection plates.
Secondary amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator
collection plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the Maximum effluent water flow Hourly...................... Hourly.................... 4-hour rolling.\c\
outlet of the electrostatic rate at the outlet of the
precipitator. electrostatic precipitator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activated carbon injection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury sorbent injection rate.... Minimum mercury sorbent Hourly...................... Hourly.................... 4-hour rolling.\c\
injection rate.
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent
rate. injection rate.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier Minimum carrier gas flow rate Continuous.................. Every 15 minutes.......... 4-hour rolling.\c\
gas pressure drop. or minimum carrier gas
pressure drop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As specified in Sec. 60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous automated
sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits.
\b\ This recording time refers to the frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data recorded
every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters except sludge moisture content, you use hourly averages to
calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
\c\ Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating hours.
Table 3--to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic
Dioxin/furan congener equivalency
factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin................. 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............... 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.......................... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran..................... 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............... 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran.............................. 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification of construction............ Prior to commencing Statement of Sec.
construction. intent to construct. 60.4915(a)
Anticipated date
of commencement of
construction.
[[Page 63316]]
Documentation for
siting requirements.
Anticipated date
of initial startup.
Notification of initial startup......... Prior to initial startup.. Maximum design Sec.
dry sewage sludge burning 60.4915(b)
capacity.
Anticipated
maximum feed rate.
If applicable,
the petition for site-
specific operating limits.
Anticipated date
of initial startup.
Site-specific
monitoring plan.
Initial compliance report............... No later than 60 days Company name and Sec.
following the initial address. 60.4915(c)
performance test. Statement by a
responsible official,
with that official's
name, title, and
signature, certifying the
accuracy of the content
of the report.
Date of report...
Complete test
report for the initial
performance test.
Results of CMS
\b\ performance
evaluation.
The values for
the site-specific
operating limits and the
calculations and methods
used to establish each
operating limit.
Documentation of
installation of bag leak
detection system for
fabric filter.
Results of
initial air pollution
control device
inspection, including a
description of repairs.
Annual compliance report................ No later than 12 months Company name and Sec. Sec.
following the submission address. 60.4915(d)
of the initial compliance Statement and
report; subsequent signature by responsible
reports are to be official.
submitted no more than 12 Date and
months following the beginning and ending
previous report. dates of report.
If a performance
test was conducted during
the reporting period, the
results of the test,
including any new
operating limits and
associated calculations
and the type of activated
carbon used, if
applicable.
For each
pollutant and operating
parameter recorded using
a CMS, the highest
recorded 3-hour average
and the lowest recorded 3-
hour average, as
applicable.
If no deviations
from emission limits,
emission standards, or
operating limits
occurred, a statement
that no deviations
occurred.
If a fabric
filter is used, the date,
time, and duration of
alarms.
If a performance
evaluation of a CMS was
conducted, the results,
including any new
operating limits and
their associated
calculations.
If you met the
requirements of Sec.
60.4885(a)(3) and did not
conduct a performance
test, include the dates
of the last three
performance tests, a
comparison to the 75
percent emission limit
threshold of the emission
level achieved in the
last three performance
tests, and a statement as
to whether there have
been any process changes.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified SSI unit
operators were
unavailable for more than
8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
[[Page 63317]]
Results of annual
pollutions control device
inspections, including
description of repairs.
If there were no
periods during which your
CMSs had malfunctions, a
statement that there were
no periods during which
your CMSs had
malfunctions.
If there were no
periods during which your
CMSs were out of control,
a statement that there
were no periods during
which your CMSs were out
of control.
If there were no
operator training
deviations, a statement
that there were no such
deviations.
Information on
monitoring plan
revisions, including a
copy of any revised
monitoring plan.
Deviation report (deviations from By August 1 of a calendar If using a CMS: Sec.
emission limits, emission standards, or year for data collected Company name and 60.4915(e)
operating limits, as specified in Sec. during the first half of address..
60.4915(e)(1)). the calendar year; by Statement by a
February 1 of a calendar responsible official..
year for data collected The calendar
during the second half of dates and times your unit
the calendar year. deviated from the
emission limits or
operating limits..
The averaged and
recorded data for those
dates.
Duration and
cause of each deviation.
Dates, times, and
causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
A copy of the
operating parameter
monitoring data during
each deviation and any
test report that
documents the emission
levels.
For periods of
CMS malfunction or when a
CMS was out of control,
you must include the
information specified in
Sec.
60.4915(e)(3)(viii).
If not using a CMS:
Company name and
address.
Statement by a
responsible official.
The total
operating time of each
affected SSI.
The calendar
dates and times your unit
deviated from the
emission limits, emission
standard, or operating
limits.
The averaged and
recorded data for those
dates.
Duration and
cause of each deviation.
A copy of any
performance test report
that showed a deviation
from the emission limits
or standards.
A brief
description of any
malfunction, a
description of actions
taken during the
malfunction to minimize
emissions, and corrective
action taken.
Notification of qualified operator Within 10 days of Statement of Sec.
deviation (if all qualified operators deviation. cause of deviation. 60.4915(f)
are not accessible for 2 weeks or more). Description of
actions taken to ensure
that a qualified operator
will be available.
The date when a
qualified operator will
be accessible.
Notification of status of qualified Every 4 weeks following Description of Sec.
operator deviation. notification of deviation. actions taken to ensure 60.4915(f)
that a qualified operator
is accessible.
The date when you
anticipate that a
qualified operator will
be accessible.
Request for
approval to continue
operation.
[[Page 63318]]
Notification of resumed operation Within 5 days of obtaining Notification that Sec.
following shutdown (due to qualified a qualified operator and you have obtained a 60.4915(f)
operator deviation and as specified in resuming operation. qualified operator and
Sec. 60.4835(b)(2)(i). are resuming operation.
Notification of a force majeure......... As soon as practicable Description of Sec.
following the date you the force majeure event. 60.4915(g)
first knew, or through Rationale for
due diligence should have attributing the delay in
known that the event may conducting the
cause or caused a delay performance test beyond
in conducting a the regulatory deadline
performance test beyond to the force majeure.
the regulatory deadline; Description of
the notification must the measures taken or to
occur before the be taken to minimize the
performance test deadline delay.
unless the initial force Identification of
majeure or a subsequent the date by which you
force majeure event propose to conduct the
delays the notice, and in performance test.
such cases, the
notification must occur
as soon as practicable.
Notification of intent to start or stop 1 month before starting or Intent to start Sec.
use of a CMS. stopping use of a CMS. or stop use of a CMS. 60.4915(h)
Notification of intent to conduct a At least 30 days prior to Intent to conduct
performance test. the performance test. a performance test to
comply with this subpart.
Notification of intent to conduct a At least 7 days prior to Intent to conduct
rescheduled performance test. the date of a rescheduled a rescheduled performance
performance test. test to comply with this
subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
\b\ CMS means continuous monitoring system.
Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table of Contents
Introduction
Sec.
60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?
60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
60.5010 Is a State plan required for all states?
60.5015 What must I include in my State plan?
60.5020 Is there an approval process for my State plan?
60.5025 What if my State plan is not approvable?
60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration
letter?
60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my State plan?
60.5040 Are there any State plan requirements for this subpart that
apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
60.5045 In lieu of a State plan submittal, are there other
acceptable option(s) for a State to meet its section 111(d)/
129(b)(2) obligations?
60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies?
60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners and
operators in my State?
Applicability of State Plans
60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my State plan?
60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my State plan?
Use of Model Rule
60.5070 What is the ``model rule'' in this subpart?
60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required elements of
my State plan?
60.5080 What are the principal components of the model rule?
Model Rule--Increments of Progress
60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of progress
and achieving final compliance?
60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?
60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?
60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal
of a control plan?
60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving
final compliance?
60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then restart it?
60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my SSI unit
and not restart it?
Model Rule--Operator Training and Qualification
60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of
Sec. 60.5155(a)?
Model Rule--Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits
60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.5170 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit emissions in some
other manner, to comply with the emission limits?
60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and operating
limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for exceedance of an
emission limit or standard during malfunction?
Model Rule--Initial Compliance Requirements
60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?
60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device
[[Page 63319]]
inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by
what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?
Model Rule--Continuous Compliance Requirements
60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
Model Rule--Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration
Requirements
60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
Model Rule--Recordkeeping and Reporting
60.5230 What records must I keep?
60.5235 What reports must I submit?
Model Rule--Title V Operating Permits
60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating
permit for my existing SSI unit?
60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application for my
existing SSI unit?
Model Rule--Definitions
60.5250 What definitions must I know?
TABLES
Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of
Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and
Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units
Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and
Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units
Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Operating Parameters
for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency
Factors
Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Summary of Reporting
Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Introduction
Sec. 60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of emissions from sewage sludge incineration
(SSI) units. The pollutants addressed by these emission guidelines are
listed in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are
developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent any requirement of this
subpart is inconsistent with the requirements of subpart A of this
part, the requirements of this subpart will apply.
Sec. 60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a
State or United States protectorate with one or more SSI units that
commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010, you must submit a
State plan to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that
implements the emission guidelines contained in this subpart.
(b) You must submit the State plan to EPA by [THE DATE 12 MONTHS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
Sec. 60.5010 Is a State plan required for all states?
No. You are not required to submit a State plan if there are no SSI
units for which construction commenced on or before October 14, 2010 in
your State, and you submit a negative declaration letter in place of
the State plan.
Sec. 60.5015 What must I include in my State plan?
(a) You must include the nine items described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (9) of this section in your State plan.
(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those that have
ceased operation but have not been dismantled.
(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in your State.
(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit.
(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and
qualification requirements, and operating limits for affected SSI units
that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in
this subpart.
(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(6) Certification that the hearing on the State plan was held, a
list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any,
appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each
presentation or written submission.
(7) Provision for State progress reports to EPA.
(8) Identification of enforceable State mechanisms that you
selected for implementing the emission guidelines of this subpart.
(9) Demonstration of your State's legal authority to carry out the
sections 111(d) and 129 State plan.
(b) Your State plan may deviate from the format and content of the
emission guidelines contained in this subpart. However, if your State
plan does deviate in content, you must demonstrate that your State plan
is at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this
subpart. Your State plan must address regulatory applicability,
increments of progress for retrofit, operator training and
qualification, emission limits and standards, performance testing,
operating limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting.
(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of this part
(Adoption and Submittal of State plans for Designated Facilities) in
your State plan.
Sec. 60.5020 Is there an approval process for my State plan?
Yes. The EPA will review your State plan according to Sec. 60.27.
Sec. 60.5025 What if my State plan is not approvable?
If you do not submit an approvable State plan (or a negative
declaration letter) by [THE DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA will
develop a Federal plan according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the
emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of
SSI units not covered by an approved State plan must comply with the
Federal plan. The Federal plan is an interim action and will be
automatically withdrawn when your State plan is approved.
Sec. 60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration
letter?
No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative declaration
letters. Once your negative declaration letter has been received, EPA
will place a copy in the public docket and publish a notice in the
Federal Register. If, at a later date, an SSI unit for which
construction commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your
State, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines contained
in this subpart would automatically apply to that SSI unit until your
State plan is approved.
[[Page 63320]]
Sec. 60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my State
plan?
(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or before October
14, 2010, your State plan must include compliance schedules that
require SSI units to achieve final compliance as expeditiously as
practicable after approval of the State plan but not later than the
earlier of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) Three years after the effective date of State plan approval.
(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 year following
the effective date of State plan approval, State plans must include
dates for enforceable increments of progress as specified in Sec.
60.5090.
Sec. 60.5040 Are there any State plan requirements for this subpart
that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for developing and
processing section 111(d) State plans. This subpart applies instead of
the requirements in subpart B of this part, as specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section:
(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart must be as
protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. State
plans must require all SSI units to comply by the dates specified in
Sec. 60.5035. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.
60.24(f).
(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart are required to
include two increments of progress for the affected SSI units. These
two minimum increments are the final control plan submittal date and
final compliance date in Sec. 60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies
instead of the requirement of Sec. 60.24(e)(1) that would require a
State plan to include all five increments of progress for all SSI
units.
Sec. 60.5045 In lieu of a State plan submittal, are there other
acceptable option(s) for a State to meet its section 111(d)/129 (b)(2)
obligations?
Yes, a State may meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129
obligations by submitting an acceptable written request for delegation
of the Federal plan that meets the requirements of this section. This
is the only other option for a State to meet its section 111(d)/129
obligations.
(a) An acceptable Federal plan delegation request must include the
following:
(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to
administer and enforce the Federal plan.
(2) The items under Sec. 60.5015(a)(1), (2), and (7).
(3) Certification that the hearing on the State delegation request,
similar to the hearing for a State plan submittal, was held, a list of
witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at
the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or
written submission.
(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Regional Administrator that sets forth the terms, conditions, and
effective date of the delegation and that serves as the mechanism for
the transfer of authority. Additional guidance and information is given
in EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and Enforcement
of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) Federal plans.
(b) A State with an already approved SSI Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129 State plan is not precluded from receiving EPA approval of a
delegation request for the revised Federal plan, provided the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met, and at the time
of the delegation request, the State also requests withdrawal of EPA's
previous State plan approval.
(c) A State's Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 obligations are
separate from its obligations under title V of the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to State, local,
or tribal agencies?
The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this
section.
(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards
in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and operating limits established
under Sec. 60.5175 or Sec. 60.5190.
(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods.
(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring.
(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting.
(e) The requirements in Sec. 60.5175.
(f) The requirements in Sec. 60.5155(b)(2).
(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.8(b).
Sec. 60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners and
operators in my State?
(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI unit owners and
operators in your State. However, SSI unit owners and operators must
comply with the State plan you develop to implement the emission
guidelines contained in this subpart. States may choose to incorporate
the model rule text directly in their State plan.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines contained in this subpart by [THE DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], EPA will implement and enforce a Federal plan, as provided
in Sec. 60.5025, to ensure that each unit within your State that
commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010 reaches compliance
with all the provisions of this subpart by the dates specified in Sec.
60.5035.
Applicability of State Plans
Sec. 60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my State plan?
(a) Your State plan must address SSI units that meet all three
criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) SSI units in your State that commenced construction on or
before October 14, 2010.
(2) SSI units that meet the definition of an SSI unit as defined in
Sec. 60.5250.
(3) SSI units not exempt under Sec. 60.5065.
(b) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes changes that meet
the definition of modification after [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSI unit
becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this part and the State plan no
longer applies to that unit.
(c) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes physical or
operational changes to an SSI unit for which construction commenced on
or before [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] primarily to comply with your State plan,
subpart LLLL of this part does not apply to that unit. Such changes do
not qualify as modifications under subpart LLLL of this part.
Sec. 60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my State plan?
This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge
that are located at an industrial or commercial facility subject to
subpart CCCC of this part, provided the owner or operator of such a
combustion unit notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim under
this section.
[[Page 63321]]
Use of Model Rule
Sec. 60.5070 What is the ``model rule'' in this subpart?
(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission guidelines
(Sec. Sec. 60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the regulatory
requirements applicable to SSI units. The model rule provides these
requirements in regulation format. You must develop a State plan that
is at least as protective as the model rule. You may use the model rule
language as part of your State plan. Alternative language may be used
in your State plan if you demonstrate that the alternative language is
at least as protective as the model rule contained in this subpart.
(b) In the model rule of Sec. Sec. 60.5085 through 60.5250,
``you'' and ``Administrator'' have the meaning specified in Sec.
60.5250.
Sec. 60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required elements
of my State plan?
Use the model rule to satisfy the State plan requirements specified
in Sec. 60.5015(a)(3) through (5).
Sec. 60.5080 What are the principal components of the model rule?
The model rule contains the nine major components listed in
paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
(a) Increments of progress toward compliance.
(b) Operator training and qualification.
(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
(d) Initial compliance requirements.
(e) Continuous compliance requirements.
(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
(g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(h) Definitions.
(i) Tables.
Model Rule--Increments of Progress
Sec. 60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of
progress and achieving final compliance?
If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the
effective date of State plan approval, you must meet the two increments
of progress specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Submit a final control plan.
(b) Achieve final compliance.
Sec. 60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?
Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for each
increment of progress.
Sec. 60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of achievement
of increments of progress?
Your notification of achievement of increments of progress must
include the three items specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(a) Notification that the increment of progress has been achieved.
(b) Any items required to be submitted with each increment of
progress.
(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
Notifications for achieving increments of progress must be
postmarked no later than 10 business days after the compliance date for
the increment.
Sec. 60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?
If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a
notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days
after the date for that increment of progress in Table 1 to this
subpart. You must inform the Administrator that you did not meet the
increment, and you must continue to submit reports each subsequent
calendar month until the increment of progress is met.
Sec. 60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for
submittal of a control plan?
For your control plan increment of progress, you must satisfy the
two requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the four items
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) A description of the devices for air pollution control and
process changes that you will use to comply with the emission limits
and standards and other requirements of this subpart.
(2) The type(s) of waste to be burned, if waste other than sewage
sludge is burned in the unit.
(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity.
(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits
under Sec. 60.5175.
(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control plan.
Sec. 60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for
achieving final compliance?
For the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete
all process changes and retrofit construction of control devices, as
specified in the final control plan, so that, if the affected SSI unit
is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution
control devices would operate as designed.
Sec. 60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then restart
it?
(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it prior to the
final compliance date in your State plan, you must meet the increments
of progress specified in Sec. 60.5085.
(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it after your final
compliance date, you must complete emission control retrofits and meet
the emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits on the
date your unit restarts operation.
Sec. 60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my SSI
unit and not restart it?
If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply with the
State plan, submit a closure notification, including the date of
closure, to the Administrator by the date your final control plan is
due.
Model Rule--Operator Training and Qualification
Sec. 60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit.
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you
must follow the procedures in Sec. 60.5155.
(b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a
State-approved program or by completing the requirements included in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Training must be obtained by completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a minimum, the three elements
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (x) of this section.
(i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions.
(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion.
(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by
the operator, including proper startup, sewage sludge feeding, and
shutdown procedures.
[[Page 63322]]
(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring.
(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors
affecting performance (if applicable).
(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air
pollution control devices.
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures.
(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards.
(x) Pollution prevention.
(2) An examination designed and administered by the State-approved
program.
(3) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.
Sec. 60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed?
The operator training course must be completed by the later of the
three dates specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2).
(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
(c) Six months after an employee assumes responsibility for
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the
operation of the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
(a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under Sec. 60.5130(b).
(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training
course is completed and the operator successfully passes the
examination required under Sec. 60.5130(c)(2).
Sec. 60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or
refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Update of regulations.
(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown
procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash handling.
(c) Inspection and maintenance.
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.
Sec. 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
You must renew a lapsed operator qualification by one of the two
methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, you must complete a standard
annual refresher course described in Sec. 60.5145.
(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial
qualification requirements in Sec. 60.5140(a).
Sec. 60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
If a qualified operator is not at the facility and cannot be at the
facility within 1 hour, you must meet the criteria specified in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, depending on the length of time
that a qualified operator is not accessible.
(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for more than 8
hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other
plant personnel who are familiar with the operation of the SSI unit who
have completed a review of the information specified in Sec. 60.5160
within the past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a
qualified operator was not accessible and include this deviation in the
annual report as specified under Sec. 60.5235(d).
(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions that are described in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10
days. In the notice, State what caused this deviation, what you are
doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you
anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible.
(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks
outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will
be accessible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to
continue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first status
report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is
accessible as required under Sec. 60.5130(a) and you notify the
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having
a qualified operator accessible.
Sec. 60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and how
often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec.
60.5155(a)?
(a) You must maintain at the facility the documentation of the
operator training procedures specified under Sec. 60.5230(c)(1) and
make the documentation readily accessible to all SSI unit operators.
(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information
listed in Sec. 60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified incinerator operator
and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the
provisions of Sec. 60.5155(a), according to the following schedule:
(1) The initial review of the information listed in Sec.
60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the effective
date of this subpart or prior to an employee's assumption of
responsibilities for operation of the SSI unit, whichever date is
later.
(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in Sec.
60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 months following the
previous review.
Model Rule--Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits
Sec. 60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by
when?
You must meet the emission limits and standards specified in Table
2 or 3 to this subpart by the final compliance date under the approved
State plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission
limits and standards apply at all times the unit is operating,
including, and not limited to, periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. The emission limits and standards apply to emissions from
a bypass stack or vent while sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI
unit.
Sec. 60.5170 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section, according to the schedule specified in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The operating parameters are
listed in Table 4 to this subpart. The operating limits apply at all
times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including periods of
malfunction.
(a) You must meet site-specific operating limits for maximum dry
sludge feed rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of
[[Page 63323]]
the combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) that you
establish in Sec. 60.5190.
(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
activated carbon injection, or afterburner to comply with an emission
limit, you must meet the site-specific operating limits that you
establish in Sec. 60.5190 for each operating parameter associated with
each air pollution control device.
(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits,
you must install the bag leak detection system specified in Sec.
60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag leak detection system such that
the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time
during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time as specified
in Sec. 60.5190.
(d) You must meet the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section by the final compliance date under the
approved State plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable.
(e) For the operating limits specified in paragraphs (a) and (b),
you may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to establish new
values for the operating limits to apply from that point forward. You
must confirm or reestablish operating limits during:
(1) Annual performance tests required under Sec. 60.5205(a).
(2) Performance tests required under Sec. 60.5205(a)(2).
(3) Periodic performance evaluations required under Sec.
60.5205(b)(5) to meet the operating limits specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
Sec. 60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit emissions in some other
manner, to comply with the emission limits?
If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated carbon
injection, or afterburner, or limit emissions in some other manner
(e.g., materials balance) to comply with the emission limits in Sec.
60.5165, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) Establish an operating limit each for maximum dry sludge feed
rate, sludge moisture content, and minimum temperature of the
combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion chamber) according to
Sec. 60.5190.
(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating parameters,
operating limits, and averaging periods to be established during the
initial performance test and to be monitored continuously thereafter.
(1) You must not conduct the initial performance test until after
the petition has been approved by the Administrator, and you must
comply with the operating limits as written, pending approval by the
Administrator.
(2) Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to
monitor.
(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters, and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters that will establish the operating limits on
these parameters, including a discussion of the averaging periods
associated with those parameters for determining compliance.
(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
Sec. 60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The emission limits and standards apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. The operating limits
apply at all times the unit is charging sewage sludge, including
periods of malfunction.
Sec. 60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for exceedance
of an emission limit or standard during malfunction?
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec. 60.5165 you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined in Sec. 60.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed; however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, then the
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive
relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this
section are met.
(1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices.
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance.
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Offshift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs.
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions.
(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage.
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health.
(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible.
(7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs.
(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions.
(9) You have prepared a written root cause analysis to determine,
correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(b) If your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its emission
limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify
[[Page 63324]]
the Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon
as possible, but no later than 2 business days after the initial
occurrence of the malfunction, if you wish to avail yourself of an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. If you
seek to assert an affirmative defense, you must also submit a written
report to the Administrator within 30 days of the initial occurrence of
the exceedance of the standard in Sec. 60.5165 to demonstrate, with
all necessary supporting documentation, that you have met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
Model Rule--Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and
standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to
demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable,
and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the
performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in Sec.
60.5220(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test
required in Sec. 60.8. You must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets
the emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium,
lead, opacity, and fugitive emissions from ash handling using the
performance test. The initial performance test must be conducted using
the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or
durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart and according to
the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements specified in
Sec. 60.5220(a).
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by your final compliance date
(see Table 1 to this subpart).
(2) You may use the results from a performance test conducted
within the 2 previous years that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. However,
you must continue to meet the operating limits established during the
most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The
performance test must have used the test methods specified in Table 2
or 3 to this subpart.
(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.
60.5220(b)(6) and use the following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans
total mass, dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, you may substitute the use
of a continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
(except opacity) in lieu of conducting the initial performance test for
that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a total hydrocarbon continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial carbon monoxide
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of
conducting the initial opacity and particulate matter performance tests
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial opacity
performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.
(v) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the annual
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous emissions
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or
carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-
hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(ii) Comply with the provisions in Sec. 60.58b(q) to develop a
monitoring plan. For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you
must use Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and
Procedure 1 of appendix F of this part.
(4) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages
as specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your initial performance evaluations required under your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring systems,
continuous opacity monitoring systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to this
subpart). Your performance evaluation must be conducted using the
procedures and acceptance criteria specified in Sec. 60.5200(a)(3).
[[Page 63325]]
(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as
follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using EPA Method 23.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency
factor specified in Table 5 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an initial compliance report, as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(b).
(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a performance test
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the provisions of
this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force
majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial performance test as soon
as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the extension to the initial
performance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval
or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
Sec. 60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?
(a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified
in paragraphs (c) through (l) of this section during the initial
performance tests and performance evaluations required in Sec. 60.5185
and the most recent performance tests and performance evaluations
required in Sec. 60.5205. Follow the data measurement and recording
frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 4 to this
subpart and follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5220 and 60.5225. You are not
required to establish operating limits for the operating parameters
listed in Table 4 to this subpart for a control device if you use a
continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for the applicable
pollutants, as follows:
(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of hydrogen
chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber (or
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.
60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide.
(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of particulate
matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber (or
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH
if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec.
60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead.
(3) You are not required to establish an operating limit and
monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage
of the collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of
the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring
system specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, lead, or
cadmium.
(4) You are not required to establish an operating limit and
monitor mercury sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or
carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for mercury.
(5) You are not required to establish an operating limit and
monitor dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate
(or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring
system specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits for dioxins/furans.
(b) For each operating parameter specified in paragraphs (c)
through (k) of this section, determine the average operating parameter
level during the initial or most recent performance test or performance
evaluation for the applicable pollutant(s) according to the procedures
specified in paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous monitoring systems that collect multiple data
points each hour. (i) Collect the incremental data for the operating
parameter (e.g., scrubber liquor flow rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride). For each applicable performance
test run period, calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter
level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of
the applicable performance test run periods specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section represents the average operating parameter
level (e.g., average scrubber liquor flow rate) during the performance
test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average operating
parameter level to establish the respective operating limit, as
specified in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
(2) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on an
hourly basis. (i) Collect the hourly data for the operating parameter
(e.g., mercury sorbent injection rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each applicable pollutant (e.g.,
mercury). For each applicable performance test run period, calculate
the arithmetic average operating parameter level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average operating parameter level of
the applicable performance test run periods specified in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section represents the average operating parameter
level (e.g., average mercury sorbent injection rate) during the
performance test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s). Use this average
operating parameter level to establish the respective operating limit,
as specified in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section.
(3) For continuous monitoring systems that collect data on a daily
basis. Collect the daily data for the operating parameter (e.g., sludge
moisture content) for each day that a performance test is conducted for
the applicable pollutant(s). The highest daily arithmetic average
operating parameter level for the applicable performance tests
represents the average operating parameter level (e.g., average sludge
moisture content) during the performance test(s) for the applicable
pollutant(s)). Use this average operating parameter level to establish
the respective operating limit, as specified in paragraphs (c) through
(k) of this section.
(c) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber, calculated as
90 percent of the average pressure drop across each wet scrubber
determined
[[Page 63326]]
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(d) Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate (measured at the inlet to the
wet scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor flow rate
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(e) Minimum scrubber liquor pH (measured at the inlet to the wet
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor pH determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(f) If you do not use an afterburner to comply with the
requirements of this rule, minimum combustion chamber temperature,
calculated as 90 percent of the average combustion chamber temperature
determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(g) If you use an afterburner to comply with the requirement of
this rule, minimum afterburner combustion chamber temperature,
calculated as 90 percent of the average afterburner combustion chamber
temperature determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(h) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates, calculated as 90 percent of the average power input.
Average power input must be calculated as the product of the average
secondary voltage and average secondary amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator, both determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(i) Maximum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the
electrostatic precipitator, calculated as 70 percent of the average
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator determined according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(j) For activated carbon injection:
(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90
percent of the average mercury sorbent injection rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, calculated as 90
percent of the average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure
drop, as follows:
(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, calculated as 90 percent of the
average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, calculated as 90 percent of
the average carrier gas flow rate, determined according to paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(k) Maximum dry sludge feed rate, calculated as 110 percent of the
average dry sludge feed rate, determined according to paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(l) Sludge moisture content, measured on a daily basis as a
percentage, must be no less than 10 percent less than and no more than
10 percent greater than the average sludge moisture content determined
according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For example, if your
average sludge moisture content is measured as 20 percent, your sludge
moisture level must be greater than or equal to 18 percent and less
than or equal to 22 percent.
Sec. 60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device inspection
according to Sec. 60.5220(c) by the final compliance date under the
approved State plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable. For
air pollution control devices installed after the final compliance
date, you must conduct the air pollution control device inspection
within 60 days after installation of the control device.
(b) Within 10 operating days following the air pollution control
device inspection under paragraph (a) of this section, all necessary
repairs must be completed unless you obtain written approval from the
Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the
SSI unit must be completed.
Sec. 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system and by what
date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous
monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?
You must develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system
required under this subpart, according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i) and paragraph (d) of this
section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system to comply
with the mercury or dioxin/furan emission limits, you must develop your
monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 60.58b(q), and you are not
required to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section. You must submit your monitoring plan at least 60 days before
your initial performance evaluation of your continuous monitoring
system(s), as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. You must
update your monitoring plan as specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your monitoring plan
must address the elements and requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in Sec. 60.13.
(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., relative
accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part.
(C) The applicable procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration drift tests) in appendix F of this
part.
(ii) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria will include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in Sec. 60.13.
(B) Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part.
(iii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but not be limited to,
the associated performance specifications and quality assurance
procedures.
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f), and (g).
[[Page 63327]]
(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous monitoring system is
out of control, as follows:
(i) A continuous emissions monitoring system is out of control if
the conditions in any one of paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of
this section are met.
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fails a performance
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit,
relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit.
(C) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
(ii) When the continuous emissions monitoring system is out of
control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you must
take the necessary corrective action and must repeat all necessary
tests that indicate that the system is out of control. You must take
corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance
requirements are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-
of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance check (e.g.,
calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance
requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control
period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and
successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable
limits.
(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance
evaluations of your continuous monitoring systems in accordance with
your site-specific monitoring plan.
(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your monitoring plan
must include a description of the following items:
(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established.
(3) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures.
(4) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained, including
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(5) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored.
(c) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as
applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan and within 60 days
of installation of the continuous monitoring system and bag leak
detection system, as applicable.
(d) You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval
of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the
standards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(d)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section, unless you document, using data or
information, that the longer averaging period will ensure that
emissions do not exceed levels achieved during the performance test
over any increment of time equivalent to the time required to conduct
three runs of the performance test.
(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring requirement
is approved, you must continue to use the original monitoring
requirement until approval is received to use another monitoring
requirement.
(3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate
monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance
test. The application must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the
required approach.
(ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit,
and how the limit is to be calculated.
(iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or
better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard.
Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the
Administrator will provide the following:
(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based.
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting
information before final action is taken on the application. This
notice will specify how much additional time is allowed for you to
provide additional supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the
application prior to the performance test. Neither submittal of an
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case
basis that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.
(e) You must update your monitoring plan if there are any changes
in your monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as
defined in Sec. 60.5250.
Model Rule--Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and
standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you have the
option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures specified
in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable,
and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the
performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in Sec.
60.5220(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test.
Within 10 to 12 months following the initial performance test (except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section), demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits and standards specified in Table 2
or 3
[[Page 63328]]
to this subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, and opacity using a performance test. The performance
test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging methods, and
minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in Sec. 60.5220(a). Conduct subsequent annual
performance tests within 10 to 12 months following the previous one.
(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward. The Administrator may request a repeat performance test at any
time.
(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 days of a
process change, as defined in Sec. 60.5250.
(3) You have the option to perform less frequent testing to
demonstrate compliance with the particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead emission
limits.
(i) To perform less frequent testing, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive years.
(B) The test data results for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead
are less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limits.
(C) There are no changes in the operation of the SSI unit or air
pollution control equipment that could increase emissions. In this
case, you do not have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant
for the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the
third year and no more than 36 months following the previous
performance test.
(ii) If your SSI unit continues to emit less than 75 percent of the
emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead and there are no
changes in the operation of the SSI unit or air pollution control
equipment that could increase emissions, you may choose to conduct
performance tests for these pollutants every third year, but each test
must be within 36 months of the previous performance test.
(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission limit for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead,
you must conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all
performance tests over the next 3-year period are within 75 percent of
the applicable emission limit.
(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system. Collect data as specified in Sec.
60.5220(b)(6) and use the following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/
furans total mass, dioxins/furans toxic equivalency, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity, you may substitute
the use of a continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the
annual performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, as
follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant (except opacity) specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section in lieu of conducting the annual performance test for
that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a total hydrocarbon continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the carbon monoxide annual
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) If your SSI unit is not equipped with a wet scrubber, you may
substitute the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system in lieu of
conducting the annual opacity and particulate matter performance tests
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual opacity
performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.
(v) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the annual
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous emissions
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or
carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-
hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limits in Table 2 to this subpart.
(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 60.4880(e).
For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use
Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 1
of appendix F of this part.
(4) If you use a continuous opacity monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission or opacity limit in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous opacity
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions and calculate 6-minute averages
as specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1). Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average opacity values. You must
demonstrate initial compliance using the arithmetic average of three 1-
hour block averages.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your periodic performance evaluations required in your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring systems,
continuous opacity monitoring systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems, according to the schedule specified in your
monitoring plan. If you were previously determining compliance by
conducting an annual performance test, you must complete the initial
performance evaluation required under your monitoring plan in Sec.
60.5200 for the continuous monitoring system within 60 days of
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring, or
[[Page 63329]]
continuous automated sampling system. Your performance evaluation must
be conducted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in
Sec. 60.5200(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you
must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply
the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency
factor specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation report as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet each emission
limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance
test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the
provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in Sec. 60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance test as
soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator
will determine whether or not to grant the extension to the performance
test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval or
disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
Sec. 60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my
operating limits?
You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section, according to the monitoring and calibration requirements
in Sec. 60.5225.
(a) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section using the
continuous monitoring equipment and according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.5225, except as provided in Sec. 60.5175. Four-
hour rolling average values are used to determine compliance (except
for sludge moisture content and alarm time of the baghouse leak
detection system) unless a different averaging period is established
under Sec. 60.5175 for an air pollution control device other than a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner. A daily average must be used to
determine compliance for sludge moisture content.
(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limits established according to Sec. Sec. 60.5175 and 60.5190 for each
applicable operating parameter.
(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limit for bag leak detection systems as follows:
(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must calculate the alarm
time as follows:
(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time shall be
counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is counted as the
actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action.
(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period, as specified in Sec. 60.5170(c).
(b) Operation above the established maximum, below the established
minimum, or outside the allowable range of the operating limits
specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from
your operating limits established under this subpart, except during
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. You must
submit the deviation report specified in Sec. 60.5235(d) for each
instance that you did not meet one of your operating limits established
under this subpart.
(c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in Sec.
60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous compliance.
Sec. 60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution
control device used to comply with the emission limits, according to
Sec. 60.5220(c), within 10 to 12 months following the previous annual
air pollution control device inspection.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless you
obtain written approval from the Administrator establishing a date
whereby all necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be
completed.
Model Rule--Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration
Requirements
Sec. 60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the monitoring requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control
device inspections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(a) Performance testing requirements. (1) All performance tests
must consist of a minimum of three test runs conducted under conditions
representative of normal operations, as specified in Sec. 60.8(c).
Emissions in excess of the emission limits or standards during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered deviations from
the applicable emission limits or standards.
(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the
performance test is representative of the sludge burned under normal
operating conditions by:
(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned
during the performance test.
(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the sewage sludge
burned during the performance test.
(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the test methods,
minimum sampling volume, observation period, and averaging method
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be used to select
the sampling location and number of traverse points.
(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used
for gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen
concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be
used simultaneously with each method.
[[Page 63330]]
(6) All pollutant concentrations, except for opacity, must be
adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14OC10.002
Where:
Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent
oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis.
(20.9-7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,
percent.
(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in this
subpart unless the Administrator does one of the following.
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a method
with minor changes in methodology.
(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the results of
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a
specific source is in compliance.
(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests because you have
demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the affected SSI unit is in compliance with the standard.
(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this
paragraph is construed to abrogate the Administrator's authority to
require testing under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as specified under other
subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present. If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.)
in conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify the
Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the original test
date, either by providing at least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled
date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.
(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods applicable to the
SSI unit, as follows:
(A) Constructing the air pollution control system such that
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately
determined by applicable test methods and procedures.
(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each performance
test must consist of three separate runs using the applicable test
method. Each run must be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each
emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of
the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally lost or
conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued
because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the
sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the
Administrator's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of
the results of the two other runs.
(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet the following
requirements, as applicable, when using a continuous monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart. The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring
system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes
effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the
Federal Register. If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring
system or continuous opacity monitoring system instead of conducting
annual performance testing, you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section. If you elect to use a
continuous automated sampling system instead of conducting annual
performance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7)
of this section. The option to use a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a final
performance specification for such a continuous automated sampling
system is published in the Federal Register.
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity
monitoring system.
(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous opacity
monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance
test within 60 days of ceasing operation of the system.
(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the emissions to
the atmosphere or opacity in accordance with the following:
(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(ii) The following performance specifications of appendix B of this
part, as applicable:
(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11 of
appendix B of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 15 of appendix
B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B of appendix B
of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of appendix B of
this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(J) For opacity, Performance Specification 1 of appendix B of this
part.
(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, the quality
assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests) of appendix F of this part specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section. For each
pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system
is two times the applicable emission limit, expressed as a
concentration.
(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure
1 shall be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance
[[Page 63331]]
Specification 15 of appendix B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emissions monitoring system using the performance specifications in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data for each regulated
pollutant and oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of
this section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emissions monitors and the test
methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this
section. Relative accuracy testing must be at normal operating
conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used.
(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, shall be used.
(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4, shall be used.
(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
shall be used.
(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02, shall be used.
(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, shall be used.
(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, or as an alternative American National Standards
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981 Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] must be
used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts
per million dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for the inlet
of the sulfur dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system should be
no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data in
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry
volume absolute value of the mean difference between the method and the
continuous emissions monitoring system, whichever is greater.
(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (a)(2)(v) of
this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, or as
an alternative American National Standards Institute/American Society
of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as applicable, must be used.
(5) You may request that compliance with the emission limits
(except opacity) be determined using carbon dioxide measurements
corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon dioxide is
selected for use in diluent corrections, the relationship between
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be established during the initial
performance test according to the procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. This
relationship may be re-established during subsequent performance
compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-2 must be used to determine the relationship between oxygen
and carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR
part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National Standards
Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC-19.-10-1981--
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as
applicable, must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the
same location as the carbon dioxide monitor.
(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.
(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed.
(6) You must collect data with the continuous monitoring system as
follows:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous opacity monitoring system data in
accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(1), and you must collect continuous
emissions monitoring system data in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction as defined in Sec. 60.5250, constitute a deviation from
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system
instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system according to the site-specific monitoring
plan developed in Sec. 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10),
and (q).
(ii) Collect data according to Sec. 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You must conduct air
pollution control device inspections that include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation,
if applicable.
(2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, sorbent feed
systems, and any other monitoring equipment.
(3) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(4) Ensure that the air pollution control device meets manufacturer
recommendations.
(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that sewage
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an emissions standards
deviation for all pollutants listed in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
The use of the bypass stack during a performance test invalidates the
performance test.
Sec. 60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the
continuous
[[Page 63332]]
parameter monitoring systems for measuring flow, pressure, pH, and
temperature according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section:
(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, pressure, pH,
and temperature measurement devices:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring system data
in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 60.5250, constitute a deviation from
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all recorded readings,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(vii) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(2) Meet the following requirements for each type of measurement
device:
(i) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
(A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent
of the flow rate.
(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi-annually.
(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy, according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75
of this chapter.
(ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure.
(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of
water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure range.
(D) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(E) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy.
(iii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH
measurement device, you must meet the following requirements:
(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(C) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
temperature measurement device, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary equipment in
a position that provides a representative temperature.
(B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic temperature
range.
(C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.3
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a cryogenic temperature
range.
(D) Conduct a temperature measurement device calibration check at
least every 3 months.
(b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring systems for voltage, amperage, mass
flow rate, and bag leak detection system as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary amperage (or power
input) of an electrostatic precipitator, you must use secondary voltage
and secondary amperage monitoring equipment to measure secondary
voltage and secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator.
(2) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent injection (e.g., weigh
belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet
the following requirements:
(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with
the manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the requirements of
this subpart, you must:
(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your bag leak
detection system as follows:
(A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
(B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, operated,
calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in
accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September
1997.
(C) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of
[[Page 63333]]
10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
(D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative
particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm
must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
(G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct
all compartments of cells to a common stack, a bag leak detection
system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in
continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under
Sec. 60.5200.
(ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every
alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you must alleviate the cause of
the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective
action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not
limited to the following:
(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
particulate matter emissions.
(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing
the control device.
(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(F) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter
emissions.
(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous parameter
monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required
under Sec. 60.5200.
(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install,
calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a
device or method for measuring the use of the bypass stack including
date, time, and duration.
Model Rule--Recordkeeping and Reporting
Sec. 60.5230 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs
(a) through (m) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All
records must be available on site in either paper copy or computer-
readable format that can be printed upon request, unless an alternative
format is approved by the Administrator.
(a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final control plan and
any additional notifications, reported under Sec. 60.5250.
(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training
procedures and records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of
this section. You must make available and readily accessible at the
facility at all times for all SSI unit operators the documentation
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) Documentation of the following operator training procedures and
information:
(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart.
(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding sewage sludge.
(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction procedures.
(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply
levels.
(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and associated air
pollution control systems within the standards established under this
subpart.
(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating compliance with the
incinerator operating limits.
(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
(viii) Procedures for handling ash.
(ix) A list of the materials burned during the performance test, if
in addition to sewage sludge.
(x) For each qualified operator and other plant personnel who may
operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec. 60.5155(a), the
phone and/or pager number at which they can be reached during operating
hours.
(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec.
60.5155(a), as follows:
(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who have completed review of the information in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section as required by Sec. 60.5160(b), including the
date of the initial review and all subsequent annual reviews.
(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators who have
completed the operator training requirements under Sec. 60.5130, met
the criteria for qualification under Sec. 60.5140, and maintained or
renewed their qualification under Sec. 60.5145 or Sec. 60.5150.
Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of
their initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such
qualifications.
(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks, as required in
Sec. 60.5155(a).
(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for 2 weeks or more along with copies of reports submitted
as required in Sec. 60.5155(b).
(d) Air pollution control device inspections. Records of the
results of initial and annual air pollution control device inspections
conducted as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including
any required maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days
of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(e) Performance test reports.
(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
limits and standards and/or to establish operating limits, as
applicable.
(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test report,
including calculations.
(3) Keep a record of the log of the quantity of sewage sludge
burned during the performance tests, as required in Sec.
60.5220(a)(2).
(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that the performance
test was conducted under conditions representative of normal
operations.
(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous opacity monitoring systems, all 6-minute average
and 1-hour block average levels of opacity.
(2) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 1-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, and lead emissions.
(3) For continuous automated sampling systems, all average
concentrations measured for mercury and dioxins/furans at the
frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
[[Page 63334]]
(4) For continuous parameter monitoring systems:
(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the following operating
parameters, as applicable:
(A) Dry sludge feed rate and combustion chamber temperature (or
afterburner temperature).
(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the rule, pressure
drop across the wet scrubber system, liquor flow rate to the wet
scrubber, and liquor pH as introduced to the wet scrubber.
(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to comply with the
rule, voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates or
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, and
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrostatic
precipitator.
(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop,
as applicable.
(ii) Daily average values and composite sample values for sludge
moisture content.
(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the rule, the date,
time, and duration of each alarm and the time corrective action was
initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the
alarm and the corrective action taken. You must also record the percent
of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm sounds,
calculated as specified in Sec. 60.5170(b).
(iv) For other control devices for which you must establish
operating limits under Sec. 60.5175, you must maintain data collected
for all operating parameters used to determine compliance with the
operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. You must keep
the following records, as applicable:
(1) Keep records of any notifications to the Administrator in Sec.
60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring
system for determining compliance with any emissions limit.
(2) Keep records of any requests under Sec. 60.5220(b)(5) that
compliance with the emission limits (except opacity) be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen.
(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
the type of sorbent used and any changes in the type of sorbent used.
(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation reports submitted
under Sec. 60.5235(e) and (f).
(i) Equipment specifications and operation and maintenance
requirements. Equipment specifications and related operation and
maintenance requirements received from vendors for the incinerator,
emission controls, and monitoring equipment.
(j) Calibration of monitoring devices. Records of calibration of
any monitoring devices as required under Sec. Sec. 60.5220 and
60.5225.
(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for continuous
monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plan required under Sec.
60.5200, and records of performance evaluations required under Sec.
60.5205(b)(5).
(l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that
your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent testing under Sec.
60.5205(a)(3).
(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass
stack, including dates, times, and durations as required under Sec.
60.5225(c).
Sec. 60.5235 What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (a) through (i)
of this section. See Table 6 to this subpart for a summary of these
reports.
(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to achieve
compliance more than 1 year following the effective date of State plan
approval, you must submit the following reports, as applicable:
(1) A final control plan as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5085(a) and
60.5110.
(2) You must submit your notification of achievement of increments
of progress no later than 10 business days after the compliance date
for the increment as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5095 and 60.5100.
(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a
notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days
after the date for that increment, as specified in Sec. 60.5105.
(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply with the
State plan, submit a closure notification as specified in Sec.
60.5125.
(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following
information no later than 60 days following the initial performance
test.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report.
(4) The complete test report for the initial performance test
results obtained by using the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart.
(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring
system was conducted, the results of that initial performance
evaluation.
(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits established
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 60.5170 and 60.5175 and the calculations and
methods used to establish each operating limit.
(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with the emission
limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been
installed and is being operated, calibrated, and maintained as required
by Sec. 60.5170(b).
(8) The results of the initial air pollution control device
inspection required in Sec. 60.5195, including a description of
repairs.
(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an annual compliance
report that includes the items listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(15) of this section for the reporting period specified in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section. You must submit your first annual compliance
report no later than 12 months following the submission of the initial
compliance report in paragraph (b) of this section. You must submit
subsequent annual compliance reports no more than 12 months following
the previous annual compliance report. (If the unit is subject to
permitting requirements under title V of the Clean Air Act, you may be
required by the permit to submit these reports more frequently.)
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting
period, the results of that performance test.
(i) If operating limits were established during the performance
test, include the value for each operating limit and the method used to
establish each operating limit, including calculations.
(ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test,
include the type of activated carbon used.
(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a
continuous monitoring system, the highest recorded 3-hour average and
the lowest recorded 3-hour average during the reporting period, as
applicable.
(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting period from any
emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to
you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limits, emission standard, or operating limits.
(7) Information for bag leak detection systems recorded under Sec.
60.5230(f)(4)(iii).
[[Page 63335]]
(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system
was conducted, the results of that performance evaluation. If new
operating limits were established during the performance evaluation,
include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
(9) If you met the requirements of Sec. 60.5205(a)(3) and did not
conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you must
include the dates of the last three performance tests, a comparison of
the emission level you achieved in the last three performance tests to
the 75 percent emission limit threshold specified in Sec.
60.5205(a)(3)(i)(B), and a statement as to whether there have been any
process changes and whether the process change resulted in an increase
in emissions.
(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified sewage sludge
incineration unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but
less than 2 weeks.
(11) Results of annual air pollution control device inspections
recorded under Sec. 60.5230(d) for the reporting period, including a
description of repairs.
(12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your
continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction.
(13) If there were no periods during the reporting period when a
continuous monitoring system was out of control, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems were
out of control.
(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a statement
that there were no such deviations during the reporting period.
(15) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring
plan during the reporting period, a statement that you did not make any
revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan during the reporting
period. If you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan.
(d) Deviation reports.
(1) You must submit a deviation report if:
(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average parameter level is above
the maximum operating limit or below the minimum operating limit
established under this subpart.
(ii) Any recorded daily average sludge moisture content is outside
the allowable range.
(iii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5
percent of the operating time for the 6-month reporting period.
(iv) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average emissions level is above
the emission limit, if a continuous monitoring system is used to comply
with an emission limit.
(v) Any opacity level recorded under Sec. 60.5185(b)(5) that is
above the opacity limit, if a continuous opacity monitoring system is
used.
(vi) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash
conveying system for more than 5 percent of the hourly observation
period.
(vii) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any
emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(viii) A continuous monitoring system was out of control.
(ix) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system
malfunction) that caused or may have caused any applicable emission
limit to be exceeded.
(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 1 of that year
for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January
1 to June 30), and by February 1 of the following year for data you
collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to
December 31).
(3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring
system to comply with an associated emission limit or operating limit,
report the items described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii)
of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of
the report.
(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents.
(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each
deviation and any test report that documents the emission levels.
(viii) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system had a malfunction or was out of control, you must include the
following information for each deviation from an emission limit or
operating limit:
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out of control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction, during
a period when the system was out of control, or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the SSI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the SSI unit.
(I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(4) For each deviation where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system to comply with the associated emission limit or
operating limit, report the following items:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of
the report.
(iii) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
[[Page 63336]]
(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vii) A copy of any performance test report that showed a deviation
from the emission limits or standards.
(viii) A brief description of any malfunction reported in paragraph
(d)(1)(viii) of this section, including a description of actions taken
during the malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction.
(e) Qualified operator deviation.
(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 days that
includes the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through
(e)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) A statement of what caused the deviation.
(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
available.
(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks that
includes the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) through
(e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
accessible.
(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to continue
operation of the SSI unit.
(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, under the
provisions of Sec. 60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an
accessible qualified operator, you must notify the Administrator within
five days of meeting Sec. 60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming
operation.
(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure:
(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence, should have known that the event may cause or caused a delay
in conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but
the notification must occur before the performance test deadline unless
the initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays
the notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as soon as
practicable.
(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct the
performance test.
(g) Other notifications and reports required. You must submit other
notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7 and as follows:
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting or
stopping use of a continuous monitoring system for determining
compliance with any emission limit.
(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 days prior to any
performance test conducted to comply with the provisions of this
subpart, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.5220(a)(8), you must notify the
Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled
performance test for which notification was previously made in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(h) Report submission form.
(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(2) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or performance test conducted to
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative
accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity, to
EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically into EPA's
Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/).
(i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator agrees, you may
change the semiannual or annual reporting dates. See Sec. 60.19(c) for
procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.
Model Rule--Title V Operating Permits
Sec. 60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V
operating permit for my existing SSI unit?
Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved and effective
Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal plan or an applicable
and effective Federal plan, you are required to apply for and obtain a
title V operating permit for your existing SSI unit unless you meet the
relevant requirements for an exemption specified in Sec. 60.5065.
Sec. 60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application for my
existing SSI unit?
(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, a complete title V permit application must be
submitted on or before the earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129(e), 503(c),
503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40
CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)).
(1) 12 months after the effective date of any applicable EPA-
approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal plan.
(2) 12 months after the effective date of any applicable Federal
plan.
(3) [THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the
promulgation of this subpart applies regardless of whether or when any
applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable
Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal plan is approved by
EPA and becomes effective.
(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a result of some
triggering requirement(s) other than those specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section (for example, a unit may be a major source or
part of a major source), then your unit may be required to apply for a
title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b). If more than one requirement triggers a source's obligation to
apply for a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V
permit application is triggered by the requirement which first causes
the source to be subject to title V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR
71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(d) A ``complete'' title V permit application is one that has been
determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority
under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40
CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the
relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in
compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the
[[Page 63337]]
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)
Model Rule--Definitions
Sec. 60.5250 What definitions must I know?
Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean
Air Act and Sec. 60.2.
Administrator means:
(1) For units covered by the Federal plan, the Administrator of the
EPA or his/her authorized representative.
(2) For units covered by an approved State plan, the director of
the State air pollution control agency or his/her authorized
representative.
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, fuel
oil, or diesel fuel.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on January 1 and
ending on December 31.
Co-fired combustor means a unit combusting sewage sludge or
dewatered sludge pellets with other fuels or wastes (e.g., coal, clean
biomass, municipal solid waste, commercial or institutional waste,
hospital medical infectious waste, unused pharmaceuticals, other solid
waste) and subject to an enforceable requirement limiting the unit to
combusting a fuel feed stream, 10 percent or less of the weight of
which is comprised, in aggregate, of sewage sludge.
Continuous automated sampling system means the total equipment and
procedures for automated sample collection and sample recovery/analysis
to determine a pollutant concentration or emission rate by collecting a
single integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of the
pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on- or off-site analysis;
integrated sample(s) collected are representative of the emissions for
the sample time as specified by the applicable requirement.
Continuous emissions monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording the emissions of a pollutant
from an affected facility.
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous automated sampling system, continuous
parameter monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or
other manual or automatic monitoring that is used for demonstrating
compliance with an applicable regulation on a continuous basis as
defined by this subpart. The term refers to the total equipment used to
sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a
permanent record of emissions or process parameters.
Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording operating conditions
associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g.,
temperature, pressure, and power).
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic precipitator means
an air pollution control device that uses both electrical forces and,
if applicable, water to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage
sludge incinerator stack.
Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a sewage sludge
incineration unit the construction of which is commenced on or before
October 14, 2010.
Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter
media, also known as a baghouse.
Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in which organic
matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge are combusted in a bed of
particles suspended in the combustion chamber gas.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction, the
operator shall operate within established emissions and operating
limits and shall continue monitoring all applicable operating
parameters until all waste has been combusted or until the malfunction
ceases, whichever comes first.
Maximum feed rate means 110 percent of the highest 3-hour average
dry charge rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits and
standards.
Modification means a change to an SSI unit later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] and that meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit
exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the
SSI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of SSI
unit.
(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of
operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted for
which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established
standards.
Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an SSI unit that
undergoes a modification, as defined in this section.
Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel furnace that
contains a number of solid refractory hearths and a central rotating
shaft; rabble arms that are designed to slowly rake the sludge on the
hearth are attached to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at
the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to
hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any
[[Page 63338]]
amount of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit.
Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter emitted from
SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or
Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8.
Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of
the test-run average secondary voltage and the test-run average
secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
Process change means that any of the following have occurred:
(1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment
facility associated with the affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of
tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for
disposing of process solids and processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply
with the emission limits for the affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
(3) An allowable increase in the quantity of wastewater received
from an industrial source by the wastewater treatment facility.
Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated
during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage
sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or
solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment
processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incineration unit or grit and screenings generated during
preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage sludge is
fed into the incinerator unit.
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an incineration unit
combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the
sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge
incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.
Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage sludge has been
combusted in the primary chamber.
Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid,
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, agricultural operations, and from community
activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return
flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2014).
Standard conditions, when referring to units of measure, means a
temperature of 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere
(101.3 kilopascals).
Startup means the period of time between the activation, including
the firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or distillate oil), of the
system and the first feed to the unit.
Toxic equivalency means the product of the concentration of an
individual dioxin congener in an environmental mixture and the
corresponding estimate of the compound-specific toxicity relative to
tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency
factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists the toxic
equivalency factors.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that
utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate
matter (including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to
absorb and neutralize acid gases.
You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI unit.
Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of Progress
and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comply with these increments of progress By these dates \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment 1--Submit final control plan.... (Dates to be specified in
State plan)
Increment 2--Final compliance............. (Dates to be specified in
State plan) \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the State.
\b\ The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of
State plan approval or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that
commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010.
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or compliance using this
durations method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................... 12 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 5 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-3;
meters sample per run). Method 26A or Method
29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 0.49 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 200 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 3
dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Carbon monoxide...................... 56 parts per million by 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. sample for a minimum (Method 10, 10A, or
duration of one hour 10B at 40 CFR part 60,
per run). appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.61 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 7).
[[Page 63339]]
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.056 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 7).
Mercury.............................. 0.0033 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. D6784-02, collect a part 60, appendix A-8;
minimum volume of 3 Method 30B at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A
meters per run. For (when published in the
Method 30B, collect a Federal Register); or
minimum sample as ASTM D6784-02,
specified in Method Standard Test Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60, for Elemental,
appendix A). Oxidized, Particle
Bound and Total
Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 63 parts per million by 3-run average (Collect Performance test
dry volume. sample for a minimum (Method 7 or 7E at 40
duration of one hour CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 22 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6C at 40
minimum volume of 200 CFR part 40, appendix
liters per run. For A-4; or ASNI/ASME PTC-
Method 6C, collect 19.10-1981 Flue and
sample for a minimum Exhaust Gas Analysis
duration of one hour [Part 10, Instruments
per run). and Apparatus]).
Cadmium.............................. 0.0019 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 3 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8).
Lead................................. 0.0098 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 3 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-8.
meters sample per run).
Opacity.............................. 0 percent.............. 6-minute averages, Performance test
three 1-hour (Method 9 at 40 CFR
observation periods. part 60, appendix A-
4).
Fugitive emissions from ash handling. Visible emissions of Three 1-hour Visible emission test
combustion ash from an observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
ash conveying system A-7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for
no more than 5 percent
of the hourly
observation period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or compliance using this
durations method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................... 80 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 5 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-3;
meters per run). Method 26A or Method
29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 1.0 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 200 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 3
dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Carbon monoxide...................... 3,900 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
by dry volume. sample for a minimum (Method 10, 10A, or
duration of one hour 10B at 40 CFR part 60,
per run). appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 5.0 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.32 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 7).
[[Page 63340]]
Mercury.............................. 0.02 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Performance test
standard cubic meter. Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 at 40 CFR
D6784-02, collect a part 60, appendix A-8;
minimum volume of 3 Method 30B at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A
meters per run. For (when published in the
Method 30B, collect a Federal Register); or
minimum sample as ASTM D6784-02,
specified in Method Standard Test Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60, for Elemental,
appendix A). Oxidized, Particle
Bound and Total
Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 210 parts per million 3-run average (Collect Performance test
by dry volume. sample for a minimum (Method 7 or 7E at 40
duration of one hour CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 26 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6C at 40
minimum volume of 200 CFR part 40, appendix
liters per run. For A-4; or ASNI/ASME PTC-
Method 6C, collect 19.10-1981 Flue and
sample for a minimum Exhaust Gas Analysis
duration of one hour ([Part 10, Instruments
per run). and Apparatus]).
Cadmium.............................. 0.095 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 3 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8).
Lead................................. 0.30 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 3 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-8.
meters per run).
Opacity.............................. 10 percent............. 6-minute averages, Performance test
three 1-hour (Method 9 at 40 CFR
observation periods. part 60, appendix A-
4).
Fugitive emissions from ash handling. Visible emissions of Three 1-hour Visible emission test
combustion ash from an observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
ash conveying system A-7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for
no more than 5 percent
of the hourly
observation period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Operating Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incine ration
Units \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
You must establish -----------------------------------------------------------
For these operating parameters these operating Averaging time for
limits Data measurement Data recording \b\ compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sewage sludge incineration units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry sludge feed rate............ Maximum dry sludge Continuous........ Hourly............ 4-hour rolling.\c\
feed rate.
Combustion chamber temperature Minimum combustion Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 4-hour rolling.\c\
(not required if afterburner temperature.
temperature is monitored). or afterburner
temperature.
Sludge moisture content......... Range of moisture Composite of three Daily............. Daily.
content (%). samples taken 6
hours apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure drop across each wet Minimum pressure Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 4-hour rolling.\c\
scrubber or amperage to each drop or minimum
wet scrubber. amperage.
Scrubber liquor flow rate....... Minimum flow rate. Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 4-hour rolling.\c\
Scrubber liquor pH.............. Minimum pH........ Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 4-hour rolling.\c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric filter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time of the bag leak Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating
detection system alarm. limit is provided in Sec. 60.4850 and is not established on a site-specific
basis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63341]]
Electrostatic precipitator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage of the Minimum power Continuous........ Hourly............ 4-hour rolling.\c\
electrostatic precipitator input to the
collection plates. electrostatic
precipitator
collection plates.
Secondary amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator
collection plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the Maximum effluent Hourly............ Hourly............ 4-hour rolling.\c\
outlet of the electrostatic water flow rate
precipitator. at the outlet of
the electrostatic
precipitator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activated carbon injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury sorbent injection rate.. Minimum mercury Hourly............ Hourly............ 4-hour rolling.\c\
sorbent injection
rate.
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection Minimum dioxin/
rate. furan sorbent
injection rate.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier Minimum carrier Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 4-hour rolling.\c\
gas pressure drop. gas flow rate or
minimum carrier
gas pressure drop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterburner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of the afterburner Minimum Continuous........ Every 15 minutes.. 4-hour rolling.\a\
combustion chamber. temperature of
the afterburner
combustion
chamber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As specified in Sec. 60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity
monitoring system, or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits.
\b\ This recording time refers to the frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially
records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all
parameters except sludge moisture content, you use hourly averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to
demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
\c\ Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating hours.
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency
Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic
Dioxin/furan congener equivalency
factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............... 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............. 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............ 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............ 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............ 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin......... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........................ 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................. 0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................. 0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................ 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................ 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................ 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran................ 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............. 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............. 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran............................ 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Summary of Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increments of progress report........... No later than 10 business Final control Sec.
days after the compliance plan including air 60.5235(a)
date for the increment. pollution control device
descriptions, process
changes, type of waste to
be burned, and the
maximum design sewage
sludge burning capacity.
[[Page 63342]]
Notification of
any failure to meet an
increment of progress.
Notification of
any closure.
Initial compliance report............... No later than 60 days Company name and Sec.
following the initial address. 60.5235(b)
performance test. Statement by a
responsible official,
with that official's
name, title, and
signature, certifying the
accuracy of the content
of the report.
Date of report...
Complete test
report for the initial
performance test.
Results of CMS
\b\ performance
evaluation.
The values for
the site-specific
operating limits and the
calculations and methods
used to establish each
operating limit.
Documentation of
installation of bag leak
detection system for
fabric filter.
Results of
initial air pollution
control device
inspection, including a
description of repairs.
Annual compliance report................ No later than 12 months Company name and Sec.
following the submission address. 60.5235(c)
of the initial compliance Statement and
report; subsequent signature by responsible
reports are to be official..
submitted no more than 12 Date and
months following the beginning and ending
previous report. dates of report..
If a performance
test was conducted during
the reporting period, the
results of the test,
including any new
operating limits and
associated calculations
and the type of activated
carbon used, if
applicable.
For each
pollutant and operating
parameter recorded using
a CMS, the highest
recorded 3-hour average
and the lowest recorded 3-
hour average, as
applicable.
If no deviations
from emission limits,
emission standards, or
operating limits
occurred, a statement
that no deviations
occurred.
If a fabric
filter is used, the date,
time, and duration of
alarms.
If a performance
evaluation of a CMS was
conducted, the results,
including any new
operating limits and
their associated
calculations.
If you met the
requirements of Sec.
60.5205(a)(3) and did not
conduct a performance
test, include the dates
of the last three
performance tests, a
comparison to the 75
percent emission limit
threshold of the emission
level achieved in the
last three performance
tests, and a statement as
to whether there have
been any process changes.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified SSI unit
operators were
unavailable for more than
8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
Results of annual
pollutions control device
inspections, including
description of repairs.
If there were no
periods during which your
CMSs had malfunctions, a
statement that there were
no periods during which
your CMSs had
malfunctions.
[[Page 63343]]
If there were no
periods during which your
CMSs were out of control,
a statement that there
were no periods during
which your CMSs were out
of control.
If there were no
operator training
deviations, a statement
that there were no such
deviations.
Information on
monitoring plan
revisions, including a
copy of any revised
monitoring plan.
Deviation report (deviations from By August 1 of a calendar If using a CMS:........... Sec.
emission limits, emission standards, or year for data collected Company name and 60.5235(d)
operating limits, as specified in Sec. during the first half of address.
60.5235(e)(1)). the calendar year; by Statement by a
February 1 of a calendar responsible official.
year for data collected The calendar
during the second half of dates and times your unit
the calendar year. deviated from the
emission limits or
operating limits.
The averaged and
recorded data for those
dates.
Duration and
cause of each deviation.
Dates, times, and
causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
A copy of the
operating parameter
monitoring data during
each deviation and any
test report that
documents the emission
levels.
For periods of
CMS malfunction or when a
CMS was out of control,
you must include the
information specified in
Sec.
60.5235(e)(3)(viii).
If not using a
CMS:
Company name and
address.
Statement by a
responsible official.
The total
operating time of each
affected SSI.
The calendar
dates and times your unit
deviated from the
emission limits, emission
standard, or operating
limits.
The averaged and
recorded data for those
dates.
Duration and
cause of each deviation.
A copy of any
performance test report
that showed a deviation
from the emission limits
or standards.
A brief
description of any
malfunction, a
description of actions
taken during the
malfunction to minimize
emissions, and corrective
action taken.
Notification of qualified operator Within 10 days of Statement of Sec.
deviation (if all qualified operators deviation. cause of deviation. 60.5235(e)
are not accessible for 2 weeks or more). Description of
actions taken to ensure
that a qualified operator
will be available.
The date when a
qualified operator will
be accessible.
Notification of status of qualified Every 4 weeks following Description of Sec.
operator deviation. notification of deviation. actions taken to ensure 60.5235(e)
that a qualified operator
is accessible.
The date when you
anticipate that a
qualified operator will
be accessible.
Request for
approval to continue
operation.
Notification of resumed operation Within five days of Notification that Sec.
following shutdown (due to qualified obtaining a qualified you have obtained a 60.5235(e)
operator deviation and as specified in operator and resuming qualified operator and
Sec. 60.5155(b)(2)(i). operation. are resuming operation.
[[Page 63344]]
Notification of a force majeure......... As soon as practicable Description of Sec.
following the date you the force majeure event. 60.5235(f)
first knew, or through Rationale for
due diligence should have attributing the delay in
known that the event may conducting the
cause or have caused a performance test beyond
delay in conducting a the regulatory deadline
performance test beyond to the force majeure..
the regulatory deadline; Description of
the notification must the measures taken or to
occur before the be taken to minimize the
performance test deadline delay..
unless the initial force Identification of
majeure or a subsequent the date by which you
force majeure event propose to conduct the
delays the notice, and in performance test..
such cases, the
notification must occur
as soon as practicable.
Notification of intent to start or stop 1 month before starting or Intent to start Sec. 60.
use of a CMS. stopping use of a CMS. or stop use of a CMS. 5235(g)
Notification of intent to conduct a At least 30 days prior to Intent to conduct
performance test. the performance test. a performance test to
comply with this subpart.
Notification of intent to conduct a At least 7 days prior to Intent to conduct
rescheduled performance test. the date of a rescheduled a rescheduled performance
performance test. test to comply with this
subpart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary; see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
\b\ CMS means continuous monitoring system.
[FR Doc. 2010-25122 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P