[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31938-32004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10821]
[[Page 31937]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31938]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119; FRL-9148-4]
RIN 2060-AO12
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 1, 2000, EPA adopted new source performance
standards and emission guidelines for commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration units established under Sections 111 and 129 of the
Clean Air Act. In 2001, EPA granted a petition for reconsideration
regarding the definitions of ``commercial and industrial waste'' and
``commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit.'' In 2001,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
granted EPA's voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the 2000 rule. In
2005, EPA proposed and finalized the commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration definition rule which revised the definition of
``solid waste,'' ``commercial and industrial waste,'' and ``commercial
and industrial waste incineration unit.'' In 2007, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and
remanded the 2005 commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
definition rule.
This action provides EPA's response to the 2001 voluntary remand of
the 2000 rule and the vacatur and remand of the commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration definition rule in 2007. In
addition, this action includes the five-year technology review of the
new source performance standards and emission guidelines required under
Section 129. This action also proposes other amendments that EPA
believes are necessary to adequately address air emissions from
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2010.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on or before July 6, 2010.
Public Hearing. We will hold a public hearing concerning this
proposed rule and the interrelated proposed Boiler and RCRA rules,
discussed in this proposal and published in the proposed rules section
of today's Federal Register, on June 21, 2010. Persons requesting to
speak at a public hearing must contact EPA by June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0119, 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-2003-0119.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
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-
2003-0119. 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-2003-0119.
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-
2003-0119. 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 (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through 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: We will hold a public hearing concerning the
proposed rule on June 21, 2010. Persons interested in presenting oral
testimony at the hearing should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group, at (919) 541-4487 by June 14, 2010. The
public hearing will be held in the Washington, DC area at a location
and time that will be posted at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion. Please refer to this Web site to
confirm the date of the public hearing as well. If no one requests to
speak at the public hearing by June 14, 2010 then the public hearing
will be cancelled and a notification of cancellation posted on the
following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion.
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, 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. Charlene Spells, Natural Resource
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
[[Page 31939]]
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5255; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: [email protected] or Ms. Toni Jones, Natural
Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0316; fax number:
(919) 541-3470; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed rules?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions and current controls?
C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and other
combustion rules?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
C. EPA's Approach in Conducting the Five-Year Review
D. Other Proposed Amendments
E. Proposed State Plan Implementation Schedule for Existing
CISWI
F. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 2000 NSPS
and EG
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand and the
Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories
C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission Limits
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
E. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. What are the primary air impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
F. What are the benefits?
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 112(c)(6) of the
CAA
VII. 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. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed action are those which operate commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. The new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG), hereinafter referred to
as ``standards,'' for CISWI affect the following categories of sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS Code potentially regulated
entities \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industrial or commercial 211, 212, 486 Mining, oil and gas
facility using a solid waste exploration
incinerator. operations; pipeline
operators.
221 Utility providers.
321, 322, 337 Manufacturers of wood
products;
manufacturers of
pulp, paper and
paperboard;
manufacturers of
furniture and related
products.
325, 326 Manufacturers of
chemicals and allied
products;
manufacturers of
plastics and rubber
products.
327 Manufacturers of
cement.
333, 336 Manufacturers of
machinery;
manufacturers of
transportation
equipment.
42, 44, 45 Wholesale merchants;
retail merchants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart CCCC and 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that the rule contains definitions of the subcategories
of CISWI units and a list of types of combustion units that are
excluded. For further discussion, see Section III.D.1 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Toni Jones, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0119. 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
[[Page 31940]]
information (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 Code of Federal Regulations (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 CISWI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
4. Worldwide Web (WWW)
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the Technology
Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following signature, EPA posted a
copy of the proposed action on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed rules?
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), entitled ``Solid Waste
Combustion,'' requires EPA to develop and adopt standards for solid
waste incineration units pursuant to CAA Sections 111 and 129. Section
129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance
standards, including emission limitations, for ``solid waste
incineration units'' generally and, in particular, for ``solid waste
incineration units combusting commercial or industrial waste'' (CAA
Section 129(a)(1)(D)). Section 129 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)(1)). Section 129
of the CAA also provides that ``solid waste'' shall have the meaning
established by EPA pursuant to its authority under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Section 129(g)(6)).
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250 (DC
Cir. 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated the CISWI Definitions Rule, 70 FR
55568 (September 22, 2005), which EPA issued pursuant to CAA Section
129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA defined the term ``commercial or
industrial solid waste incineration unit'' to mean a combustion unit
that combusts ``commercial or industrial waste.'' The rule defined
``commercial or industrial waste'' to mean waste combusted at a unit
that does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a useful
purpose. Under these definitions, only those units that combusted
commercial or industrial waste and were not designed to, or did not
operate to, recover thermal energy from the combustion, were subject to
Section 129 standards. In vacating the rule, the Court found that the
definitions in the CISWI Definitions Rule were inconsistent with the
CAA. Specifically, the Court held that the term ``solid waste
incineration unit'' in CAA Section 129(g)(1) ``unambiguously include[s]
among the incineration units subject to its standards any facility that
combusts any commercial or industrial solid waste material at all--
subject to the four statutory exceptions identified [in CAA Section
129(g)(1)].'' NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1257-58.
In response to the Court's vacatur of the CISWI Definitions rule,
EPA initiated a rulemaking to define which non-hazardous secondary
materials are ``solid waste'' for purposes of subtitle D (non-hazardous
waste) of the RCRA when burned in a combustion unit. (See Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (74 FR 41, January 2, 2009) soliciting
comment on whether certain non-hazardous secondary materials used as
alternative fuels or ingredients are solid wastes within the meaning of
Subtitle D of the RCRA). That definition, in turn, would determine the
applicability of CAA Section 129(a) to commercial and industrial
combustion units.
In a parallel action, EPA is proposing a definition of solid waste
pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA. That action is relevant to this
proceeding because some energy recovery units and kilns combust solid
waste as alternative fuels. Such units that combust solid waste (as
defined pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) would be subject to standards
under the CAA Section 129 CISWI rules rather than under Section 112
rules applicable to boilers and kilns (e.g. cement kilns).
EPA recognizes that it has imperfect information on the exact
nature of the non-hazardous secondary materials which energy recovery
units and kilns combust, including, for example, information as to the
provider(s) of the non-hazardous secondary materials, how much
processing the non-hazardous secondary materials may have undergone, if
any, and other issues potentially relevant in a determination as to
whether non-hazardous secondary materials are solid waste, as the
Administrator has proposed to define that term under RCRA. We
nevertheless used the information currently available to EPA to
determine which materials are solid waste, the burning of which would
subject a unit to CAA Section 129, and which materials are not solid
waste. Energy recovery units and kilns that are burning non-hazardous
secondary materials that are not solid waste would be subject to the
standard under CAA Section 112 that is applicable to such units. We
based the standards in this proposed rule on the sources we determined
would be subject to CISWI because they combust solid waste as defined
in EPA's proposed Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking, which, as noted
above, is being proposed in parallel with this proposed rule.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA (NSPS program) address
emissions from new CISWI units and CAA Sections 111(d) and 129(b) (EG
program) address emissions from existing CISWI units. The NSPS are
directly enforceable Federal regulations and under CAA Section
129(f)(1) become effective six months after promulgation. Under CAA
Section 129(f)(2), the EG become effective and enforceable no later
than three years after EPA approves a state plan implementing the EG or
five years after the date they are promulgated, whichever is earlier.
The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating emissions
from solid waste incinerator units. The statute also provides EPA with
substantial discretion to distinguish among classes, types and sizes of
incinerator units within a category while setting standards. In the
first stage of setting standards, CAA Section 129(a)(2) requires EPA to
establish technology-based emission standards that reflect levels of
control EPA determines are achievable for new and existing units, after
considering costs, non-air quality health and
[[Page 31941]]
environmental impacts and energy requirements associated with the
implementation of the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then
directs EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary
every five years. In the second stage, CAA Section 129(h)(3) requires
EPA to determine whether further revisions of the standards are
necessary in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. See, e.g., NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079-80
(DC Cir. 2008) (addressing the similarly required two-stage approach
under CAA Sections 112(d) and (f) and upholding EPA's implementation of
same).
In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to establish the
first-stage technology-based standards, CAA Section 129(a)(2) provides
that standards ``applicable to solid waste incineration units
promulgated under Section 111 and this section shall reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [certain listed air
pollutants] that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable
for new and existing units in each category.'' This level of control is
referred to as a maximum achievable control technology, or MACT
standard.
In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first calculate the
minimum stringency levels for new and existing solid waste incineration
units in a category, generally based on levels of emissions control
achieved or required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum
level of stringency is called the MACT ``floor,'' and CAA Section
129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of minimum stringency that EPA's
standards must achieve, based on whether they regulate new and
reconstructed sources, or existing sources. For new and reconstructed
sources, CAA Section 129(a)(2) provides that the ``degree of reduction
in emissions that is deemed achievable * * * shall not be less
stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by
the best controlled similar unit, as determined by the Administrator.''
Emissions standards for existing units may be less stringent than
standards for new units, but ``shall not be less stringent than the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of units in the category.''
The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory option EPA may
consider in the determination of MACT standards for a source category.
EPA must also determine whether to control emissions ``beyond-the-
floor,'' after considering the costs, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements of such more stringent
control.
In general, all 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, 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. 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. Where there is more than one method or technology
to control emissions, the analysis may result in a series of potential
regulations (called regulatory options), one of which is selected as
MACT.
Each regulatory option EPA considers must be at least as stringent
as the CAA's minimum stringency ``floor'' requirements. EPA must
examine, but is not necessarily required to adopt, more stringent
``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the
floor minimum stringency requirements, EPA must consider various
impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining whether
MACT standards are to reflect ``beyond-the-floor'' requirements. If EPA
concludes that the more stringent regulatory options have unreasonable
impacts, EPA selects the ``floor-based'' regulatory option as MACT. But
if EPA concludes that impacts associated with ``beyond-the-floor''
levels of control are acceptable in light of additional emissions
reductions achieved, EPA selects those levels as MACT.
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. Under CAA Section 129(a)(2), EPA
determines the best control currently in use for a given pollutant and
establishes one potential regulatory option at the emission level
achieved by that control with an appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. More stringent potential beyond-the-floor 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 emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine
some measure of the average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory option.
More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options reflect other or
additional controls capable of achieving better performance.
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions
and current controls?
We are proposing to define a CISWI unit as any combustion unit at a
commercial or industrial facility that is used to combust solid waste
(as defined under the RCRA). See proposed 40 CFR 60.2265 (NSPS) and
60.2875 (EG). In this proposed rule, CISWI units include incinerators
designed to discard waste materials; energy recovery units (e.g., units
that would be boilers if they did not burn solid waste) designed for
heat recovery that combust solid waste materials; kilns and other
industrial units that combust solid waste materials in the manufacture
of a product; and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials off
racks, parts, drums or hooks so that those items can be re-used in
various production processes.
Combustion of solid waste causes the release of a wide array of air
pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed material and are
released unchanged during combustion and some of which are generated as
a result of the combustion process itself. These pollutants include
particulate matter (PM); metals, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and
mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/
dibenzofurans (dioxin, furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides
(NOX); and acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Depending on the type of unit and currently applicable regulations
or permit conditions, units may or may not be equipped with add-on
control devices to control emissions. For example, most of the CISWI
units that operate without heat recovery are not equipped with add-on
controls. Those that are controlled use wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers,
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or fabric filters, either alone or
in combination. Some energy recovery units that combust solid waste are
not equipped with add-on controls, but most are controlled with one or
more of the following: cyclones or multi-clones, fabric filters, ESPs,
wet scrubbers,
[[Page 31942]]
venturi scrubbers, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or spray
dryers. In addition to add-on controls, many CISWI units are controlled
through the use of pollution prevention measures (i.e., waste
segregation) and good combustion control practices.
Waste segregation is the separation of certain components of the
waste stream in order to reduce the amount of air pollution emissions
associated with that waste when incinerated. The separated waste may
include paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries or metals.
Separation of wastes can reduce the amount of chlorine- and metal-
containing wastes being incinerated, which results in lower emissions
of HCl, dioxin, furans, Hg, Cd and Pb.
Good combustion control practices include proper design,
construction, operation and maintenance practices to destroy or prevent
the formation of air pollutants prior to their release to the
atmosphere. Test data for other types of combustion units indicate that
as secondary chamber residence time and temperature increase, emissions
decrease. Proper mixing of flue gases in the combustion chamber also
promotes complete combustion. Combustion control is most effective in
reducing dioxin, furans, other organic pollutants, PM, NOX
and CO emissions.
The 2000 CISWI standards and the proposed revised standards are
designed to reduce air pollutants, including HCl, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM,
dioxin, furans (total, or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
toxic equivalent (TEQ)), NOX and SO2, emitted
from new and existing CISWI units. Units in the incinerator subcategory
as defined in this proposed rule are currently subject to the 2000
CISWI standards and are already required to be in compliance with the
NSPS or EG. The 2000 CISWI NSPS apply to CISWI units in the incinerator
subcategory if construction of a unit began after November 30, 1999, or
if modification of a unit began after June 1, 2001. The 2000 CISWI NSPS
apply to units in the incinerator subcategory and became effective on
June 1, 2001, and apply as of that date or at start-up of a CISWI
incinerator unit, whichever is later. The 2000 CISWI EG apply to CISWI
units in the incinerator subcategory if construction of a unit began on
or before November 30, 1999, and compliance was required at the latest
by December 2005. This proposed rule would establish revised standards
for units in the incinerator subcategory and establish standards for
the other four subcategories of CISWI units, and the emission
limitations in the proposed revised NSPS and EG would apply at all
times.
C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and other
combustion rules?
This proposed rule addresses the combustion of solid waste
materials (as defined by the Administrator under the RCRA) in
combustion units at commercial and industrial facilities. If an owner
or operator of a CISWI unit ceases combusting solid waste, the affected
unit would no longer be subject to this regulation under CAA Section
129. A rulemaking under CAA Section 112 is being proposed in a parallel
action that is relevant to this action because it would apply to
boilers and process heaters located at a major source that do not
combust solid waste. EPA has also proposed, but not yet finalized,
revised Section 112 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for cement kilns. See 74 FR 21136 (May 6, 2009)
(proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart LLL). Cement kilns
burning solid waste would be subject to this proposed rule, not the
applicable NESHAP.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
1. What is the history of the CISWI standards?
On December 1, 2000, EPA published a notice of final rulemaking
establishing the NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 FR 75338), hereinafter
referred to as the 2000 CISWI rule. Thereafter, on August 17, 2001, EPA
granted a request for reconsideration, pursuant to CAA Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit 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. EPA's request for a
voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule was taken to allow the EPA to
address concerns related to EPA's procedures for establishing MACT
floors for CISWI units in light of the Court's decision in Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001) (Cement Kiln).
Neither EPA's granting of the petition for reconsideration, nor the
Court's order granting a voluntary remand, stayed, vacated or otherwise
influenced the effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. Specifically, CAA
Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that ``reconsideration shall not postpone
the effectiveness of the rule,'' except that ``[t]he effectiveness of
the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration * * * by the
Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months.''
Neither EPA nor the Court stayed the effectiveness of the final CISWI
regulations in connection with the reconsideration petition. In
addition, the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA's motion for a
remand without vacatur; therefore, the Court's remand order had no
impact on the implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule.
On February 17, 2004, EPA published a proposed rule soliciting
comments on the definitions of ``solid waste,'' ``commercial and
industrial waste,'' and ``commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration unit.'' On September 22, 2005, EPA published in the
Federal Register the final rule reflecting our decisions with respect
to the CISWI Definitions Rule. The rule was challenged and, on June 8,
2007, the Court vacated and remanded the CISWI Definitions Rule. In
vacating the rule, the Court found that CAA Section 129 unambiguously
includes among the incineration units subject to its standards any
facility that combusts any solid waste material at all, subject to four
statutory exceptions. While the Court vacated the CISWI Definitions
Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remains in effect.
This action provides EPA's response to the voluntary remand of the
2000 CISWI rule and to the 2007 vacatur and remand of the CISWI
Definitions Rule. In addition, this action addresses the five-year
technology review that is required under CAA Section 129(a)(5).
2. What was EPA's MACT floor methodology in the 2000 CISWI rulemaking
and how has the methodology been changed to respond to the voluntary
remand?
In 2000, the methodology that EPA followed to establish the MACT
floors included identification of a ``MACT floor technology'' and
calculation of MACT floors using emission information from all units,
not only the best performing units, that employed the MACT floor
control technology. EPA recognized that this methodology was rejected
by the Court in the Cement Kiln case, which was decided after EPA
[[Page 31943]]
promulgated the 2000 CISWI standards. In light of the court decision,
EPA requested a voluntary remand of the CISWI standards to re-evaluate
those standards in light of the Cement Kiln decision in order to
correct the methodology. See Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d 855 (Finding that
EPA is permitted to account for variability by setting floors at a
level that reasonably estimates the performance of the best controlled
similar unit (or units) under the worst reasonably foreseeable
circumstances, but not the worst foreseeable circumstances faced by any
unit in the source category).
Accordingly, this action does not use the MACT floor methodology
from 2000. Instead, we used emissions test data to calculate the MACT
floors.\2\ For existing units, we ranked individual CISWI units based
on actual performance and established MACT floors based on the average
of the best performing 12 percent of sources for each pollutant and
subcategory, with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability.
That is, the overall 3-run test average values for existing units for
each pollutant were compiled and ranked to identify the best performing
12 percent of sources for each pollutant within each subcategory. Once
identified, the individual test run data for these units were compiled
and analyzed for variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA did receive some additional emissions data earlier this
year, but due to the court-ordered deadline, we did not have time to
review and evaluate that data. We intend to review the data
submitted earlier this year from a quality assurance and
completeness perspective and incorporate that data into the final
standards, as appropriate. To the extent EPA receives additional
emissions data during the comment period, EPA will assess that data
as it develops the final emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in more detail in Section IV.C of this preamble, for
the variability analysis, we first conducted a statistical analyses to
determine whether the data used for the MACT floor calculation had a
normal or log-normal distribution followed by calculation of the
average and the 99th percent upper limit (UL).\3\ The UL represents a
value that 99 percent of the data in the MACT floor data population
would fall below, and therefore accounts for variability between the
individual test runs in the MACT floor data set. The UL is calculated
by the following equation that is appropriate for small data sets:
UL = x + t(0.99,n) * s
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The procedure is the same as used for the Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). While the
HMIWI preamble referred to this measure as the upper confidence
limit (UCL), it used the same equation. In this proposal, we refer
to the measure as the UL, which is a more appropriate statistical
terminology for this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
x = average of the data.
t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.
n = number of data points in the population.
s = standard deviation.
The summary statistics and analyses are presented in the docket and
further described in Section IV.C of this preamble. The calculated UL
values for existing sources (which are based on emissions data from the
best performing 12 percent of sources and evaluate variability) were
selected as the proposed MACT floor emission limits for the nine
regulated pollutants in each subcategory. This statistical approach is
consistent with the methodology used in the October 6, 2009, Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). EPA
conducted this MACT floor analysis for each pollutant for each of the
five CISWI subcategories we are establishing in this proposed rule:
Incinerators; energy recovery units; waste-burning kilns; burn-off
ovens; and small, remote incinerators.
To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we used a UL
calculation similar to that for existing sources, except the best
performing unit's data within a subcategory was 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 CISWI 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 UL was determined for the data set of individual
test runs for the single best performing source for each regulated
pollutant from each subcategory.
EPA also solicits comment on whether EPA should use an alternate
statistical interval, the 99 percent upper prediction limit (UPL)
instead of the UL. In general, a prediction interval (e.g., a UPL) is
useful in determining what future values are likely to be, based upon
present or past background samples taken. The 99 percent UPL represents
the value that 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. The 99 percent
UPL value based on the test run data for those units in the best-
performing 12 percent could be calculated using one of the following
spreadsheet equations depending on the distribution of data:
Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12%) +
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of
freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed upper prediction
limit with a probability of 0.01, sample size of n and number of
runs whose average will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.
Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log Values
of Test Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values of Test Runs in
Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/
n) + (1/m))]{time} , for a one-tailed upper prediction limit with a
probability of 0.01, sample size of n and number of runs whose
average will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.
In addition to proposing standards for the nine pollutants
discussed above, we are also proposing opacity standards for new and
existing sources in the five subcategories as discussed below.
Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component of data
variability. At very low emissions levels as encountered in the data
used to support this rule, the inherent imprecision in the pollutant
measurement method has a large influence on the reliability of the data
underlying the regulatory floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. Of
particular concern are those data that are reported near or below a
test method's pollutant detection capability. In our guidance for
reporting pollutant emissions used to support this rule, we specified
the criteria for determining test-specific method detection levels.
Those criteria insure that there is about a 1 percent probability of an
error in deciding that the pollutant measured at the method detection
level is present, when in fact, it was absent. Such a probability is
also called a false positive or the alpha, Type I, error. Another view
of this probability is that one is 99 percent certain of the presence
of the pollutant measured at the method detection level. Because of
matrix effects, laboratory techniques, sample size and other factors,
method detection levels normally vary from test to test. We requested
sources to identify (i.e., flag) data which were measured below the
method detection level and to report those values as equal to the test-
specific method detection level.
Variability of data due to measurement imprecision is inherently
and reasonably addressed in calculating the floor or beyond-the-floor
emissions limit when the database represents multiple tests for which
all of the data are measured significantly above the method detection
level. That is less true
[[Page 31944]]
when the database includes emissions occurring below method detection
capabilities and are reported as the method detection level values. The
database is then truncated at the lower end of the measurement range
(i.e., no values reported below the method detection level) and we
believe that a floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit based on a
truncated database or otherwise including values at or near the method
detection level may not adequately account for data measurement
variability. We did not adjust the calculated floor for the data used
for this proposal; although, we believe that accounting for measurement
imprecision should be an important consideration in calculating the
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. We request comment on
approaches suitable to account for measurement variability in
establishing the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit when based
on measurements at or near the method detection level.
As noted above, 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
imprecision decreases to a consistent relative 10 to 15 percent for
values measured at a level about three times the method detection
level.\4\ One approach that we believe could be applied to account for
measurement variability would require defining a method detection level
that is representative of the data used in establishing the floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limits and also minimizes the influence of
an outlier test-specific method detection level value. 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 floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit calculated for the
data set. This approach has the advantage of relying on the data
collected to develop the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second step would be to determine the value equal to three
times the representative method detection level and compare it to the
calculated floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. If three times
the representative method detection level was less than the calculated
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit, we would conclude that
measurement variability is adequately addressed and we would not adjust
the calculated floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. If, on the
other hand, the value equal to three times the representative method
detection level was greater than the calculated floor or beyond-the-
floor emissions limit, we would conclude that the calculated floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit does not account entirely for
measurement variability. We then would use the value equal to three
times the method detection level in place of the calculated floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit to ensure that the floor or beyond-
the-floor emissions limit accounts for measurement variability. We
request comment on this approach.
As stated above, EPA's solid waste definition rule proposes to
define which non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuels
or ingredients in combustion units are solid wastes under Subtitle D of
RCRA. In addition to the primary proposed approach set forth in the
Solid Waste Definition rule, the rule solicits comments on an
alternative approach for determining which secondary materials are
solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA, when combusted. The MACT analysis
discussed above considers only those commercial or industrial units
that are CISWI units (i.e., that are units that combust ``solid waste''
as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA). Based on the
MACT analysis described above, we calculated emission standards under
both the primary proposed approach and the alternative approach
identified in the proposed Solid Waste Definition rule. The only two
subcategories for which the number of units changed under the
alternative approach set forth in the solid waste definition rule were
the energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns subcategories.
Because the number of units in these two subcategories is different
under the alternative approach, the NSPS and EG did change. Based on
the information available to EPA, the number of units in the other
subcategories (i.e., incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote
incinerators) remained the same under both the proposed and alternative
approaches, and the NSPS and EG, therefore, did not change under the
alternative approach.
Table 1 of this preamble shows a comparison of the existing source
MACT limits from the 2000 CISWI rule and those developed for the five
subcategories in this action based on the proposed definition of solid
waste. EPA did not establish subcategories in the 2000 CISWI rule and,
for that reason, a direct comparison with the standards proposed today
with the 2000 standards is only possible for the incinerators
subcategory. As stated above, we are proposing to subcategorize CISWI
units for reasons described in Section IV.B of this preamble. The five
subcategories are:
Incinerators, which are those units that are currently
regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule, are units that are used to dispose of
solid waste materials.
Energy recovery units that combust solid waste materials
as a percentage of their fuel mixture. Energy recovery units include
units that would be boilers or process heaters if they did not combust
solid waste.
Waste-burning kilns means a kiln that is heated, in whole
or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator under RCRA).
Burn-off ovens that are used to clean residual solid waste
materials off of various metal parts which are then reused.
Small, remote incinerators that combust less than one ton
of waste per day and are farther than 50 miles driving distance to the
closest municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.
The proposed MACT floor emission limits for existing sources in
each subcategory are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
[[Page 31945]]
Table 1--Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
[Based on the primary proposed definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed CISWI subcategories
Incinerators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \1\ (2000 CISWI Energy Waste-burning Small, remote
limit) Incinerators recovery units kilns Burn-off ovens incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).............................................. 62 29 1.5 1.5 130 150
CO (ppmv)............................................... 157 2.2 150 710 80 78
Pb (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.04 0.0026 0.002 0.0027 0.041 1.4
Cd (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.004 0.0013 0.00041 0.0003 0.0045 0.26
Hg (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.47 0.0028 0.00096 0.024 0.014 0.0029
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)................................ 70 13 9.2 60 33 240
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)......................... (no limit) 0.031 0.75 2.1 310 1,600
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................... 0.41 0.0025 0.059 0.17 25 130
NOX (ppmv).............................................. 388 34 130 1,100 120 210
SO2 (ppmv).............................................. 20 2.5 4.1 410 11 44
Opacity (%)............................................. 10 1 1 4 2 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7% oxygen.
ppmv = parts per million by volume.
mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
After establishing the MACT floors for each subcategory and
pollutant, EPA also assessed options more stringent than the MACT
floors. For reasons described in the rationale section (IV) of the
preamble, we are not proposing limits more stringent than the MACT
floor. However, we are proposing to amend the requirements to qualify
for reduced testing and, thereby, we are providing an incentive for
owners or operators to optimize a unit's carbon injection system and
other operating parameters to further reduce both mercury and dioxin/
furan emissions.
As stated above, the approach for new sources was similar to that
used with the existing sources, except the best performing unit's data
within a subcategory was used to calculate the MACT floor emission
limit instead of the average of the best performing 12 percent of
units. In summary, the approach ranks individual CISWI units based on
actual performance and establishes MACT floors based on the best
performing source for each pollutant and subcategory, with an
appropriate accounting for emissions variability. The new source MACT
floor emission limits for each CISWI subcategory are shown in Table 2
of this preamble.
Table 2--Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
[Based on the primary definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed CISWI subcategories
Incinerators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \1\ (2000 limit) Energy Waste-burning Small, remote
Incinerators recovery units kilns Burn-off ovens incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).............................................. 62 0.074 0.17 1.5 18 150
CO (ppmv)............................................... 157 1.4 3.0 36 74 4.0
Pb (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.04 0.0013 0.0012 0.00078 0.029 1.4
Cd (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.004 0.00066 0.00012 0.00030 0.0032 0.057
Hg (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.47 0.00013 0.00013 0.024 0.0033 0.0013
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)................................ 70 0.0077 4.4 1.8 28 240
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)......................... (no limit) 0.0093 0.034 0.00035 0.011 1,200
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................... 0.41 0.00073 0.0027 0.000028 0.00086 94
NOX (ppmv).............................................. 388 19 75 140 16 210
SO2 (ppmv).............................................. 20 1.5 4.1 3.6 1.5 43
Opacity (%)............................................. 10 1 1 1 2 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
3. How is the solid waste definition addressed in this proposed rule?
EPA is proposing to define the non-hazardous secondary materials
that are solid waste in a parallel notice under RCRA and the RCRA
proposal also identifies an ``alternative approach'' for consideration
and comment. The concurrently proposed RCRA solid waste definition is
integral in defining the CISWI source category. As stated above, the
emission limits presented in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble are based
on subcategories established considering sources that are CISWI units
under the ``proposed approach'' for defining when non-hazardous
secondary materials are solid waste, as discussed in a parallel
proposal under RCRA. As stated above, the ``alternative approach''
identified for consideration and comment in the RCRA notice would
result in a different population of units being covered by the
standards for two of the CISWI subcategories. We calculated MACT floors
using emission rates for units that would be CISWI units under the
``alternative approach'' (i.e., for units in the energy recovery units
and waste-burning kilns
[[Page 31946]]
subcategories) and the MACT standard setting procedures previously
described.
Table 3 of this preamble reflects the potential MACT floor limits
for the subcategories (i.e., energy recovery unit and waste-burning
kiln) that would be affected considering the ``alternative approach''
for defining solid waste. The MACT floor limits for the remaining three
subcategories would not be impacted by the ``alternative approach'' and
are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble.
Table 3--Potential New and Existing MACT Floor Limits for the Energy Recovery Units and Waste-Burning Kiln
Subcategories Using the ``Alternative Approach'' Under Consideration and Comment in the Concurrently Proposed
RCRA Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed MACT floor for Proposed MACT floor for new
existing units units
Pollutant (units) \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Waste-burning Energy Waste-burning
recovery units kilns recovery units kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)...................................... 30 3.6 0.036 3.6
CO (ppmv)....................................... 290 760 3 36
Pb (mg/dscm).................................... 0.15 0.0061 0.000023 0.00078
Cd (mg/dscm).................................... 0.013 0.00070 0.0000011 0.00070
Hg (mg/dscm).................................... 0.0085 0.03 0.00013 0.00081
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)........................ 69 71 3.4 1.8
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)................. 95 2.2 0.0017 0.00035
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)................... 7.5 0.18 0.00014 0.000028
NOX (ppmv)...................................... 440 1,100 63 140
SO2 (ppmv)...................................... 1,500 410 0.040 3.6
Opacity (%)..................................... 1 4 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a review of
the standards at five-year intervals and, in accordance with CAA
Sections 129 and 111, revise the standards. We do not interpret CAA
Section 129(a)(5), together with CAA Section 111, as requiring EPA to
recalculate MACT floors in connection with this periodic review. See,
e.g., 71 FR 27324, 27327-28 (May 10, 2006) ``Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing
Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors; Final Rule''; see also, NRDC
and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (upholding
EPA's interpretation that the periodic review requirement in CAA
Section 112(d)(6) does not impose an obligation to recalculate MACT
floors).
Rather, in conducting such periodic reviews, EPA attempts to assess
the performance of and variability associated with control measures
affecting emissions performance at sources in the subject source
category (including the installed emissions control equipment), along
with recent developments in practices, processes and control
technologies, and determines whether it is appropriate to revise the
standards. This is the same general approach taken by EPA in
periodically reviewing CAA Section 111 standards, as CAA Section 111
contains a similar review and revise provision. Specifically, CAA
Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires EPA, except in specified circumstances,
to review NSPS promulgated under CAA Section 111 every eight years and
to revise the standards if EPA determines that it is ``appropriate'' to
do so, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). In light of the explicit reference in
CAA Section 129(a)(5) to Section 111, which contains direct guidance on
how to review and revise standards previously promulgated, EPA
reasonably interprets CAA Section 129(a)(5) to provide that EPA must
similarly review and, if appropriate, revise CAA Section 129 standards.
Section 129 provides guidance on the criteria to be used in
determining whether it is appropriate to revise a CAA Section 129
standard. Section 129(a)(3) states that standards under CAA Sections
111 and 129 ``shall be based on methods and technologies for removal or
destruction of pollutants before, during and after combustion.'' It can
be reasonably inferred from the reference to ``technologies'' that EPA
is to consider advances in technology, both as to their effectiveness
and their costs, as well as the availability of new technologies, in
determining whether it is ``appropriate'' to revise a CAA Section 129
standard. This inference is further supported by the fact that the
standards under review are based, in part, on an assessment of the
performance of control technologies currently being used by sources in
a category or subcategory.
This approach is also consistent with the approach used in
establishing and updating NSPS under CAA Section 111. Consistent with
the definition of ``standard of performance'' in CAA Section 111(a)(1),
standards of performance promulgated under CAA Section 111 are based on
``the best system of emission reductions'' which generally equates to
some type of control technology. Where EPA determines that it is
``appropriate'' to revise CAA Section 111 standards, CAA Section
111(b)(1)(B) directs that this be done ``following the procedure
required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards.'' In
updating CAA Section 111 standards in accordance with CAA Section
111(b)(1)(B), EPA has consistently taken the approach of evaluating
advances in existing control technologies, both as to performance and
cost, as well as the availability of new technologies and then, on the
basis of this evaluation, determined whether it is appropriate to
revise the standard. See, for example, 71 FR 9866 (Feb. 27, 2006)
(updating the boilers NSPS) and 71 FR 38482 (July 6, 2006) (updating
the stationary combustion turbines NSPS). In these reviews, EPA takes
into account, among other things, the currently installed equipment and
its performance and operational variability. As appropriate, we also
consider new technologies and control measures that have been
demonstrated to reliably control emissions from the source category.
The approach is similar to the one that Congress spelled out in CAA
Section 112(d)(6), which is also entitled
[[Page 31947]]
``Review and revision.'' Section 112(d)(6) directs EPA to every eight
years ``review, and revise as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes and control technologies)''
emission standards promulgated pursuant to CAA Section 112. There are a
number of significant similarities between what is required under CAA
Section 129, which addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) and other pollutants from solid waste incineration units, and CAA
Section 112, which addresses HAP emissions generally. For example,
under both CAA Section 112(d)(3) and CAA Section 129(a)(2) initial
standards applicable to existing sources ``shall not be less stringent
than the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of units in the category.'' Also, as stated above, both
sections require that standards be reviewed at specified intervals of
time. Finally, both sections contain a provision addressing ``residual
risk'' (CAA Sections 112(f) and 129(h)(3)). As a result, EPA believes
that CAA Section 112(d)(6) is relevant in ascertaining Congress' intent
regarding how EPA is to proceed in implementing CAA Section 129(a)(5).
Like its counterpart CAA Section 112(d)(6), Section 129(a)(5) does
not state that EPA must conduct a MACT floor analysis every five years
when reviewing standards promulgated under CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and
111. Had Congress intended EPA to conduct a new floor analysis every
five years, it would have said so expressly by directly incorporating
such requirements into CAA Section 129(a)(5), for example, by referring
directly to CAA Section 129(a)(2), rather than just to ``this section''
and CAA Section 111. It did not do so, however, and, in fact, CAA
Section 129 encompasses more than just MACT standards under CAA Section
129(a)(2)--it also includes risk-based standards under CAA Section
129(h)(3), which are not determined by an additional MACT analysis.
Reading CAA Section 129(a)(5) to require recalculation of the MACT
floor would be both inconsistent with Congress' express direction that
EPA should revise CAA Section 129 standards in accordance with CAA
Section 111, which plainly provides that such revision should occur
only if we determine that it is ``appropriate'' to do so. It would also
result in effectively reading the reference to CAA Section 111 out of
the CAA, a circumstance that Congress could not have intended. Required
recalculation of floors would completely eviscerate EPA's ability to
base revisions to CAA Section 129 standards on a determination that it
is ``appropriate'' to revise such standards, as EPA's only discretion
would be in deciding whether to establish a standard that is more
stringent than the recalculated floor. EPA believes that depriving the
Agency of any meaningful discretion in this manner is at odds with what
Congress intended.
Further, required recalculation of floors would have the inexorable
effect of driving existing sources to the level of performance
exhibited by new sources on a five-year cycle, a result that is
unprecedented and that should not be presumed to have been intended by
Congress in the absence of a clear statement to that effect. There is
no such clear statement. It is reasonable to assume that if the floor
must be recalculated on a five-year cycle, some, if not most or all, of
the sources that form the basis for the floor calculation, will be
sources that were previously subject to standards applicable to new
sources. As a result, over time, existing sources which had not made
any changes in their operations, would eventually be subject to
essentially the same level of regulation as new sources. Such a result
would be unprecedented, particularly in the context of a standard that
is established under both CAA Sections 129 and 111. Under CAA Section
111, an existing source only becomes a new source and thus subject to a
new source standard when it is either modified (CAA Section 111(a)(2))
or reconstructed (40 CFR 60.15). Given this context, it is not
reasonable to assume that Congress intended for existing sources
subject to CAA Section 129 standards to be treated as new sources over
time where their circumstances have not changed.
We believe that a reasonable interpretation of CAA Section
129(a)(5) is that Congress preserved EPA's discretion in reviewing CAA
Section 129 standards to revise them when the EPA determines it is
``appropriate'' to do so and that the Court's recent ruling regarding
CAA Section 112(d)(6) supports this view (see NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008). In that case, petitioners had ``argued
that EPA was obliged to completely recalculate the maximum achievable
control technology--in other words, to start from scratch.'' NRDC and
LEAN, 529 F.3d at 1084. The Court held: ``We do not think the words
`review, and revise as necessary' can be construed reasonably as
imposing any such obligation.'' The Court's ruling in NRDC and LEAN is
consistent with our interpretation of CAA Section 129(a)(5) as
providing a broad range of discretion in terms of whether to revise
MACT standards adopted under CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and 111.
C. EPA's Approach in Conducting the Five-Year Review
This action responds to the vacatur and remand of the CISWI
Definition Rule and the voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI NSPS and EG,
and, in this response, EPA is proposing new standards based on a MACT
methodology that is consistent with the CAA and District of Columbia
Circuit Court precedent. The MACT levels proposed herein reflect floor
levels determined by actual current emissions data from CISWI units,
and, therefore, reflect the current performance of the best performing
unit or units that will be subject to the CISWI standards.
Consequently, we believe that our obligation to conduct a five-year
review based on implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule will also be
fulfilled upon finalization of the CISWI standards. Our conclusion is
supported by the fact that the revised MACT standards included in this
proposed remand response are based on the available performance data
for the currently operating CISWI units, including those units that are
subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and those units that will be subject to
the CISWI standards for the first time based on the proposed Solid
Waste Definition rule under RCRA. In establishing MACT floors based on
currently available emissions information, we address the technology
review's goals of assessing the performance efficiency of the installed
equipment and ensuring that the emission limits reflect the performance
of the technologies required by the MACT standards. In addition, in
establishing the proposed standards, we considered whether new
technologies and processes and improvements in practices have been
demonstrated at sources subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and at sources
that will be subject to these proposed standards for the first time
based on the proposed definition of solid waste. Accordingly, the
remand response in this proposed action fulfills EPA's obligations
regarding the five-year review of the CISWI standards.
D. Other Proposed Amendments
This proposed action makes additional changes to the 2000 CISWI
rule, including changes to the units excluded from regulation under the
2000 CISWI rule; the removal of the exemption for periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction; changes to the testing, monitoring and
reporting requirements; and changes to the
[[Page 31948]]
electronic data submittal requirements. A summary of these changes
follows.
1. Definitions and Units Excluded From Regulation
We are revising the definition of CISWI unit to reflect the Court
decision that all units burning solid waste as defined under RCRA are
to be covered by regulation under CAA Section 129. We are also adding a
definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' and removing the
definition of ``commercial and industrial waste''. We also included for
the first time definitions of the five subcategories of CISWI units
that will be regulated under the proposed rules.
The 2000 CISWI rule excluded from regulation combustion units at
commercial or industrial facilities that recovered energy for a useful
purpose, and also excluded multiple other types of units that may
combust solid waste including: Pathological waste incinerators;
agricultural waste incinerators; incinerators regulated by the CAA
Section 129 municipal waste combustor (MWC) or HMIWI standards;
incinerators with a capacity less than 35 tons per day that combust
more than 30 percent MSW; qualifying small power producers; qualifying
cogeneration units; materials recovery units; air curtain incinerators
combusting ``clean wood'' waste; cyclonic barrel burners; rack, part
and drum reclamation units; cement kilns; sewage sludge incinerators
(SSI); chemical recovery units; and laboratory analysis units.
Qualifying small power producers, qualifying cogeneration units and
metals recovery units are expressly exempt from coverage pursuant to
CAA exclusions from the definition of ``solid waste incineration unit''
set forth in Section 129(g)(1). Units that are required to have a
permit under section 3005 or the Solid Waste Disposal Act (i.e.,
hazardous waste combustion units) are also exempt from Section 129
rules per CAA Section 129(g)(1). Air curtain incinerators at commercial
or industrial facilities combusting ``clean wood'' waste are also
excluded from the definition of solid waste incineration unit set forth
in CAA Section 129(g)(1), but that section provides that such units
must comply with opacity limits.
Solid waste incineration units that are included within the scope
of other CAA Section 129 categories include MWCs, pathological waste
incinerators (EPA intends to regulate these units under other solid
waste incineration (OSWI) standards), SSI (EPA currently intends to
issue a regulation setting emission standards for these units by
December 16, 2010), and HMIWI, and these solid waste incineration units
will remain exempt from the CISWI standards. All other solid waste
incineration units at commercial and industrial facilities would be
subject to the proposed CISWI standards. Accordingly, the proposed
revisions to the CISWI rules would remove the exemptions for:
Agricultural waste incinerators; cyclonic barrel burners; cement kilns;
rack, part and drum reclamation units (i.e. burn-off ovens); chemical
recovery units; and laboratory analysis units. As stated above, we are
proposing to create subcategories for waste-burning kilns, energy
recovery units and burn-off ovens and subject them to this proposed
rule in light of the CISWI Definitions Rule vacatur. We note that other
Section 129 standards may contain an exemption for cement kilns. Those
exemptions do not excuse waste burning kilns from compliance with these
proposed standards. As those other Section 129 rules are amended, we
will clarify that cement kilns that meet the definition of waste-
burning kiln and other CISWI units that may be expressly exempt from
those standards are subject to CISWI standards if they combust solid
waste.
CISWI units burning agricultural materials that meet the definition
of solid waste would be part of the appropriate standards under this
proposed rule. If the unit recovers energy, it would be subject to the
CISWI energy recovery unit subcategory, and our inventory includes one
such unit. If the unit does not recover energy, it would be included in
either the incinerators subcategory or the small, remote incinerators
subcategory. We are not aware of any circumstances in which waste-
burning kilns or burn off ovens would combust agricultural materials.
Cyclonic burn barrels, which may be used to combust agricultural
materials, would be included in either the incinerators subcategory or
the small remote incinerators subcategory.
2. Performance Testing and Monitoring Amendments
The proposed amendments would require all CISWI units to
demonstrate initial compliance with the revised emission limits. The
proposed amendments would require, for existing CISWI units, annual
inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters and other air pollution
control devices that are used to meet the emission limits. In addition,
a Method 22 of appendix A-7 visible emissions test of the ash handling
operations is required to be conducted during the annual compliance
test for all subcategories except waste-burning kilns, which do not
have ash handling systems. Furthermore, for any existing CISWI unit
that operates a fabric filter air pollution control device, we are
proposing that a bag leak detection system be installed to monitor the
device. The proposed amendments continue to require parametric
monitoring of all other add-on air pollution control devices, such as
wet scrubbers and activated carbon injection. CISWI units that install
SNCR technology to reduce NOX emissions would be required to
monitor the reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection rate and
secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to the CISWI unit).
The proposed amendments would also require subcategory-specific
monitoring requirements in addition to the aforementioned inspection,
bag leak detection and parametric monitoring requirements applicable to
all CISWI units. Existing incinerators, burn-off ovens and small,
remote incinerators would have annual emissions testing for opacity,
HCl and PM. Existing kilns would monitor Hg emissions using a Hg
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and would perform annual
testing for CO, NOX, SO2, PM, HCl and opacity.
Existing energy recovery units would monitor CO using a CO CEMS. We
seek comment on the extent to which existing units in subcategories
other than energy recovery should be required to use CO CEMS. Annual
performance testing for CO, NOX, SO2, PM, HCl,
dioxins/furans and opacity is also required for these units. The
proposed amendments provide reduced annual testing requirements for PM,
HCl and opacity when testing results are shown to be well below the
limits. If the energy recovery unit has a design capacity less than 250
MMBtu/hr and is not equipped with a wet scrubber control device, then a
continuous opacity monitor would be required or, as an alternative, a
PM CEMS could be employed (see below). If the energy recovery unit has
a design capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, the proposed requirements
would require monitoring of PM emissions using a PM CEMS. We seek
comment on the extent to which subcategories other than energy recovery
units should be required to use PM CEMS.
For new CISWI units, the proposed amendments would require the same
monitoring requirements proposed for existing units, but would also
require CO CEMS for all subcategories.
For all subcategories of existing CISWI units, use of CO CEMS would
be an approved alternative and specific language with requirements for
CO CEMS is included in the proposed amendments. For new and existing
[[Page 31949]]
CISWI units, use of PM, NOX, SO2, HCl, multi-
metals and Hg CEMS and integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and dioxin
monitoring (continuous sampling with periodic sample analysis) also
would be approved alternatives and specific language for those
alternatives is included in the proposed amendments.
3. Electronic Data Submittal
The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective
reviews of CAA Section 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other
purposes including compliance determinations, emissions factor
development and annual emissions rate determinations. In conducting
these required reviews, we have 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, we are taking a step to improve data accessibility.
Owners and operators of CISWI units will be required to submit to an
EPA electronic database an electronic copy of reports of certain
performance tests required under this rule. Data entry will be through
an electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) that will be used by the staff as part of the
emissions testing project. 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 which
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
will not require any additional performance testing and will apply to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported
by 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 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 emissions 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 provides a standardized method to compile and store much of
the documentation required to be reported by this rule while clearly
stating what testing information we require. Another important benefit
of submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is
conducted is that it will substantially reduce the effort involved in
data collection activities in the future. Specifically, because EPA
would already have data for this source category as a result of the
electronic reporting provisions described here, there would likely be
fewer or less substantial data collection requests (e.g., CAA Section
114 letters) in the future for this source category. 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 in that their review
may be more streamlined and accurate as the states will not have to re-
enter the data to assess the calculations and verify the data entry.
Finally, another benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data will improve greatly the overall
quality of the existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the
pool of emissions test data upon which the emissions factor is based
and by ensuring that data are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint we hear from industry and
regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not representative
of a particular source category. Receiving and incorporating data for
most performance tests will ensure that emissions 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 emissions factors development program will save
industry, state/local/tribal agencies and EPA time and money and work
to improve the quality of emissions inventories and related regulatory
decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that will be used is
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA's TTN. The
WebFIRE Web site was constructed to store emissions test data for use
in developing emissions factors. A description of the WebFIRE database
can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report through EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE
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.
4. Changes to Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions
The 2000 CISWI standards did not apply during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction. The proposed rule would revise the 2000 CISWI
rule such that the standards would apply at all times, including during
startup, shutdown or malfunction events. As further explained in
Section IV.E.4 of this preamble, the revision is the result of a court
decision that invalidated certain regulations related to startup,
shutdown and malfunction in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63.
The full rationale for these decisions is presented in Section IV.E.3
of this preamble.
E. Proposed State Plan Implementation Schedule for Existing CISWI
Under the proposed amendments to the EG and consistent with CAA
Section 129, revised state plans containing the revised existing source
emission limits and other requirements in the proposed amendments would
be due within one year after promulgation of the amendments. That is,
states would have to submit revised plans to EPA one year after the
date on which EPA promulgates revised standards.
The proposed amendments to the EG would then allow existing CISWI
to demonstrate compliance with the amended standards as expeditiously
as practicable after approval of a state plan, but no later than three
years from the date of approval of a state plan or five years after
promulgation of the revised standards, whichever is earlier. Consistent
with CAA Section 129, EPA expects states to require compliance as
expeditiously as practicable. However, because we believe that many
CISWI units will find it necessary to retrofit existing emission
control equipment and/or install additional emission
[[Page 31950]]
control equipment in order to meet the proposed revised limits, EPA
anticipates that states may choose to provide the three year compliance
period allowed by CAA Section 129(f)(2).
In revising the standards in a state plan, a state would have two
options. First, it could include both the 2000 CISWI standards and the
new standards in its revised state plan, which would allow a phased
approach in applying the new limits. That is, the state plan would make
it clear that the standards in the 2000 CISWI rule remain in force for
units in the incinerators subcategory and apply until the date the
revised existing source standards are effective (as defined in the
state plan).\5\ States whose existing CISWI units in the incinerators
subcategory do not need to improve their performance to meet the
revised standards may want to consider a second approach where the
state would replace the 2000 CISWI rule standards with the standards in
the final rule, follow the procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and
submit a revised state plan to EPA for approval. If the revised state
plan contains only the revised standards (i.e., the 2000 CISWI rule
standards are not retained), then the revised standards must become
effective immediately for those units in the incinerators subcategory
that are subject to the 2000 CISWI rule since the 2000 CISWI rule
standards would be removed from the state plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All sources currently subject to the 2000 CISWI EG or NSPS
will become existing sources in the incinerators subcategory once
the final revised CISWI standards are in place. See section III.F
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA will revise the existing Federal plan to incorporate any
changes to existing source emission limits and other requirements that
EPA ultimately promulgates. The Federal plan applies to CISWI units in
any state without an approved state plan. The proposed amendments to
the EG would allow existing CISWI units subject to the Federal plan up
to five years after promulgation of the revised standards to
demonstrate compliance with the amended standards, as required by CAA
Section 129(b)(3).
F. Proposed Changes To the Applicability Date of the 2000 NSPS and EG
CISWI units in the incinerators subcategory would be treated
differently under the amended standards, as proposed, than they were
under the 2000 CISWI rule in terms of whether they are ``existing'' or
``new'' sources. Consistent with the CAA Section 129 definition of
``new'' sources, there would be new dates defining what units are
``new'' sources. Units in the incinerators subcategory that are
currently subject to the NSPS would become ``existing'' sources under
the proposed amended standards and would be required to meet the
revised EG for the incinerators subcategory by the applicable
compliance date for the revised guidelines. However, those units would
continue to be NSPS units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule until they
become ``existing'' sources under the amended standards. CISWI units in
the five subcategories that commence construction after the date of
this proposal, or for which a modification is commenced on or after the
date six months after promulgation of the amended standards, would be
``new'' units subject to more stringent NSPS emission limits. Units for
which construction or modification is commenced prior to those dates
would be existing units subject to the proposed EG, except that units
in the incinerators subcategory would remain subject to the 2000 CISWI
rule until the compliance date of the proposed CISWI EG as discussed
above. CISWI solid waste incineration units in the subcategories other
than the incinerators subcategory will not in any case be subject to
the standards in the 2000 CISWI rule.
Thus, under these proposed amendments, units in the incinerators
subcategory that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, and on
or before June 4, 2010, or that are reconstructed or modified prior to
the date six months after promulgation of any revised final standards,
would be subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS until the applicable compliance
date for the revised EG, at which time those units would become
``existing'' sources. Similarly, units in the incinerators subcategory
subject to the EG under the 2000 CISWI rule would need to meet the
revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the revised
guidelines. CISWI units that commence construction after June 4, 2010
or that are reconstructed or modified six months or more after the date
of promulgation of any revised standards would have to meet the revised
NSPS emission limits being added to the subpart CCCC NSPS within six
months after the promulgation date of the amendments or upon startup,
whichever is later.
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response To the Remand and the Proposed
CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
1. Rationale for the Proposed Response To the Remand Pursuant to CAA
Section 129(a)(2)
The proposed revised standards represent EPA's position concerning
what is necessary to satisfy our initial duties under CAA Section
129(a)(2) to have set MACT limits for CISWI and we are establishing the
MACT standards in response to the voluntary remand that EPA requested
in 2001 and the Court's remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule. As
explained further below, we are subcategorizing CISWI units for the
first time in light of the new population of units subject to the rule.
Specifically, we are proposing a total of five subcategories. Below, we
propose MACT standards for each subcategory of new and existing CISWI
units.
See sections II.A. and III.B above for a detailed discussion of
EPA's authority to establish CAA Section 129(a)(2) standards for CISWI
units.
2. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
As stated above, EPA interprets CAA Section 129(a)(5) to provide
EPA with broad discretion to revise MACT standards for incinerators. As
we explained, we do not interpret CAA Section 129(a)(5), as requiring
that EPA in each round of review, recalculate MACT floors, and we
regard the Court's recent ruling in NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, in which the
Court held that the similar review requirement in CAA Section 112(d)(6)
does not require a MACT floor recalculation, as supporting our view.
This action does not reflect an independent MACT floor reassessment
performed under CAA Section 129(a)(5). However, since these proposed
standards do reflect the emissions levels currently achieved in
practice by the best performing CISWI units and we have no other
information that would cause us to reach different conclusions were a
CAA Section 129(a)(5) review to be conducted in isolation, we believe
that this rulemaking responding to the Court's remand will necessarily
discharge our duty under CAA Section 129(a)(5) to review and revise the
current standards.
In performing future five-year reviews of the CISWI standards, we
do not intend to recalculate new MACT floors, but will instead propose
to revise the emission limits consistent with our interpretation as
presented above in
[[Page 31951]]
section III.B. We believe this approach reflects the most reasonable
interpretation of the review requirement of CAA Section 129(a)(5), and
is consistent with how we have interpreted the similar review
requirement of CAA Section 112(d)(6), regarding MACT standards
promulgated under CAA Section 112.
This action's proposed remand response fulfills our obligations
regarding the five-year review of the CISWI standards because the
revised MACT floor determinations and emission limits associated with
the remand response are based on performance data for currently
operating CISWI units and accounts for all non-technology factors that
affect CISWI unit performance. The proposed remand response also
addresses whether new technologies and processes and improvements in
practices have been demonstrated at CISWI units subject to the 2000
CISWI rule. Furthermore, this action also proposes monitoring
requirements for control devices that may be used to comply with the
proposed standards by units in the subcategories that were not subject
to the 2000 CISWI rule, but would be subject to these proposed
standards. These controls include activated carbon injection, selective
non-catalytic reduction and electrostatic precipitators. Our
information indicates that these technologies are currently being used
by some of the units that would be subject to this proposal, or have
been applied to units in similar source categories, such as municipal
waste combustors. We also reviewed CEMS requirements being proposed in
standards for the non-waste burning counterparts to the waste-burning
kiln and energy recovery unit subcategories, and believe that these can
be applied to similar units that would be regulated under the proposed
CISWI standards.
B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories
As discussed earlier in section III.A.2. of this preamble, the
population of existing units that would be subject to this proposed
regulation has been expanded from the 2000 CISWI rule. The combustion
survey Information Collection Request (ICR) responses show that our
population of 176 CISWI units now includes combustion units with
various fundamental differences in relation to units that were
regulated as CISWI in the 2000 CISWI rule. We are proposing to
subcategorize CISWI units based on technical and other differences in
the processes, such as combustor design, draft type and availability of
utilities. These proposed subcategories for CISWI have been established
based on fundamental differences in the types and sizes of units that
will be subject to the standards.
Incinerators: Incinerators, which are the units currently regulated
by the 2000 CISWI rule, are used to dispose of solid waste materials,
and emissions are a function of the types of materials burned.
Incinerators are designed without integral heat recovery (but may
include waste heat recovery). While there are different designs, they
all serve the same purpose: Reduction in the volume of solid waste
materials. Incinerators can be operated on a batch or continuous basis.
The same types of add-on controls, including fabric filters, wet
scrubbers, SNCR and activated carbon injection, can be applied to most
incinerators. Although the composition of the materials combusted is
highly variable and is a key factor in the profile of emissions, we
determined it was not appropriate to further subcategorize incinerators
because the sources in this category are sufficiently similar such that
the incinerators can achieve the same level of performance for the nine
regulated pollutants.
Energy-recovery units: Energy recovery units combust solid waste
materials as a percentage of their fuel mixture and are designed to
recover thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water. Energy
recovery units include units that would be considered boilers and
process heaters if they did not combust solid waste. Energy recovery
units are generally larger than incinerators. They typically fire a
mixture of solid waste and other fuels, whereas incinerators burn
predominantly solid waste, although sometimes a small amount of
supplemental fuel is fired in an incinerator to maintain combustion
temperature. Energy recovery units are also different from incinerators
in terms of how the fuel is fed into the combustion chamber, the
combustion chamber design (which typically includes integral heat
recovery) and other operational characteristics. These differences can
result in emission profiles for energy recovery units that are
different from incinerators but similar to boilers. Combustion of waste
materials in these units impacts the emission profile to some degree,
although emissions from these units often resemble emissions from
boilers that combust traditional fuels.
Waste-burning kilns: Waste-burning kilns are fundamentally
different than any other unit being regulated under CISWI. Kilns of all
types are physically larger than an incinerator with a comparable heat
input. Kiln design and operation are also different. For example, the
design is typically a rotating cylindrical kiln with a fuel burner on
one end and raw materials being fed in the other (cold) end. Fuel
(particularly solids such as tires) may also in some cases be fed at a
mid-kiln point. Some kilns also have a large preheater tower with a
precalciner that is an additional firing point for both fossil and
waste fuels. The temperature profile of kilns is critical in order to
produce a saleable product. Another key distinction is that for cement
kilns, the source of most of the pollutants is typically the raw
materials, not the fuels, and emissions from the raw materials and the
solid wastes and fuels are comingled and emitted together. As a result,
waste-burning kilns have a very different emissions profile than other
CISWI subcategories and that difference can influence the design of
applicable controls.
Burn-off ovens: These units typically are very small (<1 MMBtu/hr),
batch-operated, combustion units that are used to clean residual
materials off of various metal parts, which are then reused. The amount
of waste combusted in these units is generally small (pounds per year
in some cases) and the configuration of the stacks that serve these
units precludes the use of some EPA test methods for measuring
emissions and could affect the ability to install certain control
devices.
Small, remote, incinerators: These are batch-operated units that
combust less than one ton of waste per day and are farther than 50
miles driving distance to the closest MSW landfill. To the extent that
these are located in Alaska, a major difference in these types of units
is the inability to operate a wet scrubber in the northern climates and
the lack of availability of wastewater handling and treatment
utilities. We believe this would impact their ability to meet emission
limits for pollutants controlled by wet scrubbers. In addition, because
of the remote location, these units do not have lower-cost alternative
waste disposal options (i.e., landfills) nearby and emissions
associated with transporting the solid waste could be significant.
C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission Limits
EPA must consider available emissions test data to determine the
MACT floor. We based the floor calculations on available emissions
data.\6\ We did receive some additional data earlier this year, but as
noted above, due to the court-ordered
[[Page 31952]]
deadline, we did not have sufficient time to review and evaluate that
data. We intend to review and evaluate the data submitted earlier this
year and any data received during the comment period, and we intend to
include those data in our final analysis, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In calculating the floors for this proposed rule, we
included units combusting manure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For existing sources, we calculated the MACT floor for each
subcategory of sources by ranking the emission test results from units
within the subcategory from lowest emissions to highest emissions (for
each pollutant) and then taking the numerical average of the test
results from the best performing (lowest emitting) 12 percent of
sources. That is, the overall 3-run test average values for each
existing unit for each pollutant were compiled and ranked from lowest
to highest to identify the best performing 12 percent of sources within
the subcategory for each pollutant (i.e., on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis).\7\ Because the number of units in different subcategories may
be different, the number of units that represent the best performing 12
percent of 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
five units even though rounding conventions would normally lead to
rounding down to four units. Another example from this proposal is in
the incinerator subcategory, which includes 28 units. Twelve percent of
28 is 3.36 units and we established the standards based on the best
performing four units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The pollutant-by-pollutant approach is the same approach
used for other CAA Section 129 standards and the rationale for this
approach can be found in the preamble for the final HMIWI NSPS and
EG (74 FR 51368, 51380 (October 6, 2009)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the best 12 percent of units are identified for each source
category 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 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, followed by
calculation of the average and 99th percent upper limit (UL).\8\ If the
data were normally distributed (e.g., similar to a typical bell curve),
then the equation to calculate UL was applied to the data. 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 to
normalize the data prior to computing the UL. When the data
distribution was found to be log-normal, the data were transformed by
taking the natural log of the data prior to calculating the UL value.
Two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were examined to
determine if the data were normally or log-normally distributed.
Additional discussion of the distribution analysis and the data
distributions used to develop each MACT floor limit are documented in
the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial and Commercial
Solid Waste Incinerators Source Category'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The procedure is the same as used for the HMIWI rule (74 FR
51367, October 6, 2009). While the HMIWI preamble referred to this
measure as the upper confidence limit (UCL), it used the same
equation. In this proposal, we refer to the measure as the UL, which
is a more appropriate statistical terminology for this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 99th percent UL represents a value that 99 percent of the data
in the MACT floor data population would fall below, and therefore,
accounts for the run-to-run and test-to-test variability observed in
the MACT floor data set. It was calculated by the following equation
that is appropriate for small data sets:
UL = x + t(0.99,n) * s
Where:
x = average of the data.
t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.
n = number of data points in the population.
s = standard deviation.
A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in
the memorandum ``MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial and Commercial
Solid Waste Incinerators Source Category'' in the docket. The
calculated existing source UL values (which are based on the emissions
data from the best performing 12 percent of sources and account for
variability) were selected as the proposed MACT floor emission limits
for the nine regulated pollutants in each subcategory. In establishing
the limits, the UL values were rounded up to two significant figures.
For example, a value of 1.42 would be rounded to 1.5 (as has been done
for other CAA Section 129 rules) because a limit of 1.4 would be lower
than the calculated MACT floor value.
The UL computation assumes that the data available represents the
entire population of data from the best performing CISWI units used to
establish the proposed standards. This statistical approach and use of
the UL is consistent with the methodology used in the October 6, 2009,
HMIWI rule (74 FR 51368).
The summary results of the UL analysis and the MACT floor emission
limits for existing units are presented in Tables 4 through 6 of this
preamble for each subcategory.
Table 4--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--PM, Hg, Cd and Pb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Parameter PM (mg/dscm) Hg (mg/dscm) Cd (mg/dscm) Pb (mg/dscm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators.................. No. of sources 28 28 28 28
in subcategory
=.
No. in MACT 4 4 4 4
floor =.
Avg of top 12%.. 4.01 0.000359 0.000362 0.00125
99% UL of top% 12.76 0.00278 0.00124 0.00258
(test runs) =.
Proposed Limit = 13 0.0028 0.0013 0.0026
Energy recovery units......... No. of sources 40 40 40 40
in subcategory
=.
No. in MACT 5 5 5 5
floor =.
Avg of top 12%.. 4.249 0.000053 0.000157 0.000967
99% UL of top% 9.179 0.000960 0.000409 0.00197
(test runs) =.
Proposed Limit = 9.2 0.00096 0.00041 0.002
Waste-burning kilns........... No. of sources 53 53 53 53
in subcategory
=.
[[Page 31953]]
No. in MACT 7 7 7 7
floor =.
Avg of top 12%.. 5.36 0.003649 0.000112 0.00105
99% UL of top% 59.97 0.0240 0.000293 0.00261
(test runs) =.
Proposed Limit = 60 0.024 0.0003 0.0027
Burn-off ovens................ No. of sources 36 36 36 36
in subcategory
=.
No. in MACT 5 5 5 5
floor =.
Avg of top 12%.. 9.25 0.00267 0.00123 0.0125
99% UL of top% 32.14 0.0135 0.00448 0.0408
(test runs) =.
Proposed Limit = 33 0.014 0.0045 0.041
Small, remote incinerators.... No. of sources 19 19 19 19
in subcategory
=.
No. in MACT 3 3 3 3
floor =.
Avg of top 12%.. 102.93 0.0017 0.0589 0.5627
99% UL of top% 238.85 0.00289 0.256 1.4012
(test runs) =.
Proposed Limit = 240 0.0029 0.26 1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--HCl, NOX and SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Parameter HCl (ppmdv) NOX (ppmdv) SO2 (ppmdv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators.......................... No. of sources in 28 28 28
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =..... 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%.......... 0.1812 14.7 0.73
99% UL of top% (test 28.05 33.09 2.48
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =........ 29 34 2.5
Energy recovery units................. No. of sources in 40 40 40
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =..... 5 5 5
Avg of top 12%.......... 0.2415 64.24 1.67
99% UL of top% (test 1.42 124.55 4.01
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =........ 1.5 130 4.1
Waste-burning kilns................... No. of sources in 53 53 53
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =..... 7 7 7
Avg of top 12%.......... 0.5503 525.24 34.05
99% UL of top% (test 1.435 1,080.3 409.67
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =........ 1.5 1,100 410
Burn-off ovens........................ No. of sources in 36 36 36
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =..... 5 5 5
Avg of top 12%.......... 27.10 51.63 0.88
99% UL of top% (test 124.8 110.23 10.48
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =........ 130 120 11
Small, remote incinerators............ No. of sources in 19 19 19
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =..... 3 3 3
Avg of top 12%.......... 66.5 91.83 12.18
99% UL of top% (test 143.7 207 43.35
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =........ 150 210 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--CO and Dioxin/Furans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan Dioxin/Furan
Subcategory Parameter CO (ppmdv) (total mass (total TEQ basis)
basis) (ng/dscm) (ng/dscm) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators....................... No. of sources in 28 28 28
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =.. 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%....... 0.860 0.0113 0.55877
99% UL of top% (test 2.17 0.0304 27.75
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =..... 2.2 0.031 0.0025
Energy recovery units.............. No. of sources in 40 40 40
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =.. 5 5 5
Avg of top 12%....... 39.096 0.09824 9.8831
99% UL of top% (test 146.8 0.748 7431.9
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =..... 150 0.75 0.059
Waste-burning kilns................ No. of sources in 53 53 53
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =.. 7 7 7
Avg of top 12%....... 147.33 0.02958 0.000935
99% UL of top% (test 701.18 2.03 7,959
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =..... 710 2.1 0.17
Burn-off ovens..................... No. of sources in 36 36 36
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =.. 5 5 5
Avg of top 12%....... 28.58 0.0455 b
[[Page 31954]]
99% UL of top% (test 79.36 303.8 b
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =..... 80 310 25
Small, remote incinerators......... No. of sources in 19 19 19
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =.. 3 3 3
Avg of top 12%....... 17.42 473.4 b
99% UL of top% (test 77.48 1,502 b
runs) =.
Proposed Limit =..... 78 1,600 130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ --Dioxin/furan TEQ UL values often were greater than the total mass basis UL values, which would result in a
TEQ limit greater than the total mass basis. Therefore, paired total mass basis/TEQ data were analyzed and
found that TEQ is 0.078 times the amount of the total mass basis. The dioxin/furan TEQ limits were therefore
calculated based on 0.078 times the total mass basis limit.
\b\ --Dioxin/furan TEQ data were not reported for this subcategory.
Using the UL approach described above for the dioxins/furans TEQ
data sometimes resulted in a UL that was greater than that calculated
for the associated total mass basis dioxins/furans for the subcategory,
due to comparatively large standard deviations of the TEQ data versus
those of the total mass basis data set. Dioxins/furans TEQ values
should correlate to the total mass basis value at a ratio of less than
1 (a 1-to-1 ratio is the theoretical maximum and would indicate that
all the dioxins/furans emitted would consist of the 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) congener). We reviewed available data
to see what the ratio was for test reports where the total mass and TEQ
data were simultaneously reported. Because it is impossible for the
same concentration data to be higher on a TEQ basis than a total mass
basis, TEQ to total mass basis ratios greater than 1 were omitted.
Ratios greater than 0.5 were also screened out of the paired data
because EPA is unaware of any combustion units ever having a TEQ to
total mass basis ratio as high as 0.5. After screening the paired data,
the resulting ratios were on average 0.078 times that of the total mass
basis. Therefore, to be consistent in establishing the dioxins/furans
TEQ limits and to prevent any instances where the TEQ limit exceeds the
associated total mass basis limit, we selected MACT floor limits based
on the total mass basis limit multiplied by 0.078. EPA requests comment
on this approach for establishing the dioxins/furans TEQ basis limits.
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 emission test data for each pollutant. The UL was
determined for the individual 3-run test run data set for the best
performing source for each regulated pollutant. Tables 7 through 9 of
this preamble present the analysis summaries and the new source MACT
floor limits.
Table 7--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Particulate Matter and Metals for New Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Parameter PM (mg/dscm) Hg (mg/dscm) Cd (mg/dscm) Pb (mg/dscm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators.................. Avg of top 0.0056 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007
performer.
99% UL of top 0.00766 0.000123 0.000654 0.00126
(test runs) =.
Proposed limit = 0.0077 0.00013 0.00066 0.0013
Energy recovery units......... Avg of top 3.270 0.000032 0.000085 0.000454
performer.
99% UL of top 4.37 0.00013 0.000115 0.001189
(test runs) =.
Proposed limit = 4.4 0.00013 0.00012 0.0012
Waste-burning kilns........... Avg of top 0.9287 0.00101 0.000038 0.000386
performer.
99% UL of top 1.80 \a\ \a\ 0.00077
(test runs) =.
Proposed limit = 1.8 0.024 0.0003 0.00078
Burn-off ovens................ Avg of top 6.676 0.0007 0.0008 0.0050
performer.
99% UL of top 27.48 0.00329 0.00316 0.02859
(test runs) =.
Proposed limit = 28 0.0033 0.0032 0.029
Small, remote incinerators.... Avg of top 83.53 0.001 0.011 0.448
performer.
99% UL of top 268.9 0.00126 0.0564 1.3877
(test runs) =.
Proposed limit = 240\b\ 0.0013 0.057 1.4\b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ --Only one run data point, therefore UL cannot be calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\b\ --The NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
Table 8--Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units--HCl, NOX, SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Parameter HCL (ppmdv) NOX (ppmdv) SO2 (ppmdv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators....................... Avg of top performer. 0.0413 9.033 0.223
99% UL of top (test 0.0732 18.99 1.47
runs) =.
Proposed limit =..... 0.074 19 1.5
Energy recovery units.............. Avg of top performer. 0.06813 52.57 1.049
99% UL of top (test 0.169 74.52 4.44
runs) =.
[[Page 31955]]
Proposed limit =..... 0.17 75 4.1\a\
Waste-burning kilns................ Avg of top performer. 0.13 108.3 1.43
99% UL of top (test \b\ 134.65 3.58
runs) =.
Proposed limit =..... 1.5 140 3.6
Burn-off ovens..................... Avg of top performer. 7.106 13.16 0.000
99% UL of top (test 17.56 15.43 0
runs) =.
Proposed limit =..... 18 16 1.5\c\
Small, remote incinerators......... Avg of top performer. 45.437 73.66 4.793
99% UL of top (test 244.01 367.23 42.49
runs) =.
Proposed limit =..... 150(a) 210\a\ 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ --The NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\b\ --Only one run data point, therefore UL cannot be calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\c\ --Zero value calculated for the subcategory, which will not allow for data variability. The lowest unit with
non-zero data was used to calculate this limit.
Table 9--Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units--CO and Dioxins/Furans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/Furan Dioxin/Furan
(Total mass (Total TEQ
Subcategory Parameter CO (ppmdv) basis) (ng/ basis) (ng/
dscm) dscm)\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators.................................. Avg of top performer 0.600 0.0023 0.0102
99% UL of top (test runs) = 1.39 0.00927 0.035
Proposed limit = 1.4 0.0093 0.00073
Energy recovery units......................... Avg of top performer 0.650 0.0161 0.0005
99% UL of top (test runs) = 2.95 0.0334 0.00181
Proposed limit = 3.0 0.034 0.0027
Waste-burning kilns........................... Avg of top performer 16.22 0.00011 0.000000
99% UL of top (test runs) = 35.23 0.000348 0.000000
Proposed limit = 36 0.00035 0.000028
Burn-off ovens................................ Avg of top performer 17.51 0.0013 B
99% UL of top (test runs) = 73.87 0.0101 B
Proposed limit = 74 0.011 0.00086
Small, remote incinerators.................... Avg of top performer 0.447 366.3 B
99% UL of top (test runs) = 3.96 1,103.3 B
Proposed limit = 4.0 1,200 94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ --Dioxin/furan TEQ UL values often were greater than the total mass basis UL values, which would result in a TEQ limit greater than the total mass
basis. Therefore, paired total mass basis/TEQ data were analyzed and found that TEQ is 0.078 times the amount of the total mass basis. The dioxin/
furan TEQ limits were therefore calculated based on 0.078 times the total mass basis limit.
\b\ --Dioxin/furan TEQ data were not reported for this subcategory.
As noted in the tables above, there were some instances where there
were fewer test runs available for the best performing unit so that the
UL could not be calculated. There were also some cases where the
calculated UL produced a result that was greater than the existing MACT
floor limit for that pollutant in that subcategory. Since the limit for
new sources cannot be less stringent than that of existing sources, EPA
selected the existing source MACT floor limit as the new source MACT
floor limit in these instances. There was also one case where the best-
performing source in the burn-off oven subcategory reported zero for
each test run for SO2. This yields a calculated UL of zero
(since the mean and standard deviation are zero), which does not give
any allowance for variability. To address this, EPA used test data for
the next best-performing source (i.e., the lowest emitting source with
non-zero test data). EPA solicits comment on this approach for setting
this limit.
EPA also solicits comment on whether the EPA should use an
alternate one-sided statistical interval, the 99 percent UPL instead of
the UL. In general, a prediction interval (e.g., a UPL) is useful in
determining what future values are likely to be, based upon present or
past background samples taken. 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. The 99 percent UPL
value based on the test run data for those units in the best-performing
12 percent can be calculated using one of the following spreadsheet
equations depending on the distribution of the data:
Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12%) +
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of
freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed upper prediction
limit with a probability of 0.01, sample size of n, and number of
test runs whose average will be reported to EPA for compliance of m
= 3.
Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP {AVERAGE(Natural Log
Values of Test Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values of Test
Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) x
SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]{time} , for a one-tailed upper prediction limit
with a probability of 0.01, sample size of n, and number of test
runs whose average will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.
In addition to the nine regulated pollutants, EPA is also proposing
opacity standards for new and existing
[[Page 31956]]
CISWI. We considered how to appropriately account for variability,
given the differences in opacity testing versus testing for the nine
regulated pollutants. Because opacity can be affected by the amount,
type and particle characteristics of PM in the gas stream, as well as
process operation, we believe that opacity is an appropriate surrogate
for PM emissions. Therefore, using a ratio of PM to opacity would be an
appropriate method for determining the opacity that would be associated
with a given PM concentration. Using the data available for CISWI
units, we identified the best-performing unit with respect to PM for
which we have opacity data, and that unit has a ratio of opacity to PM
of 0.053. This ratio was then multiplied by each of the MACT floor PM
limits, which were determined accounting for variability, for each
subcategory to establish an opacity limit. We are requesting comment on
whether this is a reasonable approach to establishing opacity limits
while accounting for data variability, and request any additional
opacity information that we may utilize to establish an opacity limit.
We are also requesting comment on the appropriateness of setting
opacity limits for this source category.
As explained above, concurrent with this proposal, EPA is also
proposing to define the term ``solid waste'' for non-hazardous
secondary materials. That proposal describes two alternative
definitions of solid waste, and EPA has in this proposed rule for CISWI
units calculated MACT standards based on each solid waste definition.
EPA is proposing MACT emissions standards based on the primary proposed
definition of solid waste. In addition, EPA has determined the MACT
emissions standards that would apply if the alternative proposed
definition of solid waste was finalized, and we are taking comment on
those standards.
For purposes of the MACT standards based on the primary proposed
definition of solid waste, we have considered certain secondary
materials (including pulp and paper sludge, wood residuals, and some
tire-derived fuel) not to be solid waste, based on available
information. Therefore, units combusting those materials have not been
included in the proposed CISWI MACT calculations (i.e., the
calculations based on the primary proposed definition of solid waste).
EPA solicits comment on that conclusion for these and other secondary
materials, and will take into account any relevant information that may
warrant revising the proposed CISWI MACT floors. Comments relating to
the proposed definition of solid waste should be submitted to the EPA
docket for that rulemaking, because EPA will not be addressing any such
comments in the final CISWI rule.
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
As discussed above, EPA may adopt emissions 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,
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirement
when considering beyond-the-floor alternatives.
In developing this proposal, EPA considered for existing units the
proposed CISWI NSPS emission limits as a basis for the beyond-the-floor
analysis for each subcategory. The CISWI NSPS limits are the MACT
limits applicable to new CISWI units that are established through
analysis of the best performing single source for each regulated
pollutant (see earlier discussion in Section IV.C above). There are
separate NSPS limits for each of the five CISWI subcategories:
Incinerators; energy recovery units; waste-burning kilns; burn-off
ovens; and small, remote incinerators. We request public comments on
all aspects of the beyond-the-floor analysis, including whether there
are combinations of control approaches that would cost-effectively
reduce emissions of the Section 129(a)(4) pollutants. We specifically
request that the commenter provide cost, technical and other relevant
information in support of any beyond-the-floor alternatives. EPA will
evaluate the comments and any other additional information and may
adopt beyond-the-floor options for the final rule if any that are
identified are determined to be reasonable.
The beyond-the-floor analysis for each subcategory is based on an
evaluation of the types of control approaches that would be necessary
to achieve the NSPS level of control for the same subcategory.
Specifically, for purposes of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we
evaluated the different combinations of available emission control
techniques, including additional add-on controls, that existing units
would have to employ were we to require additional emissions reductions
beyond the floor levels set forth above. We are unaware of any control
approaches other than those discussed below that would result in
emissions reductions from CISWI units.
As part of our impacts analysis (discussed in section V. below), we
evaluated whether existing facilities would choose to cease burning
solid waste in incineration units after promulgation of the final CISWI
standards. We have determined that most facilities with units in the
incinerators, small remote incinerators or burn-off ovens subcategories
will choose to cease operations once the proposed MACT floor limits are
promulgated and that all units in these three subcategories will cease
combusting waste if beyond-the-floor levels are adopted. We considered
this fact in evaluating the beyond-the-floor options for these three
subcategories and specifically in our consideration of the costs
associated with the beyond-the-floor options, which we found
unreasonable.
We analyzed the beyond-the-floor options on a pollutant-by-
pollutant basis for each subcategory. We discuss below the possible
beyond-the-floor controls and why we rejected them.
For PM, Cd and Pb, units would add a fabric filter if
there were none already, or improve the fabric filter if the unit is
already equipped with one but could not meet the beyond-the-floor
limit. Units could also be required to add an additional PM control
device if existing fabric filters could not be modified to comply with
the beyond-the-floor limit.
For HCl and SO2, units would add a packed-bed
wet scrubber if there were none already, or if a wet scrubber already
existed on the unit, upgrade to a larger pump to increase the liquid to
gas ratio. If the unit was equipped with lime injection or a spray
dryer, the beyond-the-floor technology was to add more lime for
SO2 control. If more control was needed for SO2,
but not HCl, and the unit has a wet scrubber already, they would add
caustic to the scrubber liquor. Units could also be required to add an
additional SO2 control device if the existing scrubber could
not be modified to comply with the beyond-the-floor limit. The floor
limits established above for waste-burning kilns are already at the
quantification limits of the test method and we are not aware of
alternative methods to quantify additional reductions in HCl emissions.
In addition, we are not aware of any control technologies available
that would reduce HCl emission from existing waste-burning kilns to
levels below the floor levels. Therefore, we could not evaluate a
beyond-the-floor option for HCl emissions from waste-burning kilns.
For Hg and CDD/CDF, activated carbon would be added and
the carbon addition rate would be adjusted to meet
[[Page 31957]]
the amount of reduction necessary to meet the proposed limit.
For NOX, no beyond-the-floor options are
demonstrated to be achievable, as discussed below.
For CO, the beyond-the-floor option consists of
afterburner retrofits, tune-ups, advanced combustion controls or
catalytic oxidation for each subcategory except for waste-burning kilns
and energy recovery units. No beyond-the-floor options are available
for these two subcategories, as discussed below.
CO. For CO, we evaluated afterburner retrofits, tune-ups, advanced
combustion controls or an oxidation catalyst for incinerators, small
remote incinerators and burn-off ovens as being potential beyond-the-
floor control technologies that could be applied to these units.
Afterburner retrofits are applicable to units that have a secondary
combustion chamber or an afterburner chamber installed on the device.
Waste-burning kilns and energy recovery units are not designed with
secondary chambers or afterburners, so this particular control cannot
be applied to these two subcategories.
For waste burning kilns, a significant amount of CO emissions can
result from the presence of organic compounds in the raw materials and
not only from incomplete combustion, so good combustion controls and
practices are not as effective. Oxidation catalysts have not been
applied to waste-burning kilns and may not be as effective on waste-
burning kilns as they are on other sources due to plugging problems.
The only effective beyond-the-floor control we could identify for
waste-burning kilns would be a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). In
the analysis for the proposed Portland Cement NESHAP, EPA notes that
the additional costs and energy requirements associated with an RTO are
significant, with an additional annualized cost of $3.8 million per
year (see 74 FR 21153). Under the most cost effective scenario
(existing unit emitting at 710 ppmv and a 98 percent CO reduction) the
cost per ton of additional CO removal would be approximately $1,500.
However, at the CO levels for most facilities, the cost per ton could
be much higher. In addition, RTO have significant additional energy
requirements, and themselves create secondary emissions of CO,
NOX, SO2 and PM due to their electrical demands
(see 74 FR 21153). Given the cost and adverse environmental and energy
impacts, we determined that RTO was not a reasonable beyond-the-floor
alternative to control CO emissions from waste-burning kilns.
For energy recovery units, we analyzed a beyond-the-floor CO limit
of 3 ppm. In comparison, the proposed MACT floor emission limit is 150
ppm. Therefore, the beyond-the-floor CO emission limit is approximately
98 percent less than the MACT floor emission limit. We are unaware of
any technology that is able to continuously meet a 3 ppm CO limit for
all existing energy recovery units. Variances in fuel composition and
condition will have an effect on CO emissions in addition to the
controls in place, so this limit may be achievable for the best source
based on their particular unit design and fuel inputs, but not
demonstrated to be achievable for any other existing units without
unreasonable costs associated with modification of the units. As a
comparison, the proposed boiler NESHAP limit varies by combustor
design, but for biomass boilers, which burn fuels and have combustor
designs that are similar in characteristics to some CISWI energy
recovery units, the limits are in the order of 200 to 700 ppm. Given
the lack of available controls that are demonstrated to achieve the
beyond-the-floor emission limits at existing units and the costs
associated with making the necessary modifications at existing units,
we are not proposing beyond-the-floor limits for CO for energy recovery
units.
NOX. For NOX, we evaluated SNCR as the likely control
technology that sources would apply to achieve the beyond-the-floor
limits. The control option would be to add SNCR if there were none
installed to meet the MACT floor, or to increase the reagent injection
rate if the unit was already equipped with SNCR technology. We also
considered whether selective catalytic reduction (SCR) could be
utilized by sources to achieve the beyond-the-floor limits. SNCR is a
proven technology for waste-combustion units, with typical
effectiveness of 30 to 50 percent. These reductions are within the
reach of the levels estimated to meet the MACT floor emission limits.
However, to achieve lower reductions (i.e., greater than 50 percent)
than the beyond-the-floor limits would require, SNCR may need to be
applied in conjunction with combustion controls (Air Pollution Control
Technology Fact Sheet, SNCR, EPA-452/F-03-031). Feasibility of these
combustion controls, such as low NOX burners or combustion
chamber modifications, are unit-specific and are likely not applicable
to all existing units; therefore, compliance with the beyond-the-floor
would likely require significant modification at considerable cost for
some existing units. In contrast, new sources can be designed so that
the combustion chamber and air flow characteristics reduce
NOX formation, which, in combination with SNCR controls,
would be able to meet the new source NOX limits. SCR is
typically utilized in combustion units such as industrial boilers and
process heaters, gas turbines and reciprocating internal combustion
engines (Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet, SCR, EPA-452/F-
03-032). We are not aware of any successful applications of SCR
technology to waste-combustion units, however. This may be due to
difficulties operating SCRs in operations where there is significant PM
or sulfur loading in the gas stream. These two gas stream constituents
can reduce catalyst activity, and lower the resulting effectiveness of
the SCR, through catalyst poisoning and blinding/plugging of active
sites by ammonia sulfur salts (formed from sulfur in the flue gas with
the ammonia reagent) and PM (Air Pollution Control Technology Fact
Sheet, SCR, EPA-452/F-03-032). Therefore, we determined that available
controls were not demonstrated adequately for existing CISWI units in
any of the five subcategories to meet the beyond-the-floor
NOX emission limits.
HCl and SO2. We expect that waste-burning kilns would
install scrubbers to meet the proposed MACT floor emission limits for
HCl, and the proposed EG and NSPS limits for HCl are the same. As
discussed above, the HCl floor level for waste-burning kilns is near
the quantification limits of the available test methods, and we are not
aware of alternative methods to quantify beyond-the-floor reductions.
The scrubbers needed to meet the CISWI MACT floor limits for HCl
would also meet the CISWI MACT floor levels for SO2.
However, we are not certain that it is feasible for existing waste-
burning kilns to utilize additional caustic in their scrubbers, or in
their existing flue gas desulfurization devices, to be able to
consistently meet the 3.6 ppm beyond-the-floor emission limit for
SO2. There are limits to the amounts of additional caustic
or lime that are technically feasible and the SO2 content of
the flue gas will vary depending on the fuel and the sulfur content of
process raw materials that are charged to the waste-burning kiln. The
only option for achieving additional SO2 control is to add
an additional SO2 scrubbing device in series with the
scrubber required to comply with the MACT floor limit. While we did not
quantify the costs, we concluded, based on our review of the cost
information, that this level of control would pose unreasonable costs
that would result in units ceasing to combust wastes in kilns.
Therefore, we determined that
[[Page 31958]]
additional controls were not demonstrated to continuously meet the
beyond-the-floor SO2 emission limits at existing waste-
burning kilns. We examined beyond-the-floor options for the other
subcategories as discussed below.
PM. In our analysis, we estimate that waste-burning kilns would
install fabric filter controls or improve existing fabric filters to
meet the proposed CISWI MACT floor limits for PM and metals. To meet
the metals floor limits, highly efficient fabric filters, and possibly
membrane bags, would be needed. These controls are the best technology
available to control PM, and we have not identified any additional
controls that are available that would enable existing waste-burning
kilns to continuously meet the beyond-the-floor PM emission limit
equivalent to the proposed CISWI NSPS limit (which is considerably
lower than the CISWI floor). We analyzed beyond-the-floor controls for
the other four subcategories as discussed below.
As with waste-burning kilns, we estimate that existing units in the
energy recovery units subcategory would install fabric filter controls
or improve existing fabric filters to meet the proposed CISWI MACT
floor limits for PM and metals. As with waste-burning kilns, the fabric
filters would need to be highly efficient to meet the metals floor
limits, and likely would need to be membrane bags. As stated above,
membrane fabric filters are the best technology available to control PM
and metals. As such, the fabric filters that we believe will be
necessary to control the metals will likely achieve a level of
performance that is better than the MACT floor limit for PM, resulting
in additional PM reductions beyond the existing source floor level of
control. For this reason, we believe that the PM emissions reductions
associated with going beyond-the-floor to the new source floor limits
is less than the 200 tons per year estimated based on an evaluation of
the difference in PM emissions under the proposed existing source floor
and the proposed new source floor. Furthermore, to achieve PM and
metals emissions reductions greater than those achieved using the
fabric filters that will be required to meet the MACT floor emission
limits, existing sources would likely need to install an additional
particulate control device, such as a cartridge filtration system,
which would require additional capital and operating expense, as well
as require additional energy to power the fans for adequate draft.
While we did not quantify the costs, we concluded, based on our review
of the cost information, that this level of control would pose
unreasonable costs.
We analyzed beyond-the-floor controls for the other three
subcategories as discussed below.
Emissions Reduction Analysis Results. We analyzed the emissions
reductions that would be achieved if the beyond-the-floor levels were
adopted as MACT for those pollutants and subcategories for which
additional control techniques were identified that could achieve
beyond-the-floor emission limits. We estimate that the beyond-the-floor
levels for existing CISWI units would achieve additional emission
reductions (relative to the MACT floor) of 326 tons per year (0.01 tons
Cd, 3.5 CO, 113 HCl, 0.07 Pb, 0.03 Hg, -0.1 NOX, 208 PM, 1.6
SO2 and 0.0001 dioxins/furans).
Analysis Results for Incinerator, Small Remote Incinerator and
Burn-Off Ovens Subcategories
As was done in the cost analysis for the MACT floor emission
limits, we also considered whether units would cease to combust waste
and choose an alternative waste disposal method rather than add
controls to comply with the beyond-the-floor limits. Based on the high
costs of controls relative to the costs of alternative waste disposal
methods, we concluded that all units within the incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small remote incinerators subcategories would shut down
rather than comply with the beyond-the-floor limits. Facilities with
incinerator units and small remote incinerator units would use
alternative landfill disposal and facilities with burn-off ovens would
use abrasive blasting. In comparison, for the MACT floor impacts
analysis, we determined there were 17 total units within these three
subcategories that would remain open and comply with the MACT floor
emission limits. The emission reductions above account for the
secondary impacts of landfill gas flare emissions that would result
from the incremental waste that is diverted to landfills from existing
CISWI units. Once these secondary impacts of the landfill gas flaring
are accounted for, the emissions reduction is approximately zero for
the incinerator, small remote incinerator and burn-off oven
subcategories, mainly due to the increase in emissions from flaring the
landfill gases generated by the additional diverted waste, compared to
the modest additional stack emissions reductions from shutting these
units down.
The cost of the additional emissions reductions associated with
going from the MACT floor to the beyond-the-floor level vary by
pollutant and subcategory. For the incinerator, small remote
incinerator and burn-off oven subcategories, the incremental annualized
costs of control or alternative waste disposal is approximately
$690,000. As mentioned above, because of the increase in landfill
gases, this additional cost would result in no additional emissions
reductions for these source categories. The beyond-the-floor limits for
these source categories would be achieved at considerable cost, would
result in closure of additional units that would not close under the
floor alternative, and would result in no additional emissions
reduction; therefore, we have determined it is not reasonable to go
beyond-the-floor for these source categories.
Analysis Results for Energy Recovery Units and Waste-Burning Kilns.
For the energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns, we analyzed the
additional emissions reductions and additional control and monitoring
costs of going beyond-the-floor by pollutant groups according to the
controls described above. Table 10 of this preamble lists the
incremental costs and pollutant emissions reductions relative to the
MACT floor level of control.
[[Page 31959]]
Table 10--Incremental Costs and Emission Reductions Expected for Existing Units To Comply With Beyond-the-Floor
Emission Limits (Relative to the MACT Floor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost
Additional Additional effectiveness
Pollutants Subcategory annual costs emissions (additional costs/
($/yr) reductions additional emissions
(ton/year) reductions, $/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM, Cd, Pb........................ Energy recovery unit. 2,082,013 202 10,307
Hg, CDD/CDF....................... Energy recovery unit. 18,562,287 0.03 618,742,900
Waste-burning kiln... 126,944,291 0.00002 >1 Billion
HCl, SO2.......................... Energy recovery unit. 15,985,182 77 207,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed earlier, we believe that the additional emissions
reduction for PM, Cd, and Pb are likely to be much lower than this
analysis suggests, because sources will require some of the best PM
control devices to meet the MACT floor level of control for metals, and
will likely exceed the level of performance for PM needed to meet the
MACT floor emission limit. Therefore, we have concluded that the
incremental costs of additional control above the MACT floor emission
limits are not reasonable relative to the level of emission reduction
achieved.
New Units. No beyond-the-floor option was analyzed for new units
because we are not aware of any technologies or methods to achieve
emission limits more stringent than the MACT floor limits for new
units. As an example, we have discussed potential problems associated
with additional SNCR reagent earlier in this section of the preamble.
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. Furthermore, we
already estimate no new CISWI sources will be constructed due to the
costs associated with the MACT floor limits in the proposed NSPS. For
this reason, we do not think it is reasonable to further add to the
costs associated with the proposed NSPS.
In light of the technical feasibility, costs, energy and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts discussed above, we have
determined it is not reasonable to establish beyond-the-floor limits
for existing and new CISWI units.
We also calculated potential beyond-the-floor emissions reductions
for the ``alternative approach'' identified for consideration and
comment in a parallel proposal under RCRA, which could potentially
result in an additional 13,014 tons per year of projected emissions
reductions (0.9 Cd, 3.5 CO, 7 HCl, 16.4 Pb, 1.3 Hg, -0.1
NOX, 12,984 PM, 1.6 SO2 and 0.001 dioxins/
furans). These are the reductions that would be achieved if we adopted
the NSPS limits for the alternative approach as the beyond-the-floor
limit for existing sources. We considered the same technical
considerations and used the same emissions reductions and cost
calculation methodologies described above for the proposed approach,
which result in very similar cost effectiveness values as presented in
Table 10 of this preamble. However, we note that several of the MACT
floor limits for energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns under
the alternative approach are not as stringent as those for the proposed
approach, and the additional emission reductions that can be achieved
by going beyond the floor for the alternative approach are much greater
than the emission reductions available by going beyond the floor under
the primary approach. Therefore, in the case of the alternative
approach, there may be intermediate levels of control that would be
reasonable. Additional information on floor and beyond-the-floor costs
is discussed in ``Compliance Cost Analyses for Existing CISWI Units''
found in the CISWI docket.
E. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments
In addition to the proposed emission limits, the following
amendments are being proposed in this action.
1. Definitions and Removal of Exemptions
We are revising the definition of CISWI unit to reflect the Court
decision that all units burning solid waste as defined by the
Administrator under RCRA are to be covered by regulation under CAA
Section 129. We are also adding a definition of ``solid waste
incineration unit'' and we are removing the definition of ``commercial
and industrial waste.'' We are also proposing definitions of the five
subcategories of CISWI units that will be regulated under the proposed
rules.
In the 2000 CISWI rule, there were 15 types of units that were
exempted from regulation under CISWI. We are proposing to remove some
of the exemptions contained in the 2000 CISWI rule and we are
maintaining the statutory exemptions and the exemptions for units
included in the scope of other CAA Section 129 standards as discussed
below. We believe that the proposed rule is drafted in such a way to
avoid the situation where a unit subject to standards under another
Section 129(a)(1) standard, would also be subject to this rule. We
request comment on the proposed exemptions that address units included
in the scope of other CAA Section 129 standards.
To address the vacatur of the CISWI Definitions rule, EPA is
proposing to regulate any combustion unit burning any solid waste, as
that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA, at a commercial
or industrial facility. The 2000 CISWI rule specifically exempted six
types of units that may be CISWI units under this proposed rule:
agricultural waste incineration units; cyclonic barrel burners; burn-
off ovens; cement kilns; chemical recovery units; and laboratory
analysis units. These six types of units would be regulated under the
revised proposed CISWI standards if they burn solid waste at a
commercial or industrial facility.
The exemptions that would be retained in the proposed rule are
either statutory exemptions provided under CAA Section 129, or are for
waste combustion units regulated under other Section 129 NSPS or EG. In
particular, CAA Section 129(g)(1) specifically exempts:
``* * * incinerators or other units required to have a permit
under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term `solid
waste incineration unit' does not include (A) materials recovery
facilities (including primary and secondary smelters) which
[[Page 31960]]
combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals, (B)
qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in section
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or
qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn
homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil, but
not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric
energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which
burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and
steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for
industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes * * *''
Therefore, the proposed CISWI rule retains exemptions for materials
recovery facilities, qualifying small power production facilities,
qualifying cogeneration facilities and hazardous waste combustors
required to have a permit under Section 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
EPA is also proposing to exempt from CISWI the waste combustion
units that are currently included in the scope of another effective
NSPS or EG or that EPA currently intends to regulate in an NSPS or EG.
Those waste combustion units are: MWC units; medical waste incineration
units; sewage treatment plants; sewage sludge incineration units; and
OSWI units, which include pathological waste incineration units and
institutional incinerators. There are existing standards for MWC units,
medical waste combustion units and sewage treatment plants, but no
standards are currently in place for pathological waste incineration
units or SSI units. Regulations are currently being developed for SSI
under proposed NSPS and EG of part 60. EPA also currently intends to
regulate pathological waste incineration units in the revised ``Other
Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI)'' standards under development. EPA's
intent in the CISWI rule is to exclude units that are properly
regulated as OSWI units. However, additional solid waste incineration
units may exist that are OSWI units, which EPA has not identified in
this proposed rule. EPA solicits comment on the scope of the proposed
exemptions for units subject to CAA Section 129 standards.
We are also proposing the removal of the 2000 CISWI rule exemption
for units burning greater than 30 percent MSW and with the capacity to
burn less than 35 tons per day of MSW or refuse derived fuel. We are
proposing to remove this exemption to ensure that any CISWI unit
combusting any solid waste is subject to these standards. Therefore,
commercial and industrial units that were previously exempt pursuant to
this provision would be required to meet the emission limits and
operating requirements of the proposed rule.
The 2000 CISWI rule also defined CISWI units such that industrial
and commercial waste combustion units recovering energy (e.g. units
that would be boilers and process heaters if they did not combust solid
waste) were not subject to regulation as CISWI units. This definition
is not consistent with the statute and, as discussed above, the
definitions are being revised to address the CISWI Definitions Rule
vacatur so that any unit at a commercial or industrial facility
combusting any solid waste, as defined by the Administrator under RCRA,
will be subject to the CISWI NSPS or EG. Therefore, the proposed
definitions would no longer make a distinction between those units that
recover energy and those units that do not recover energy. As discussed
earlier, those energy recovery units that burn solid waste but were
previously subject to the boilers rule are now CISWI units and are
addressed under the energy recovery units subcategory.
Cement kilns and rack, part and drum reclamation units (i.e. burn-
off ovens) were exempt from the 2000 CISWI standards and, as stated
above, we are proposing to create subcategories for those units and
subject them to this proposed rule in light of the CISWI Definitions
Rule vacatur. We note that other Section 129 standards may contain an
exemption for cement kilns. Those exemptions do not excuse waste
burning kilns as defined in this proposed rule from compliance with the
proposed CISWI standards. As those other Section 129 rules are amended,
we will clarify that cement kilns that meet the proposed definition of
waste-burning kiln are exempt from those standards because they are
subject to the CISWI standards.
For one type of unit that is exempt by statute from the definition
of solid waste incineration unit, air curtain incinerators combusting
``clean wood'', we are requesting comment on the requirement for those
units to obtain title V permits.
In addition, we are considering amending the exemption provisions
at 40 CFR 60.2020 and 60.2555 to remove all references to units that
are statutorily exempt from the definition of solid waste incineration
unit. If we took such action, we would develop a new section to retain
the notification requirements contained in those sections and
applicable to such statutorily exempt units. We request comment on this
proposed approach.
2. Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
We are proposing some adjustments to the performance testing and
monitoring requirements that were promulgated in 2000. For existing
CISWI units, we are proposing retaining the current performance testing
and monitoring requirements of the rule and adding the following
requirements:
Annual inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters and other
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits.
Annual visual emissions test of ash handling procedures
(for all subcategories except waste-burning kilns).
Control device parameter monitoring for activated carbon
injection, electrostatic precipitators and SNCR controls.
For energy recovery units: CO CEMS monitoring, continuous
opacity monitoring (COMS) for units that are not equipped with wet
scrubbers and PM CEMS for units greater than 250 MMBtu/hr capacity.
For waste-burning kilns, Hg CEMS monitoring.
Monitoring of bypass stack use if installed at an affected
unit.
These proposed requirements were selected to provide additional
assurance that sources continue to operate at the levels established
during their initial performance test. For the waste-burning kiln and
energy recovery unit subcategories, the proposed CEMS requirements are
consistent with the CAA Section 112(d) standards proposed for their
non-waste burning counterparts, but adjusted to reflect the pollutants
subject to CAA Section 129 regulations. For example, the proposed
Portland Cement NESHAP (74 FR 21136) requires monitoring of Hg with a
Hg CEMS. Likewise, the energy recovery unit monitoring requirements are
similar to the Boiler NESHAP being proposed concurrently with the CISWI
proposal. In doing so, we are not only reflecting the improvements in
monitoring technology and practices for these subcategories made since
2000, but are also providing consistency in monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting, where appropriate. Likewise, the visual emissions test
of ash handling procedures and annual control device inspections have
been adopted for HMIWI, another CAA Section 129 source category. HMIWI
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 31961]]
The large and small MWC standards also have similar fugitive ash
monitoring requirements. We propose to require the fugitive ash
monitoring provisions that are contained in the HMIWI and MWC rules.
The proposed amendments would allow sources to use the results of
emissions tests conducted within the previous two years to demonstrate
initial compliance with the revised emission limits 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 CISWI rules and must be the most recent tests
performed on the unit. Those sources, whose previous emissions tests do
not demonstrate compliance with one 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, especially since most sources performed
recent emissions tests in support of the development of the CISWI
standards (i.e., the CISWI Phase 2 ICR) and sources subject to the 2000
CISWI EG already test for HCl, PM and opacity on an annual basis. We
seek comment on the appropriateness of the use of previously conducted
performance tests.
The proposed amendments also would allow for reduced testing of PM,
HCl, and opacity as were allowed in the rule promulgated in 2000, but
we are proposing amending these reduced testing allowances to provide a
compliance margin of 75 percent of the standard to be able to qualify
for testing for these pollutants once every three years. The reduced
testing allowance and compliance margin provides flexibility and
incentive to sources that operate well within the emissions standard,
and to provide more timely follow-through, on assuring that sources
that are marginally in compliance, will remain in compliance.
Additional requirements also are proposed for new CISWI. For new
sources, we are proposing retaining the current requirements and adding
the requirements for existing units as listed above, plus requiring CO
CEMS for all subcategories of CISWI. These CEMS would be relatively
simple to install for a new CISWI unit, and would help ensure that the
sources are operated well using good combustion practices. Low CO
levels are an indicator of complete combustion and that the unit is
being operated in a manner that minimizes not only CO emissions, but
also emissions of other pollutants.
We also are clarifying that the rule allows for the following
optional CEMS use: CO CEMS, NOX CEMS, and SO2
CEMS for existing sources; and NOX CEMS, SO2
CEMS, PM CEMS, HCl CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, integrated sorbent
trap Hg monitoring and integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring for
existing and new sources. Some of the subcategories may have CO CEMS,
NOX CEMS, or SO2 CEMS already to meet other
regulatory or permit requirements and we propose to would allow them to
continue to use these monitors to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the CISWI standards. The optional use of HCl CEMS, multi-metals
CEMS, integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and integrated sorbent trap
dioxin monitoring will be available on the date a final performance
specification for these monitoring systems is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan.
The proposed monitoring provisions are discussed in more detail below.
Monitoring Provisions for SNCR. The proposed amendments would
require monitoring of secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to
the CISWI unit, since certain subcategories may not have a secondary
chamber or afterburner) and reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection
rate for CISWI that install SNCR as a method of reducing NOX
emissions. These are easily measured parameters that will ensure the
SNCR continues to be well operated and able to achieve the desired
emissions reductions.
Monitoring Provisions for Activated Carbon Injection (Hg sorbent
injection). The proposed amendments would require monitoring of
activated carbon sorbent injection rate to ensure that the minimum
sorbent injection rate measured during the compliance test is
continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for ESP. The proposed amendments would
require monitoring of the voltage and amperage of the collection plates
to ensure that the ESP operating parameters measured during the
compliance test are maintained on a continuous basis.
CO CEMS. The proposed amendments would require the use of CO CEMS
for new sources and allow the use of CO CEMS on existing sources,
except energy recovery units, where a CO CEMS is also required for
existing sources. Owners and operators who 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 amendments incorporate the use
of performance specification (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 infrequent
(normally annual) stack tests and compliance would be demonstrated by
stack tests. The change to use of CO CEMS for measurement and
enforcement of the same 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 four hours and 24 hours based on statistical analysis of
long-term CEMS data for a particular subcategory. Because sufficient CO
CEMS data are unavailable for CISWI to perform such an analysis and
determine an emission level that would correspond to a shorter
averaging period, EPA concluded that the use of a 24-hour block average
was appropriate to address potential changes in CO emissions. The 24-
hour block average would be calculated following procedures in EPA
Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. Facilities electing to use
CO CEMS as an optional method would be required to notify EPA one month
before starting use of CO CEMS and one 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 CISWI.
PM CEMS. The proposed amendments would allow the use of PM CEMS as
an alternative testing and monitoring method (except for energy
recovery units with a heat input capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr
which are required to use them). Owners or operators who are required
to use, or 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 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 minimum wet scrubber pressure drop,
horsepower or amperage. 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
[[Page 31962]]
use of PS-11 (Specifications and Test Procedures for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission 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 infrequent
(normally annual) stack tests and compliance would generally be
demonstrated by stack tests. The use of PM CEMS for measurement and
enforcement of the same emission limits must be carefully considered in
relation to an appropriate averaging period for data reduction. Because
PM CEMS data are unavailable for CISWI, EPA concluded that the use of a
24-hour block average was 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 following
procedures in EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. An owner
or operator of a CISWI unit who wishes to use PM CEMS would be required
to notify EPA one month before starting use of PM CEMS and one month
before stopping use of the PM CEMS.
Opacity Monitors (COMS). EPA is proposing that energy recovery
units that do not rely on a wet scrubber to control emissions
continuously monitor opacity. EPA's understanding is that moist gas
streams affect the accuracy of COMS systems; therefore these systems
would not be applicable to units using wet scrubbers. If the energy
recovery unit is required to monitor PM with a PM CEMS, or an owner or
operator wishes to use PM CEMS, then they would not be required to also
operate a COMS. Other source categories with COMS requirements require
one hour block averages, which is what we are proposing for CISWI
units. The proposed amendments incorporate the use of performance
specification 1 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for COMS.
While the proposed amendments require PM CEMS for very large energy
recovery units (those over 250 MMBtu/hr), EPA is also requesting
comment on the utility and practicality of requiring PM CEMS on energy
recovery units of 100 MMBTU/hour design capacity or greater, as well as
on waste-burning kilns and large incinerators. EPA specifically
solicits comment on appropriate size thresholds for requiring PM CEMS
on incinerators.
Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems. EPA also is proposing the
optional use of NOX CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS,
multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and
integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring as alternatives to the
existing monitoring methods for demonstrating compliance with the
NOX, SO2, HCl, metals (Pb, Cd and Hg) and dioxin/
furans emissions limits. Because CEMS data for CISWI 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
following procedures in EPA Method 19 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
The proposed amendments incorporate the use of performance
specification 2 of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for NOX
CEMS. Although final performance specifications are not yet available
for HCl CEMS and multi-metals CEMS, EPA is considering development of
performance specifications. The proposed rule specifies that these
options will be available to a facility on the date a final performance
specification is published in the Federal Register.
The use of HCl CEMS would allow the discontinuation of HCl sorbent
flow rate monitoring, scrubber liquor pH monitoring and the annual
testing requirements for HCl. 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
performance specification can serve as the basis for a performance
specification for HCl CEMS use at CISWI. 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 CISWI. 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 it is possible to
adapt 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 performance specifications to allow
the use of multi-metals CEMS at CISWI. We request comment on the
appropriateness of using multi-metals CEMS instead of initial
performance tests coupled with PM CEMS and other surrogates. 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.
The proposed requirements for using Hg CEMS (performance
specification 12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor
Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources) or integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring system (performance
specification 12B--Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor
Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems from Stationary
Sources Using a Sorbent Trap Monitoring System or appendix K of Part
75) for waste-burning kilns, and the options of using Hg CEMS or an
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring system for other CISWI, would
take effect on the date of approval of a site-specific monitoring plan.
An owner or operator of a CISWI unit who wishes to use Hg CEMS would be
required to notify EPA one month before starting use of Hg CEMS and one
month before stopping use of the Hg CEMS. The use of multi-metals CEMS
or Hg CEMS would allow the discontinuation of wet scrubber outlet flue
gas temperature monitoring. Mercury sorbent flow rate monitoring could
not be eliminated in favor of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg CEMS because it
also is an indicator of dioxin, furans control.
The integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg would entail use of a
continuous automated sampling system with analysis of the samples at
set intervals using any suitable determinative technique that can meet
appropriate criteria. The option to use a continuous automated sampling
system would take effect on the date of approval of a site-specific
monitoring plan. As with Hg and multi-metal
[[Page 31963]]
CEMS, Hg sorbent flow rate monitoring could not be eliminated in favor
of integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg because it also is an
indicator of dioxin, furans control. Additionally, there is no annual
Hg test that could be eliminated, because the proposed rule does not
require such a test.
The integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin would entail use
of a continuous automated sampling system 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 continuous automated sampling system would take
effect on the date a final performance specification is published in
the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-specific
monitoring plan. Integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin would
allow the discontinuation of fabric filter inlet temperature
monitoring. Dioxin/furan sorbent flow rate monitoring could not be
eliminated in favor of integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin
because it also is an indicator of Hg control. Additionally, there is
no annual dioxin/furans test that could be eliminated, because the
proposed rule does not require such a test.
If integrated sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin as well as multi-
metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, or integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring are
used, Hg sorbent flow rate monitoring and dioxin/furans sorbent flow
rate monitoring (in both cases activated carbon is the sorbent) could
be eliminated. These parameter monitoring requirements were designed to
ensure that controls continue to be operated in a manner to reduce
dioxin/furans, metals and mercury 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 discussed above. Table 11 of this preamble
presents a summary of the CISWI operating parameters, the pollutants
influenced by each parameter and alternative monitoring options for
each parameter.
Table 11--Summary of CISWI Operating Parameters, Pollutants Influenced
by Each Parameter and Alternative Monitoring Options for Each Parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutants
Operating parameter/monitoring influenced by Alternative
requirement (control device operating monitoring options
type) parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum charge (feed) rate...... All............... None.
Minimum dioxin, furans sorbent dioxin, furans.... Integrated sorbent
flow rate (Activated carbon trap dioxin
injection). monitoring system
(ISTDMS) and
multi-metals
CEMS, Hg CEMS or
integrated
sorbent trap
mercury
monitoring system
(ISTMMS).
Minimum Hg sorbent flow rate Hg.
(Activated carbon injection).
Minimum HCl sorbent flow rate HCl............... HCl CEMS.
(Dry scrubbers, spray dryers or
duct sorbent injection).
Minimum scrubber pressure drop/ PM, Cd, Pb, Hg.... PM CEMS.
horsepower amperage (Wet
scrubber).
Minimum scrubber liquor flow HCl, PM, Cd, Pb, HCl CEMS, PM CEMS,
rate (Wet scrubber). Hg, dioxin, multi-metals
furans. CEMS, ISTDMS and
ISTMMS.
Minimum scrubber liquor pH (Wet HCl............... HCl CEMS.
scrubber).
Voltage and amperage of PM, Cd, Pb, Hg.... PM CEMS.
collection plates (ESP).
Reagent flow rate and secondary NOX............... NOX CEMS.
chamber temperature (SNCR).
Air pollution control device All............... None.
inspections.
Time of visible emissions from PM................ None.
ash handling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12 of this preamble presents a summary of the CISWI test
methods and approved alternative compliance methods.
Table 12--Summary of CISWI Test Methods and Approved Alternative Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved alternative
Pollutant/parameter Test method(s) \1\ method(s) Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM................................ Method 5, Method 29.. PM CEMS................... PM CEMS are optional for
all sources in lieu of
annual PM test (required
for energy recovery
units with design
capacity greater than
250 MMBtu/hr).
CO................................ Method 10............ CO CEMS................... CO CEMS are optional for
existing sources in lieu
of annual CO test; CO
CEMS are required for
new sources.
HCl............................... Method 26 or Method HCl CEMS.................. HCl CEMS are optional for
26A. all sources in lieu of
annual HCl test.
Cd................................ Method 29............ Multi-metals CEMS. .........................
Pb................................ Method 29............ Multi-metals CEMS. .........................
Hg................................ Method 30B, Method 29 Multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS .........................
(PS-12A), or integrated
sorbent trap mercury
monitoring system (PS-12
B or appendix K of Part
75).
Dioxin, furans.................... Method 23............ integrated sorbent trap .........................
dioxin monitoring system.
Opacity........................... Method 22............ Bag leak detection system Bag leak detection
or PM CEMS. systems are required for
units equipped with
fabric filters.
[[Page 31964]]
Flue and exhaust gas analysis..... Method 3, 3A, or 3B.. ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part .........................
10.
Opacity from ash handling......... Method 22............ None...................... .........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1>\ EPA Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
This proposal contains minimum data availability requirements for
CEMS; generally, valid emissions data are required for a minimum of 85
percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar
quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year that the
affected facility is operating and combusting solid waste (as that term
is defined by the Administrator under RCRA). We seek comment on whether
or not the rule should require valid emissions data from CEMS for all
times that an affected facility is operated and on approaches to
provide that data, e.g., redundant CEMS, prescribed missing data
procedures, owner- or operator-developed missing data procedures, or
parametric monitoring.
3. Have the startup, shutdown and malfunction provisions changed?
This action also revises the provisions of the 2000 CISWI rule as
it applies to periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. This
proposed revision affects all CISWI units, including units that were
regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule and those units that are subject to
this proposed rule. The revision of these provisions is a result of a
Court decision that invalidated certain regulations related to startup,
shutdown and malfunction in the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). While the Court's ruling
did not specifically address the legality of source category-specific
SSM provisions adopted in the 2000 CISWI rule, the decision calls into
question the legality of those provisions. As such, EPA is proposing to
remove the exemption for SSM periods contained in the 2000 CISWI rule
and the proposed emission standards summarized in this preamble would
apply at all times.
We are not proposing a separate emission standard for the source
categories at issue here that applies during periods of startup and
shutdown. We determined that CISWI units will be able to meet the
emission limits during periods of startup because most units use
natural gas or clean distillate oil to start the unit and add waste
once the unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions from
burning natural gas or distillate fuel oil would generally be
significantly lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions during
periods of shutdown are also generally significantly lower than
emissions during normal operations because the materials in the
incinerator will be almost fully combusted before shutdown occurs.
Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units
ranked individual CISWI units based on actual performance for each
pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of emissions
variability. Because we accounted for emissions variability and
established appropriate averaging times to determine compliance with
the standards, 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 60.2). 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 CAA 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
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 CISWI units. 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. Finally, malfunctions
can vary in frequency, degree and duration, further complicating
standard setting.
For a source that 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.'' (40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction)).
4. Delegation of Authority To Implement and Enforce These Provisions
We are proposing clarifications to the authorities that can be
delegated or transferred to state, local and tribal air pollution
control agencies in this rulemaking. In the past, there has been some
confusion about what authorities can be delegated and exercised by
state, local and tribal air pollution control agencies and which
authorities 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 that cannot be
delegated to those agencies. There is a list of authorities that must
be retained by EPA in 40 CFR 60.2530. To this list, we propose to add
the approval of alternative opacity emission limits referenced in
60.2105 which, in turn refer to general provisions in 60.11(e) and the
approval of performance test and data reduction waivers under 40 CFR
60.8(b). These authorities may affect the stringency of the emissions
standards or limitations which can only
[[Page 31965]]
be amended by Federal rulemaking, thus they cannot be transferred to
State, local or tribal air pollution control agencies. We are also
adding 40 CFR 60.2542 to make the provisions regarding the
implementation and enforcement authorities in both subparts CCCC and
DDDD 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.
5. 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 40 CFR 60.2541 that will clarify how states and eligible
tribes can fulfill the obligation under 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 60.2541 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. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emissions reductions from existing
sources that may be realized through implementation of the proposed
emission limits. However, we realize that some CISWI owners and
operators are likely to determine that alternatives to waste
incineration are viable, such as sending the waste to a landfill or
MWC, if available. In fact, sources operating incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small, remote incinerators, where energy recovery is not a
goal, may find it most cost-effective to discontinue use of their CISWI
unit altogether. Therefore, we have estimated emissions reductions
attributable to existing sources complying with the proposed limits, as
well as those reductions that would occur if the facilities with
incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators decide to
discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and use alternative waste
disposal options.
For units combusting wastes for energy production, such as energy
recovery units and waste-burning kilns, the decision to combust or not
to combust waste will depend on several factors. One factor is the cost
to replace the energy provided by the waste material with a traditional
fuel, such as natural gas. Another factor would be whether the owner or
operator is purchasing the waste or obtaining it at no cost from other
generators, or if they are generating the waste on-site and will have
to dispose of the materials in another fashion, such as landfills.
Lastly, these units would have to compare the control requirements
needed to meet the CISWI emission limits with those needed if they stop
burning solid waste and are then subject to a NESHAP instead. As
mentioned before, we have attempted to align the monitoring
requirements for similar non-waste burning sources as closely as
possible in an effort to make them consistent and to help sources make
the cross-walk between waste and non-waste regulatory requirements as
simple as possible.
The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this proposed
rule using the concurrently proposed definition of solid waste under
RCRA are presented in Table 13 of this preamble.
Table 13--Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and Alternative
Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the ``Primary Approach''
Emission Limits Concurrently Proposed Under RCRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
achieved
assuming
Reductions incinerators,
achieved through small, remote
Pollutant meeting MACT incinerators and
(ton/yr) burn-off ovens
use alternative
disposal (ton/
yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl................................. 525 558
CO.................................. 23,610 23,570
Pb.................................. 5.9 6.0
Cd.................................. 5.4 5.4
Hg.................................. 0.13 0.14
PM (filterable)..................... 1,720 1,760
Dioxin, furans...................... 0.0002 0.00025
NOX................................. 1,260 1,450
SO2................................. 2,640 2,660
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 29,770 30,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary
impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted energy recovery
unit fuel.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, there is an ``alternative
approach'' identified for consideration and comment in a concurrent
notice under RCRA. The potential emissions reductions based on this
``alternative approach'' are presented in Table 14 of this preamble.
[[Page 31966]]
Table 14--Potential Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and
Alternative Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using Potential Emission
Limits Based on the ``Alternative Approach'' Identified for
Consideration and Comment in a Concurrent Notice Under RCRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
achieved
assuming
Reductions incinerators,
achieved through small, remote
Pollutant meeting MACT incinerators and
(ton/yr) burn-off ovens
use alternative
disposal (ton/
yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl................................. 395 429
CO.................................. 128,120 128,070
Pb.................................. 3.4 3.4
Cd.................................. 4.2 4.3
Hg.................................. 1.2 1.2
PM (filterable)..................... 19,280 19,320
Dioxin, furans...................... 0.00003 0.00009
NOX................................. 341 522
SO2................................. 184 205
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 148,330 148,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary
impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted energy recovery
unit fuel.
Based on the results of our analysis for existing units and our
experiences with other CAA Section 129 regulations, we do not
anticipate that any new CISWI units will be constructed. As discussed
earlier, many existing CISWI owners and operators may find that
alternate disposal options are preferable to compliance with the
proposed standards. Our experience with regulations for municipal waste
combustors, HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI has shown that negative growth in
the source category historically occurs upon implementation of CAA
Section 129 standards. Since CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and
have been in effect for existing sources since 2005, many existing
units have closed. At promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated 122 units in
the CISWI population. In comparison, the incinerator subcategory in
this proposal, which would contain any such units subject to the 2000
CISWI rule, has 28 units. EPA is not aware of any construction of new
units since 2000, so we do not believe there are any units that are
currently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. The revised CISWI rule is
more stringent, so we expect this trend to continue. We would also
expect the same to be true for the subcategories of units that would be
newly affected by the proposed revised CISWI rules. Industrial or
commercial operations considering waste disposal options for their
facilities will likely choose not to construct new CISWI units and to
use alternative waste disposal methods or alternative fuels that will
not subject them to the CISWI rule. For example, tire-derived fuel from
which the metal has been removed is not considered solid waste under
the proposed definition of solid waste. Consequently, new cement kiln
owners will assess their regulatory requirements under CISWI for
burning whole tires or tire-derived fuel that does not have metals
removed against the costs associated with removing the metal and
complying with the applicable NESHAP instead of the CISWI rule. Our
research suggests that metal removal is routinely practiced and would
most likely be a viable option for new kiln owners so that they would
not be subject to the CISWI regulations. Likewise, new sources could
engineer their process to minimize waste generation in the first place,
or to separate wastes so that the materials sent to a combustion unit
would not meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. For waste
that is generated, cost analyses have found that alternative waste
disposal is generally available and less expensive. However, we request
comment on whether new sources will likely be constructed. In case a
facility deems waste combustion a suitable option and constructs a new
CISWI unit, we have developed model CISWI unit emissions reduction
estimates for each subcategory using the existing unit baseline and the
new source emission limits. Table 15 of this preamble presents the
model plant emissions reductions that would be expected for new
sources.
Table 15--Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reduction for CISWI subcategory model Units (ton/yr unless otherwise
noted)
Pollutant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small, remote Energy Waste-burning
Incinerator Burn-off oven incinerator recovery unit kiln
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl............................. 0.9 0.1 0.0 13.3 0.1
CO.............................. 1.0 0.5 0.3 597 1,844
Pb.............................. 0.04 0.0 0.0002 0.1 0.02
Cd.............................. 0.009 0.0 0.001 0.005 0.1
Hg.............................. 0.003 0.0 0.000002 0.002 0.0
PM (filterable)................. 3.4 0.1 0.0 46.3 0.0
Dioxin/furan (total mass)\1\.... 0.0 0.0 0.003 0.01 0.001
NOX............................. 9.6 0.8 0.0 133.9 1,242
[[Page 31967]]
SO2............................. 6.8 0.1 0.0 60.2 115
Total........................... 21.8 1.67 0.3 851 3,202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dioxin/furan estimates are given in lb/yr.
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
We anticipate affected sources will 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 68 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater would be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbent use.
Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls
already in place will increase the amount of particulate collected that
will require disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be
utilized by some sources, which will result in additional solid waste
needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that would require
disposal are anticipated to be approximately 1,760 tons/yr from PM
capture and 10,860 tons/yr from activated carbon injection.
Perhaps the largest impact on solid waste would come from owners
and operators who decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and
instead send waste to the landfill or MWC for disposal. Based on
tipping fees and availability, we would expect most, if not all, of
this diverted waste to be sent to a local landfill. As we discuss
above, it may be that a good portion of the incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small, remote incinerators would determine that alternative
disposal is a better choice than compliance with the proposed
standards. If this were the case for all of the units in these
subcategories, we estimate that approximately 214,000 tons per year of
waste would be diverted to a landfill.
As mentioned above, we do not anticipate any new CISWI units to be
constructed. Therefore, there would be no water or solid waste impacts
associated with controls for new units.
C. 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 and sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate
that an additional 271,455 MW-hours per year would be required for the
additional and improved control devices.
As discussed earlier, there could be instances where owners and
operators of energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns decide to
cease burning waste materials. In these cases, the energy provided by
the burning of waste would need to be replaced with a traditional fuel,
such as natural gas. Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of the energy
input to energy recovery units and kilns are from waste materials, an
estimate of the energy that would be replaced with a traditional fuel
if all existing units stopped burning waste materials, is approximately
56 TBtu/yr. Since we do not anticipate any new CISWI units to be
constructed, there would be no energy impacts associated with control
of new units.
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
For CISWI units adding controls to meet the proposed emission
limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air impacts, comprising
emissions from electric generating units needed to provide the
electricity to power the emission control devices.
As discussed earlier, we believe it likely that the incinerators,
burn-off ovens and small, remote incinerators may elect to discontinue
the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to the landfill or other
disposal means. As we discussed in the solid waste impacts above, this
could result in approximately 214,000 tons per year of waste going to
landfills. By using EPA's Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we estimate
that, over the 20-year expected life of a CISWI unit, the resulting
methane generated by a landfill receiving the waste would be about
187,000 tons. If this landfill gas were combusted in a flare, assuming
typical flare emission factors and landfill gas chlorine, Hg and sulfur
concentrations, the following emissions would be expected: 38 tons of
PM; 16 tons of HCl; 32 tons of SO2; 1,724 tons of CO; 90
tons of NOX; and about 3 lbs of Hg.
Here again, since we do not anticipate any new CISWI units, we do
not expect any secondary air impacts associated with control of new
units.
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls and monitoring equipment, and to implement the
inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with
the proposed CISWI standards. We have also analyzed the costs of
alternative disposal for the subcategories that may have alternative
options to burning waste, specifically for the incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small, remote incinerators. In our analysis, we have selected
the lowest cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal)
for each facility. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall
total capital investment of $574 million with an associated total
annual cost of $216 million.
Under the proposed rule, EPA's economic model suggests the average
national market-level variables (prices, production-levels,
consumption, international trade) will not change significantly (e.g.,
are less than 0.01 percent).
EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small entities by
comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., sales and revenue
tests). EPA's analysis found the tests were below 1 percent for small
entities included in the screening analysis.
We do not anticipate any new CISWI units to be constructed.
Therefore, we do not anticipate any costs associated with control of
new units.
F. What are the benefits?
We estimated the monetized benefits of this proposed regulatory
action to be $240 million to $580 million (2008$, 3 percent discount
rate) in the implementation year (2015). The
[[Page 31968]]
monetized benefits of the proposed regulatory action at a 7 percent
discount rate are $210 million to $520 million (2008$). 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 two estimates.\9\ A
summary of the monetized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3
percent and 7 percent is in Table 16 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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 16--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015
[millions of 2008$]\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
emissions
reductions Total monetized benefits Total monetized benefits
(tons per (3% discount rate) (7% discount rate)
year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................... 660 $150 to $370.............. $140 to $330.
PM2.5 Precursors........................ .............. .......................... ..........................
SO2..................................... 2,659 $78 to $190............... $71 to $170.
NOX..................................... 1,447 $7.0 to $17............... $6.4 to $16.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... .............. $240 to $580.............. $210 to $520.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. 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. The monetized
benefits from reducing 24,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 560 tons of hydrochloric acid, 5.4 tons of cadmium, 6.0
tons of lead, 280 pounds of mercury, and 230 grams of total dioxins/furans, each year are not included in
these estimates. In addition, the monetized benefits from reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment
are not included.
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 established in Fann et al.
(2009).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 emissions reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. 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, SOX 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 both on 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 empirical studies, one based on the
American Cancer Society cohort study\11\ and the extended Six Cities
cohort study\12\. In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this
proposed rule, which is available in the docket, we also include
benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. However, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis\13\
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 carbon monoxide
and HAP have not been monetized in this analysis, including reducing
29,000 tons of CO, 590 tons of hydrochloric acid, 5.4 tons of Cd, 6.0
tons of lead and 280 pounds of Hg 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 effects associated with these air pollutants in the RIA for this
proposed rule, which is available in the docket.
The costs of this proposed rulemaking are estimated to be $216
million (2008$) in the implementation year and the monetized benefits
are $240 million to $580 million (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) for
that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $210
million to $520 billion (2008$). Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking
are estimated at $19 million to $360 million (2008$, 3 percent discount
rate) and $-2.4 million to $310 million (2008$, 7 percent discount
rate). A summary of the monetized benefits, social costs and net
benefits at discount rates of 3 percent and 7& is in Table 17 of this
preamble.
[[Page 31969]]
Table 17--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net
Benefits for the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015
[millions of 2008$]\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits\2\..... $240 to $580...... $210 to $520.
Total Social Costs\3\........... $220.............. $220.
Net Benefits.................... $19 to $360....... $-2.4 to $310.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........
24,000 tons of carbon monoxide.
560 tons of HCl.
5.4 tons of cadmium.
6.0 tons of lead.
280 pounds of mercury.
230 grams of total dioxins/furans.
Health effects from NO2 and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option with Alternate Solid Waste Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits\2\..... $2,700 to $6,700.. $2,500 to $6,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Social Costs\3\........... $480.............. $480.
Net Benefits.................... $2,300 to $6,200.. $2,000 to $5,600.
Non-monetized Benefits..........
130,000 tons of carbon monoxide.
430 tons of HCl.
4.3 tons of cadmium.
3.4 tons of lead.
1.2 tons of mercury.
85 grams of total dioxins/furans
Health effects from NO2 and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are
rounded to two significant figures.
\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.
\3\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for one year in the
multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social
costs for both discount rates.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of
sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources accounting
for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such
pollutant are subject to standards under CAA Section 112(d)(2) or
112(d)(4). EPA has identified CISWI as a source category that emits
five of the seven CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants: polycyclic organic
matter (POM), dioxins, furans, Hg and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
(The POM emitted by CISWI is composed of seven polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (7-PAH), 16 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (16-PAH) and
extractable organic matter (EOM)). In the Federal Register notice
Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to
Section 112(c)(6) Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA
identified source categories ``subject to regulation'' for purposes of
CAA Section 112(c)(6) with respect to the CAA Section 112(c)(6)
pollutants that CISWI emit. CISWI are solid waste incineration units
currently regulated under CAA Section 129 and this proposal would
subject additional sources to regulation under CAA Section 129. For
purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6), EPA has determined that standards
promulgated under CAA Section 129 are substantively equivalent to those
promulgated under CAA Section 112(d). (See Id. at 17845; see also 62 FR
33625, 33632 (1997).) As discussed in more detail below, the CAA
Section 129 standards effectively control emissions of the five
identified CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since CAA Section
129(h)(2) precludes EPA from regulating these substantial sources of
the five identified CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants under CAA Section
112(d), EPA cannot further regulate these emissions under that CAA
Section. As a result, EPA considers emissions of these five pollutants
from CISWI ``subject to standards'' for purposes of CAA Section
112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA Section 129 CISWI standards
include numeric emission limitations for the nine pollutants specified
in CAA Section 129(a)(4). The combination of waste segregation, good
combustion practices and add-on air pollution control equipment
(sorbent injection, fabric filters, wet scrubbers, or combinations
thereof) effectively reduces emissions of the pollutants for which
emission limits are required under CAA Section 129: Hg, dioxins,
[[Page 31970]]
furans, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2, HCl, CO and NOX. Thus,
the standards specifically require reduction in emissions of three of
the CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants: dioxins, furans and Hg. As
explained below, the air pollution controls necessary to comply with
the requirements of the CISWI standards also effectively reduce
emissions of the following CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants that are
emitted from CISWI: POM and PCBs. Although the CAA Section 129 CISWI
standards do not have separate, specific emissions standards for POM
and PCBs, emissions of these two CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants are
effectively controlled by the same control measures used to comply with
the numerical emissions limits for the pollutants enumerated in CAA
Section 129(a)(4). Specifically, as by-products of combustion, the
formation of POM and PCBs is effectively reduced by the combustion and
post-combustion practices required to comply with the CAA Section 129
standards. Any POM and PCBs that do form during combustion are further
controlled by the various post-combustion CISWI controls. The add-on PM
control systems (either fabric filter or wet scrubber) and activated
carbon injection further reduce emissions of these organic pollutants
and also reduce Hg emissions, as is evidenced by performance data for
MWCs and another similar source category, HMIWI. Specifically, the
post-MACT compliance tests at currently operating HMIWI that were also
operational at the time of promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI MACT
standards show that, for those units, the regulations reduced Hg
emissions by about 60 percent and reduced dioxin and furans emissions
by about 80 percent from pre-MACT levels. Moreover, similar controls
have been demonstrated to effectively reduce emissions of POM and PCBs
from MWCs. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that POM and PCB
emissions would be substantially controlled at all CISWI units meeting
the proposed emission limits. Thus, while the proposed rule does not
identify specific numerical limits for POM and PCB, emissions of those
pollutants are, for the reasons noted above, nonetheless ``subject to
regulation'' for purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it will 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. For information
regarding the costs and benefits of this rule, please refer to Table 17
of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR documents prepared by EPA have been
assigned EPA ICR number 2384.01 for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60 and
2385.01 for subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60.
The requirements in this proposed action result in industry
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review of the
amendments for all CISWI, and inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters
and other air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the
emission limits for all CISWI. Ongoing parametric monitoring
requirements for ESPs, SNCR, activated carbon injection are also
required of all CISWI units. Stack testing and development of new
parameter limits would be necessary for CISWI that need to make
performance improvements in order to meet the proposed emission limits
and for CISWI that, prior to this proposed action, have not been
required to demonstrate compliance with certain pollutants. Visual
emissions tests would be required for all subcategories except waste-
burning kilns on an annual basis. Energy recovery units would be
required to continuously monitor opacity, and units larger than 250
MMBtu/hr would be required to monitor PM emissions using a PM CEMS.
Waste-burning kilns would be required to continuously monitor Hg
emissions using a Hg CEMS. Any new CISWI would also be required to
continuously monitor CO emissions. The annual average burden associated
with recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the EG over the first
three years following promulgation of this proposed action is estimated
to be 12,591 hours at a total annual labor cost of $498,230. The total
annualized capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs associated with the EG monitoring requirements, EPA Method 22 of
appendix A-7 testing, initial stack testing, storage of data and
reports and photocopying and postage over the three-year period of the
ICR are estimated at $25,509,408 and $8,503,136 per year, respectively.
(The annual inspection costs are included under the recordkeeping and
reporting labor costs.) The annual average burden associated with the
NSPS over the first three years following promulgation of this proposed
action is estimated to be 0 hours at a total annual labor cost of $0,
since we anticipate no new CISWI units to be constructed. 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 EPA'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 action,
which includes these ICR documents, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0119. Submit any comments related to the ICR documents for this
proposed action to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this action 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 June 4, 2010,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by July 6, 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that
the proposed 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, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a
[[Page 31971]]
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. The small
entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are facilities
engaged in industrial or commercial operations, such as paper and
paperboard manufacturing and utility providers. The average cost-to-
sales ratios for small companies are below 1 percent. The median ratios
are less than 0.1 percent. Only one entity has a sales test that
exceeds 3 percent and that unit provides wood-residue, natural gas-
fired cogeneration (NAICS 221).
Although this 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. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. We
invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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 one year. Accordingly, EPA has
prepared under Section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is
summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority
for the proposed rule is Section 129 of the CAA. CAA Section 129 CISWI
standards include numeric emissions limitations for the nine pollutants
specified in CAA Section 129(a)(4). Section 129(a)(2) of the CAA
directs EPA to develop standards based on MACT, which require existing
and new major sources to control emissions of the nine pollutants.
In compliance with Section 205(a), we identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The regulatory
alternative upon which the rule is based is the least costly, most
cost-effective alternative to achieve the statutory requirements of CAA
Section 129.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
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: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units'' in the docket. Based on estimated
compliance costs on all sources 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 $216
million (2008 dollars). In the year of full implementation (2015), EPA
estimates the monetized PM2.5 benefits of the proposed NSPS
and EG are $240 million to $580 million and $210 million to $520
million, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates respectively. All
estimates are in 2008$. 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 estimates. The benefits from
reducing other air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis,
including reducing 24,000 tons of CO, 560 tons of HCl, 6 tons of Pb,
5.4 tons of Cd, 280 pounds of Hg, and 230 grams of total dioxins and
furans each year. In addition, ecosystem benefits and visibility
benefits have not been monetized in this analysis.
Exposure to CO can affect the cardiovascular system and the central
nervous system. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM,
which can result in fatalities and many respiratory problems (such as
asthma or bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone
causing several respiratory problems to affected populations.
The net benefits for the NSPS and Emission Guidelines are $19
million to $360 million and -$2.4 million to $310 million, at 3 percent
and 7 percent discount rates respectively. All estimates are in 2008$.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the rule and
any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future
compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously in this
preamble. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate
budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the
country, State or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban,
rural), or particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule
on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs and international competitiveness of the U.S. goods and
services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide
economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in the ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units'' in the docket. This analysis provides
estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on most of the categories
mentioned above. The results of the economic impact analysis were
summarized previously in this preamble.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with affected State, local and tribal officials, summarize
the officials' comments or concerns and summarize our response to those
comments or concerns. We have determined that the proposed rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this rule is not subject
to the requirements of Section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' 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 does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national
[[Page 31972]]
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. This proposed action will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments and
will not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
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 CISWI in Indian country or owned or operated by Indian
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
However, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed action from tribal officials and will conduct outreach to
tribal environmental professionals 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 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in
this proposed action would cause most CISWI in the energy recovery unit
and waste-burning kiln subcategories 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
271,455 megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity being used.
EPA estimates that many owners of CISWI units in the incinerator, burn-
off oven and small, remote incinerator subcategories may stop operating
CISWI units and use alternative waste disposal methods, thereby not
requiring additional energy input for operation of control devices.
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 regard 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 National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the 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:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration units through
Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and
searched their databases.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use 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 3B, 6, 7 and 7C. This standard is available
from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 3 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Another VCS, ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources-Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
26A.
Another VCS, 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)'' is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 29.
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, 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
to this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that 21 candidate VCS (ASTM D3154-
00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO10396:1993 (2007),
ISO12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA
Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC-38-1980 (1985),
ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-
98 (2003), ISO11564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-M1983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-M1978,
ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), EN
13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-M1987) 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, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule
and any amendments.
[[Page 31973]]
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice (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, low-income, and tribal populations
in the United States.
This proposed action establishes national emission standards for
new and existing CISWI. The EPA estimates that there are approximately
176 such units, including incinerators, burn-off ovens, cement kilns
and energy recovery units, covered by this rule. The proposed rule will
reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this source. This
includes emissions of cadmium (Cd), hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead (Pb),
mercury (Hg), and chlorinated dioxin/furans. 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 carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter
(PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide and
NO2 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. (Please refer to the RIA contained in the
docket for this rulemaking.)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA has undertaken to determine
the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected
sources. This analysis used ``proximity-to-a-source'' to identify 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 different socio-
demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission reductions
from this rule. The review identified those census blocks within a
circular distance of three miles of affected sources and determined the
demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income,
education, etc.) of these census blocks. The radius of three miles (or
approximately five kilometers) has been used in other demographic
analyses focused on areas around potential sources.
14, 15, 16, 17 In addition, air modeling experience has
shown that beyond three miles, the influence of an individual source of
emissions can generally be considered to be small, both in absolute
terms and relative to the influence of other sources (assuming there
are other sources in the area, as is typical in urban areas). EPA's
demographic analysis has shown that these areas tend to have lower
proportions of Whites and American Indians, higher proportions of
African-Americans, Hispanics and ``Other and Multi-racial''
populations, and higher proportions of families with incomes below the
poverty level.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office; 1995.
\15\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research''. Demography.
2006;43(2): 383-399.
\16\ 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.
\17\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
\18\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts'', April 2010, a copy of
which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the fact that the rule does not allow emission increases,
the EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or tribal populations. However, to the
extent that any minority, low income, or tribal subpopulation is
disproportionately impacted by the current emissions as a result of the
proximity of their homes to these sources, that subpopulation also
stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from the
emissions reductions called for by this rule.
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 polices. 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 Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation's (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: April 29, 2010.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCCC--Standards of Performance for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
3. Section 60.2005 is amended by revising the first sentence to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2005 When does this subpart become effective?
This subpart takes effect on [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. * * *
[[Page 31974]]
4. Section 60.2015 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2015 What is a new incineration unit?
(a) A new incineration unit is an incineration unit that meets any
of the criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this
section.
(1) A commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit that
commenced construction after June 4, 2010.
(2) A commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit that
commenced reconstruction or modification after [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
* * * * *
5. Section 60.2020 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
c. Revising paragraph (c).
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k), and (l).
e. Revising paragraphs (g), (m) and (n).
f. Removing paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.2020 What combustion units are exempt from this subpart?
This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i) and (m) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260.
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
regulated under subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for Small
Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units). * * *
* * * * *
(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit
designs may include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.
Sec. 60.2025 [Removed]
6. Section 60.2025 is removed.
7. Section 60.2030 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5).
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9).
Sec. 60.2030 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and
(c)(6) through (9) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(8) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Sec.
60.2105 under Sec. 60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8).
(9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.2125(j).
8. Section 60.2045 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2045 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of an incinerator after December 1, 2000.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis for CISWI units that
commenced construction after June 4, 2010 or that commenced
reconstruction or modification after [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(c) 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
reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit.
9. Section 60.2070 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2070 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *
10. Section 60.2085 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2085 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
* * * * *
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
* * * * *
11. Section 60.2105 is revised to read as follow:
Sec. 60.2105 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each unit, including
bypass stack or vent, specified in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5
through 9 of this subpart by the applicable date in Sec. 60.2140. You
must be in compliance with the emission limitations of this subpart
that apply to you at all times.
(b) An incinerator that commenced construction after November 30,
1999 but no later than June 4, 2010 or that commenced reconstruction or
modification on or after June 1, 2001 but no later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE] must meet the more
stringent emission limit for the respective pollutant in table 1 of
this subpart or table 6 of subpart DDDD.
(c) Units that do not use wet scrubbers must maintain opacity to
less than or equal to the percent opacity (1-hour block average)
specified in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this
subpart, as applicable.
12. Section 60.2110 is amended by adding paragraphs (d), (e) and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2110 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
* * * * *
(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the voltage and amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the particulate
matter performance test. Calculate the average value of these
parameters for each test run. The minimum test run averages establish
your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage operating limits for
the electrostatic precipitator.
(e) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the mercury sorbent flow rate
during the mercury performance test. The minimum mercury sorbent flow
rate test run averages establish your site-specific minimum mercury
sorbent flow rate.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission
[[Page 31975]]
limitations, you must establish the maximum charge rate, the minimum
secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) and
the minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating parameters
during the initial nitrogen oxides performance test to determine
compliance with the emissions limits.
13. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2115 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, activated carbon
injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?
(a) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in some other
manner to comply with the emission limitations under Sec. 60.2105, you
must petition the EPA Administrator for specific operating limits to be
established during the initial performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter. You must not conduct the initial performance test
until after the petition has been approved by the Administrator. Your
petition must include the 5 items listed in paragraphs (1) through (5)
of this section.
(1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(2) 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.
(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
(4) 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.
(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
(b) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet scrubber, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2145 by the
compliance date specified in Sec. 60.2105.
Sec. 60.2120 [Removed]
14. Section 60.2120 is removed.
15. Section 60.2125 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (h) through (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?
* * * * *
(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of
this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part must be used to
determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in table 1 of
this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1),(i)(2), (i)(3), and
(i)(4) of this section, within 60 days after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup of such facility, or at
such other times specified by this part, and at such other times as may
be required by the Administrator under Section 114 of the Clean Air
Act, the owner or operator of such facility must conduct performance
test(s) and furnish the Administrator a written report of the results
of such performance test(s).
(1) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred
for which the affected owner or operator intends to assert a claim of
force majeure, the owner or operator must notify the Administrator, in
writing as soon as practicable following the date the owner or operator
first knew, or through due diligence should have known that the event
may cause or caused a delay in testing 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) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for
attributing the delay in testing 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 the owner or operator proposes
to conduct the performance test. The performance test must be conducted
as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs.
(3) The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension to the
performance test deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator in
writing of approval or disapproval of the request for an extension as
soon as practicable.
(4) Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (3) of
this section, the owner or operator of the affected facility remains
strictly subject to the requirements of this part.
(j) 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.
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a
reference method with minor changes in methodology.
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
(3) 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.
(4) Waives the requirement for performance tests because the owner
or operator of a source has demonstrated by other means to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the affected facility is in
compliance with the standard.
(5) 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.
(k) Performance tests must be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator shall specify to the plant operator based on
representative performance of the affected facility. The owner or
operator must make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of the performance tests.
(l) The owner or operator of an affected facility 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, the owner or operator of an affected facility must notify the
Administrator (or delegated State or local agency) 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
[[Page 31976]]
test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the Administrator (or
delegated State or local agency) by mutual agreement.
(m) The owner or operator of an affected facility must provide, or
cause to be provided, performance testing facilities as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test methods applicable to such
facility. This includes the following.
(i) 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.
(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(n) 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. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an applicable standard, the arithmetic
means of results of the three runs apply. 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 the owner or operator's
control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's approval, be
determined using the arithmetic mean of the results of the two other
runs.
16. Section 60.2130 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2130 How are the performance test data used?
You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through
9 of this subpart.
17. Section 60.2135 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?
You must conduct an initial performance test, as required under
Sec. 60.2105 and Sec. 60.2125 to determine compliance with the
emission limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9
of this subpart and to establish operating limits using the procedures
in Sec. 60.2110 or Sec. 60.2115. The initial performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 9 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2125.
The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate
the performance test.
18. Section 60.2141 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2141 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the device's initial startup.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the State agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
19. Section 60.2145 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and (b)
and adding paragraphs (d) through (t) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2145 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and the operating limits?
(a) You must conduct an annual performance test for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and opacity for each CISWI unit
as required under Sec. 60.2125 to determine compliance with the
emission limitations. The annual performance test must be conducted
using the test methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5
through 9 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2125.
(b) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec. 60.2110 or established under Sec. 60.2115.
Operation above the established maximum or below the established
minimum operating limits constitutes a deviation from the established
operating limits. Three-hour rolling average values are used to
determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is established under Sec. 60.2115.
Operating limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance
tests.
* * * * *
(d) For energy recovery units, incinerators, burn-off ovens and
small remote units, you must perform annual visual emissions test for
ash handling.
(e) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for opacity (except where particulate matter
continuous emissions monitoring system are used for compliance) and the
pollutants (except for carbon monoxide) listed in table 1 of this
subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart.
(f) For energy recovery units, demonstrate continuous compliance
with the carbon monoxide emission limit using a carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring system according to the following
requirements:
(1) Determine continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit using a 24-hour block average, calculated as specified
in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this
part.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring
system in accordance with the requirements of performance specification
4B of appendix B of this part and quality assurance procedure one of
appendix F of this part.
(g) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr, demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit using a particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2165(n).
(h) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and
opacity (as mentioned in Sec. 60.2145(a)), nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide as listed in table 7 of this subpart. You must determine
compliance with the mercury emissions limit using a mercury continuous
emissions monitoring system according to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with
performance specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with performance
specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or appendix K of 40 CFR
part 75. The duration of the performance test must be a calendar month.
For each calendar month in which the waste-burning kiln operates,
hourly mercury concentration data and stack gas volumetric flow rate
data must be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous emissions
monitoring system must install, operate, calibrate and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas
flow rate to the
[[Page 31977]]
atmosphere according to the requirements of performance specification
12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality assurance procedure 5 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix F, upon promulgation.
(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury continuous emissions
monitoring system while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is
under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line
kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(i) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air pollution control device. The inspection must
include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (j) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(j) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section,
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this
paragraph (j) that addresses paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
(i) 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).
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(vi) 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).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(k) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (j)
and (k)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent
of the flow rate.
(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(l) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (j) and (l)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) 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.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH
measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (j)
and (m)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor voltage and secondary current (or total power
input) of an electrostatic precipitator, you must use voltage and
secondary current monitoring equipment to measure voltage and secondary
current to the electrostatic precipitator.
(o) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh
hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (j) and (o)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with the
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(p) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system
to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install,
calibrate, maintain and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system as specified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's
[[Page 31978]]
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(q) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit,
compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be demonstrated
by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified in Sec.
60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 24-hour daily
geometric average emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 19,
sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable. The sulfur dioxide continuous
emission monitoring system must be operated according to performance
specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in this paragraph (q). For sources
that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million dry
volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide
continuous emission monitoring systems should be no greater than 20
percent of the mean value of the reference 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 reference method and
the continuous emission monitoring systems, whichever is greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 in
appendix B of this part, sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and (q)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-19.10-1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17], must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-19.10-1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17] as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system at
the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device must be 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the
unit subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous emission
monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide control device
must be 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the unit subject to this rule.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of
this part.
(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks and/or zero and span adjustments, emissions data must be
obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for
a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of the hours
per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year
that the affected facility is operated and combusting solid waste (as
that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA).
(r) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission
limit, compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit may be
demonstrated by using the continuous emission monitoring system
specified in Sec. 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a
24-hour daily arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA
Reference Method 19, section 4.1. The nitrogen oxides continuous
emission monitoring system must be operated according to performance
specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(5) of
this section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 of
appendix B of this part, nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) and (r)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E
must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17] as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system
must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential nitrogen
oxide emissions of unit.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of
this part.
(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitoring system
data are not obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained using other monitoring systems as
approved by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day,
90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year the unit is operated and combusting solid
waste.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit 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 (r)(5)(i) through
(r)(5)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be re-established
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be used to determine
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a sampling
location. Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-
19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) 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 3 runs must be performed.
(s) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate continuous compliance with any of the emission limits of
this subpart, you must complete the following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s)
using a 24-hour block average, calculated following the procedures in
EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(2) Operate all continuous emissions monitoring systems in
accordance with
[[Page 31979]]
the applicable procedures under appendices B and F of this part.
(t) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an emissions standards
deviation for particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg.
20. Section 60.2150 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2150 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
You must conduct annual performance tests within 12 months
following the initial performance test. Conduct subsequent annual
performance tests within 12 months following the previous one.
21. Section 60.2151 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2151 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution
control device inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous
annual air pollution control device inspection), you must complete the
air pollution control device inspection as described in Sec. 60.2141.
22. Section 60.2155 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2155 May I conduct performance testing less often?
(a) You can test less often for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, provided:
(1) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive years.
(2) The test data results for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity is less than 75 percent of the
emissions or opacity limit.
(3) There are no changes in the operation of the affected source or
air pollution control equipment that could affect 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.
(b) If your CISWI unit continues to emit less than 75 percent of
the emission limitation for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
fugitive ash, or opacity, and there are no changes in the operation of
the affected facility 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.
(c) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission or opacity limitation for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, you must conduct annual
performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over a
3-year period are within 75 percent of the applicable emission
limitation.
23. Section 60.2165 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2165 What monitoring equipment must I install and what
parameters must I monitor?
* * * * *
(c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber, activated
carbon, selective non-catalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations under Sec.
60.2105, you must install, calibrate (to the manufacturers'
specifications), maintain and operate the equipment necessary to
monitor compliance with the site-specific operating limits established
using the procedures in Sec. 60.2115.
(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, you must measure the minimum
mercury sorbent flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must complete the following:
(1) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.2125, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or the minimum reagent
flow rate measured as 3-hour rolling averages (calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 3 operating hours) at all times. Operating
parameter limits do not apply during performance tests.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge
rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature and below the
minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously constitute a violation of the
nitrogen oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you must monitor the voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates and
maintain the 3-hour block averages at or above the operating limits
established during the mercury or particulate matter performance test.
(g) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a hydrogen chloride
continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the hydrogen
chloride annual performance test, monitoring the minimum hydrogen
chloride sorbent flow rate and monitoring the minimum scrubber liquor
pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a particulate
matter continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the
particulate matter annual performance test and monitoring the minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the dioxin/furan annual performance test.
You must record the output of the system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Method 23 of appendix A-7 of this part. This option to
use a continuous automated sampling system takes effect on the date a
final performance specification applicable to dioxin/furan from
continuous monitors is published in the Federal Register. The owner or
operator who elects to continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions
instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method 23 of appendix A-7
must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and must comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the mercury annual performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet appropriate performance
criteria. This option to use a continuous automated sampling system
takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable
to mercury from monitors is published in the Federal Register. The
owner or operator who elects to continuously sample mercury emissions
instead of sampling and testing using EPA Reference Method 29 of
appendix A-8 of this part, ASTM D6784-02 (2008), Standard Test Method
for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), or
an approved alternative method for measuring mercury emissions, must
install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated
sampling system
[[Page 31980]]
and must comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and
(q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
emissions monitoring system for the nitrogen oxides annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance procedure one of appendix F of this part and the
procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for installation,
evaluation and operation of the continuous emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2125, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
required under Sec. 60.52b(d) must be determined based on the 24-hour
daily arithmetic average of the hourly emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million by volume
(dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using
the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the sulfur dioxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance requirements of procedure one of appendix F of this
part and procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for
installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous emission
monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2125, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 24-hour daily geometric average of the hourly
arithmetic average emission concentrations using continuous emission
monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
expressed in parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour daily geometric average
emission concentrations and daily geometric average emission percent
reductions. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the
data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet scrubber, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (5) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.
60.2105. Energy recovery units that use a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system to demonstrate initial and continuing
compliance according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2165(n) are not
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system and must
perform the annual performance tests for opacity consistent with Sec.
60.2145(e).
(1) Install, operate and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to performance specification 1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13 and
according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.13(e)(1), each continuous opacity
monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system data as
specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and 1-hour
block averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate matter testing with EPA Method 5,
an owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring particulate matter
emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the
system. The owner or operator of an affected facility who continuously
monitors particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance
testing using EPA Method 5 must install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission monitoring system and must comply with
the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(14) of this
section.
(1) Notify the Administrator one (1) month before starting use of
the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator one (1) month before stopping use of
the system.
(3) The monitor must be installed, evaluated and operated in
accordance with the requirements of performance specification 11 of
appendix B of this part and quality assurance requirements of procedure
two of appendix F of this part and Sec. 60.13.
(4) The initial performance evaluation must be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected
facility, as specified under Sec. 60.2125 or within 180 days of
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring
system if the owner or operator was previously determining compliance
by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility must be established according to the
procedures and methods specified in Sec. 60.2145(r)(5)(i) through
(r)(5)(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility must conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.2125. Compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit must be determined by using the continuous emission monitoring
system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to measure
particulate matter and calculating a 24-hour block arithmetic average
emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1.
(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 24-hour daily (block) average of the hourly
arithmetic average emission concentrations using continuous emission
monitoring system outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified in Sec. 60.2170(e).
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7)
of this section must be expressed in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) (dry basis) and
must be used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average emission
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated
[[Page 31981]]
using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph
(n)(8) of this section are not met.
(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 11 in
appendix B of this part, particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the
following test methods.
(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, as applicable must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F of
this part.
(14) When particulate matter emissions data are not obtained
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,
calibration checks and zero and span adjustments, emissions data must
be obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by the
Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day,
90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected facility is operated and
combusting waste.
(o) For energy recovery units, operate the carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with the
requirements of performance specification 4B of appendix B of this part
and quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part.
(p) The owner/operator of an affected source with a bypass stack
shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain
and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time and duration.
24. Section 60.2170 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must
obtain?
(a) You must conduct all monitoring at all times the CISWI unit is
operating.
(b) You must use all the data collected during all periods in
assessing compliance with the operating limits.
(c) For continuous emission monitoring systems for measuring sulfur
dioxide emissions, valid continuous monitoring system hourly averages
must be obtained as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of
the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per
calendar year that the affected facility is combusting waste. All valid
continuous emission monitoring system data must be used in calculating
average emission concentrations and percent reductions even if the
minimum continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of this
paragraph (c) are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to calculate each
1-hour arithmetic average.
(2) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour arithmetic average must be corrected
to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour arithmetic
average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous emission
monitoring system data.
(d) For continuous emission monitoring systems for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions, valid continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages must be obtained as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2) of this section for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of
the hours per calendar year that the affected facility is combusting
waste. All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating average emission concentrations and percent
reductions even if the minimum continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of this paragraph (d) are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to calculate each
1-hour arithmetic average.
(2) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour arithmetic average must be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
(e) For continuous emission monitoring systems for measuring
particulate matter emissions, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this section for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90
percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours
per calendar year that the affected source is combusting waste. All
valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be used in
calculating average emission concentrations and percent reductions even
if the minimum continuous emission monitoring system data requirements
of this paragraph (e) are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to calculate each
one-hour arithmetic average.
(2) Each particulate matter one-hour arithmetic average must be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the one-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
25. Section 60.2175 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (u).
Sec. 60.2175 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (u) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for
controls other than wet scrubbers under Sec. 60.2110(d) through (f) or
Sec. 60.2115, you must maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits.
* * * * *
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show
a deviation from the operating limits in table 2 of this subpart or a
deviation from other operating limits established under Sec.
60.2110(d) through (f) or Sec. 60.2115 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(o) Maintain records of the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each CISWI unit subject to the
emissions limits in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of
this subpart, any required maintenance and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
State regulatory agency.
[[Page 31982]]
(p) For continuously monitored pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All one-hour average concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All one-hour average concentrations of mercury emissions.
(7) All one-hour average concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(q) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates,
times and durations.
(r) If you choose to stack test less frequently than annually,
consistent with Sec. 60.2155(a) through (c), you must keep annual
records that document that your emissions in the previous stack test(s)
were less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source operations including fuel
composition and operation of air pollution control equipment that would
cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past
year.
(s) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(t) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(u) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
26. Section 60.2210 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2210 What information must I include in my annual report?
* * * * *
(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit
that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no
deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the
reporting period and that caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are not using a CMS to
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the
annual report must contain the following information.
(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, the annual
report must contain the following information for each deviation from
an emission or operating limitation occurring for a CISWI unit for
which you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with the
emission and operating limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) 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.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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 CISWI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.
(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was not
out of control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, a
statement that there were not periods during which the continuous
monitoring system was out of control during the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control if any of the
following occur.
(1) 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.
(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
27. Section 60.2220 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and
removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 60.2220 What must I include in the deviation report?
* * * * *
(c) Durations and causes of the following:
(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or operating limits
and your corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
* * * * *
28. Section 60.2235 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 31983]]
Sec. 60.2235 In what form can I submit my reports?
(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(b) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation conducted to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart, the owner or operator of the affected
facility must submit the test data to EPA by entering the data
electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database through EPA's Central Data
Exchange. The owner or operator of an affected source shall enter the
test data into EPA's database using the Electronic Reporting Tool or
other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only performance evaluation
data collected using methods compatible with ERT are subject to this
requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
29. Section 60.2242 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2242 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain incinerator affected by this
subpart must operate pursuant to a permit issued under Section 129(e)
and title V of the Clean Air Act.
30. Section 60.2250 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2250 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
Within 60 days after your air curtain incinerator reaches the
charge rate at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after
its initial startup, you must meet the two limitations specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three one-hour blocks consisting of 10
six minute average opacity values), except as described in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 35 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values) during the startup period that is
within the first 30 minutes of operation.
31. Section 60.2260 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air curtain incinerators?
* * * * *
(d) You must submit the results (as determined by the average of
three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values)
of the initial opacity tests no later than 60 days following the
initial test. Submit annual opacity test results within 12 months
following the previous report.
* * * * *
32. Section 60.2265 is amended by:
a. Adding definitions for ``Burn-off oven'', ``Bypass stack'',
``Energy recovery unit'', ``Incinerator'', ``Kiln'', ``Minimum voltage
or amperage'', ``Opacity'', ``Raw mill'', ``Small remote incinerator'',
``Solid waste incineration unit'' and ``Waste-burning kiln'', in
alphabetical order.
b. Revising the definitions for ``Commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration (CISWI) unit'' and ``Deviation''.
c. Removing the definition for ``Agricultural waste'', ``Commercial
or industrial waste'', ``Malfunction'' and ``Solid waste''.
Sec. 60.2265 What definitions must I know?
* * * * *
Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation
unit, or drum reclamation unit.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
* * * * *
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit
means any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts any solid waste pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA.
While not all CISWI units will include all of the following components,
a CISWI unit includes, but is not limited to, the solid waste feed
system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment,
if any, and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air
pollution control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary
starts at the solid waste hopper (if applicable) and extends through
two areas: The combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately
after the last combustion chamber or after the waste heat recovery
equipment, if any; and the combustion unit bottom ash system, which
ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers
the ash to final disposal. The CISWI unit includes all ash handling
systems connected to the bottom ash handling system.
* * * * *
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 limitation,
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.
* * * * *
Energy recovery unit means a combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) for energy recovery. Energy recovery units include units that
would be considered boilers and process heaters if they did not combust
solid waste.
* * * * *
Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of combusting
solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to
Subtitle D of RCRA) for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste
by removing combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single
chamber, two-chamber and cyclonic burn barrels.
* * * * *
Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any associated preheater
or precalciner devices, used for processing a substance by burning,
firing or drying. Kilns include cement kilns, that produce clinker by
heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of
Portland cement and lime kilns that produce quicklime by calcination of
limestone.
* * * * *
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run
average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured
from the pressure drop and liquid flow rate monitors during the most
recent particulate matter or mercury performance test demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limits.
* * * * *
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
* * * * *
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, vertical roller mill or other
size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill,
used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or
removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is
used to remove moisture from
[[Page 31984]]
feed materials, it is also, by definition, a raw material dryer. The
raw mill also includes the air separator associated with the raw mill.
* * * * *
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid
waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to
Subtitle D of RCRA) and has the capacity to combust 1 ton per day or
less solid waste and is more than 50 miles driving distance to the
nearest municipal solid waste landfill.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of
any facility which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or
industrial establishments or the general public (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include
incinerators or other units required to have a permit under section
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ``solid waste
incineration unit'' does not include (A) materials recovery facilities
(including primary or secondary smelters) which combust waste for the
primary purpose of recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power
production facilities, as defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous waste (such as units which
burn tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the
production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration
facilities which burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric
energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are
used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C)
air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood
wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain
incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be established by the
Administrator by rule.
* * * * *
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA).
* * * * *
33. The heading of table 1 to subpart CCCC is revised to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60-Emission Limitations for CISWI
Units for Which Construction Is Commenced After November 30, 1999 but
no later than June 4, 2010 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction
Is Commenced on or After June 1, 2001 but no later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
* * * * *
34. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is amended by revising the entries for
``Annual Report'' and ``Emission limitation or operating limit
deviation report.''
Table 4 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Annual report.................... No later than 12 Name and Sec. Sec. 60.2205 and 60.2210.
months following address.
the submission of Statement
the initial test and signature by
report. Subsequent responsible
reports are to be official.
submitted no more Date of
than 12 months report..
following the Values for
previous report. the operating
limits..
Highest
recorded 3-hour
average and the
lowest 3-hour
average, as
applicable, for
each operating
parameter recorded
for the calendar
year being
reported.
If a
performance test
was conducted
during the
reporting period,
the results of the
test.
If a
performance test
was not conducted
during the
reporting period,
a statement that
the requirements
of Sec.
60.2155(a) or (b)
were met.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified CISWI
unit operators
were unavailable
for more than 8
hours but less
than 2 weeks.
Emission limitation or operating By August 1 of that Dates and Sec. 60.2215 and 60.2220.
limit deviation report. year for data times of deviation.
collected during Averaged
the first half of and recorded data
the calendar year. for those dates.
By February 1 of Duration
the following year and causes of each
for data collected deviation and the
during the second corrective actions
half of the taken.
calendar year. Copy of
operating limit
monitoring data
and any test
reports.
Dates,
times and causes
for monitor
downtime incidents.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
34. Table 5 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
[[Page 31985]]
Table 5 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Incinerators That Commenced Construction After June
4, 2010 or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [the Date 6 Months After Publication of the Final
Rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00066 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 1.4 parts per million 24-hour block average.. Carbon Monoxide
dry volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 4A of
this part, using a RA
of 0.5 ppm instead of
5 ppm as specified in
13.2. For the cylinder
gas audit, +/- 15% or
0.5 ppm, whichever is
greater.)
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.0093 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.00073 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 0.074 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meters). part).
Lead................................. 0.0013 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.00013 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic enough volume to meet (Method 30B of
meter. a detection limit data appendix A-8 of this
quality objective of part).
0.03 ug/dscm).
Opacity.............................. 1%..................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 19 parts per million 3-run average (1-hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part). Use
a span gas with a
concentration of 100
ppm or less.
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 0.0077 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 5 or 29 of
meter. dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meters). appendix A-8 of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 1.5 parts per million 3-run average (1-hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a maximum
allowable drift of 0.2
ppm and a span gas
with a concentration
of 5 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
36. Table 6 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Energy Recovery Units That Commenced Construction
After June 4, 2010 or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [the Date 6 Months after Publication
of the Final Rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00012 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 3 parts per million dry 24 hour block average.. Carbon monoxide
volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 4A of
this part, using a RA
of 0.5 ppm instead of
5 ppm as specified in
13.2. For the cylinder
gas audit, +/- 15% or
0.5 ppm, whichever is
greater.)
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.034 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
[[Page 31986]]
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.0027 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 0.17 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meters). part).
Lead................................. 0.0012 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.00013 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic enough volume to meet (Method 30B of
meter. a detection limit data appendix A-8 of this
quality objective of part).
0.03 [mu]g/dscm).
Opacity.............................. 1%..................... 6-minute averages; 1- Continuous opacity
hour block average for monitoring
units that operate dry (performance
control systems. specification 1 of
appendix B of this
part), unless equipped
with a wet scrubber.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 75 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 4.4 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meters). appendix A-8 of this
part) if the unit has
a design capacity less
than or equal to 250
MMBtu/hr; or PM CEMS
(performance
specification 11 of
appendix B of this
part) if the unit has
a design capacity
greater than 250 MMBtu/
hr.
Sulfur dioxide....................... 4.1 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
37. Table 7 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Waste-Burning Kilns That Commenced Construction
After June 4, 2010 or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [the Date 6 Months After Publication
of the Final Rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00030 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 36 parts per million 24-hour block average.. Carbon monoxide
dry volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 4A of
this part, using a RA
of 1 ppm instead of 5
ppm as specified in
13.2. For the cylinder
gas audit, +/- 15% or
0.5 ppm, whichever is
greater.)
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.00035 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.000028 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 1.5 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 0.00078 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
[[Page 31987]]
Mercury.............................. 0.024 milligrams per 24-hour block average.. Mercury CEMS
dry standard cubic (performance
meter. specification 12A of
appendix B of this
part or mercury
sorbent trap method
specified in appendix
K of part 75)
Opacity.............................. 1%..................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 140 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 1.8 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meters). appendix A-8 of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 3.6 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
38. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Burn-off Ovens That Commenced Construction After
June 4, 2010 or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [the Date 6 Months After Publication of the
Final Rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0032 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meter). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 74 parts per million 24 hour block average.. Carbon monoxide
dry volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 4A of
this part, using a RA
of 2 ppm instead of 5
ppm as specified in
13.2. For the cylinder
gas audit,15%
or 0.5 ppm, whichever
is greater.)
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.011 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.00086 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 17.6 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 0.029 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meter). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0033 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic enough volume to meet (Method 30B of
meter. a detection limit data appendix A-8 of this
quality objective of part).
0.3 ug/dscm).
Opacity.............................. 2%..................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 16 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part). Use
a span gas with a
concentration of 100
ppm or less.
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 28 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 and
meter). appendix A-8 of this
part).
[[Page 31988]]
Sulfur dioxide....................... 1.5 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a maximum
allowable drift of 0.2
ppm and a span gas
with concentration of
5 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
39. Table 9 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Small, Remote Incinerators That Commenced
Construction After June 4, 2010 or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After [the Date 6 Months After
Publication of the Final Rule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.......................... 0.057 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 of appendix A-8 of
standard cubic meter). this part). Use ICPMS
for the analytical
finish.
Carbon monoxide.................. 4.0 parts per million dry 24 hour block average... Carbon monoxide
volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 4A of
this part, using a RA
of 0.5 ppm instead of 5
ppm as specified in
13.2. For the cylinder
gas audit,
15% or 0.5 ppm,
whichever is greater).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) 1,200 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 23 of appendix A-7 of
standard cubic meter). this part).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 94 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
basis). standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 23 of appendix A-7 of
standard cubic meter). this part).
Hydrogen chloride................ 150 parts per million dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
volume. minimum volume of 1 dry 26 or 26A of appendix A-
standard cubic meter). 8 of this part).
Lead............................. 1.4 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 of appendix A-8 of
standard cubic meter). this part). Use ICPMS
for the analytical
finish.
Mercury.......................... 0.0013 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 of appendix A-8 of
standard cubic meter). this part).
Opacity.......................... 13%...................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test (Method
consisting of ten 6- 9 of appendix A-4 of
minute average opacity this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen............... 210 parts per million dry 3-run average (1 hour Performance test (Method
volume. minimum sample time per 7E of appendix A-4 of
run). this part).
Particulate matter (filterable).. 240 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 5 or 29 of appendix A-3
standard cubic meter). or appendix A-8 of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide................... 43 parts per million dry 3-run average (1 hour Performance test (Method
volume. minimum sample time per 6 or 6c of appendix A-4
run). of this part. Use a
span gas with a
concentration of 200
ppm or less.
Fugitive ash..................... Visible emissions for no Three 1-hour observation Visible emission test
more than 5% of the periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
Subpart DDDD--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
40. Section 60.2500 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of emissions from commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. The pollutants addressed by
these emission guidelines are listed in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 10 of 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.
41. Section 60.2505 is revised to read as follows.
[[Page 31989]]
Sec. 60.2505 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 existing CISWI
units that meets the criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, 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 a State plan to EPA by December 3, 2001 for
incinerators that commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999
and that were not modified or reconstructed after June 1, 2001.
(c) You must submit a State plan that meets the requirements of
this subpart and contains the more stringent emission limit for the
respective pollutant in table 6 of this subpart or table 1 of subpart
CCCC of this part to EPA by [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for incinerators that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999 but no later than June 4, 2010 or
commenced modification or reconstruction after June 1, 2001 but no
later than [THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(d) You must submit a State plan to EPA that meets the requirements
of this subpart and contains the emission limits in tables 7 through 10
of this subpart by [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units other than incinerators that
commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010.
41. Section 60.2525 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2525 What if my State plan is not approvable?
(a) If you do not submit an approvable State plan (or a negative
declaration letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA will develop a Federal
plan according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI 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.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable State plan (or a negative
declaration letter) to EPA that meets the requirements of this subpart
and contains the emission limits in tables 6 through 10 of this subpart
for CISWI units that commenced construction after November 30, 1999,
but on or before by [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] by [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then EPA will develop a
Federal plan according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the emission
guidelines contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI
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.
43. Section 60.2535 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c).
c. Adding paragraph (b).
Sec. 60.2535 What compliance schedule must I include in my state
plan?
(a) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999, your State plan must
include compliance schedules that require CISWI 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.
* * * * *
(b) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999, but on or before June 4, 2010,
and for CISWI units in the energy recovery units, waste-burning kilns,
burn-off ovens, and small remote incinerators subcategories that
commenced construction before June 4, 2010, your state plan must
include compliance schedules that require CISWI 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 (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval.
* * * * *
44. Section 60.2540 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2540 Are there any state plan requirements for this subpart
that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
* * * * *
(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 CISWI units to comply by the dates specified in
Sec. 60.2535. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.
60.24(f).
* * * * *
45. Section 60.2541 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2541 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 Clean Air Act 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. 60.2515(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 CISWI 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, providing 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.
46. Section 60.2542 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 31990]]
Sec. 60.2542 What authorities will not be delegated to state, local,
or Tribal agencies?
The authorities listed under Sec. 60.2030(c) will not be delegated
to state, local, or Tribal agencies.
47. Section 60.2545 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect CISWI unit owners and
operators in my state?
* * * * *
(c) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines contained in this subpart by [THE DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI
units that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but on or
before [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the EPA will implement and enforce a Federal plan, as
provided in Sec. 60.2525, to ensure that each unit within your state
that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but on or before
by [THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
reaches compliance with all the provisions of this subpart by [THE DATE
5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
48. Section Sec. 60.2555 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
c. Revising paragraphs (c) and (g).
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k) and (l).
e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n).
f. Removing paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.2555 What combustion units are exempt from my state plan?
This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i) and (m) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.2805, 60.2860, and 60.2870.
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
regulated under subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for Small
Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
* * * * *
(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit
designs may include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.
Sec. 60.2558 [Removed]
49. Section 60.2558 is removed.
50. Section 60.2635 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2635 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *
51. Section 60.2650 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2650 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
* * * * *
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
* * * * *
52. Section 60.2670 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2670 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each unit, including
bypass stack or vent, specified in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6
through 10 of this subpart by the final compliance date under the
approved State plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable. The
emission limitations apply at all times the unit is operating including
and not limited to startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(b) Units that do not use wet scrubbers must maintain opacity to
less than or equal to the percent opacity (1-hour block average)
specified in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 10 of this
subpart, as applicable.
53. Section 60.2675 is amended by adding paragraphs (d), (e) and
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2675 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
* * * * *
(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the voltage and amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the particulate
matter performance test. Calculate the average value of these
parameters for each test run. The minimum test run averages establish
your site-specific minimum voltage and amperage operating limits for
the electrostatic precipitator.
(e) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the mercury sorbent flow rate
during the mercury performance test. The minimum mercury sorbent flow
rate test run averages establish your site-specific minimum mercury
sorbent flow rate.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must establish the maximum charge rate, the
minimum secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI
unit) and the minimum reagent flow rate as site-specific operating
parameters during the initial nitrogen oxides performance test to
determine compliance with the emissions limits.
54. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2680 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, activated carbon
injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?
(a) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in some other
manner to comply with the emission limitations under Sec. 60.2670, you
must petition the Administrator for specific operating limits to be
established during the initial performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter. You must not conduct the initial performance test
until after the petition has been approved by the Administrator. Your
petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(5) of this section.
[[Page 31991]]
(1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(2) 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.
(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
(4) 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.
(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
(b) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet scrubber, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2710 by the
compliance date specified in Sec. 60.2670.
Sec. 60.2685 [Removed]
55. Section 60.2685 is removed.
56. Section 60.2690 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (h) through (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2690 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?
* * * * *
(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in tables 2 and 6 through 10 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part must be used to
determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in table 2 of
this subpart or tables 6 through 10 of this subpart.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), and
(i)(4) of this section, within 60 days after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup of such facility, or at
such other times specified by this part, and at such other times as may
be required by the Administrator under Section 114 of the Clean Air
Act, the owner or operator of such facility must conduct performance
test(s) and furnish the Administrator a written report of the results
of such performance test(s).
(1) If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred
for which the affected owner or operator intends to assert a claim of
force majeure, the owner or operator must notify the Administrator, in
writing as soon as practicable following the date the owner or operator
first knew, or through due diligence should have known that the event
may cause or caused a delay in testing 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) The owner or operator must provide to the Administrator a
written description of the force majeure event and a rationale for
attributing the delay in testing 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 the owner or operator proposes
to conduct the performance test. The performance test must be conducted
as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs.
(3) The decision as to whether or not to grant an extension to the
performance test deadline is solely within the discretion of the
Administrator. The Administrator will notify the owner or operator in
writing of approval or disapproval of the request for an extension as
soon as practicable.
(4) Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (3) of
this section, the owner or operator of the affected facility remains
strictly subject to the requirements of this part.
(j) 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.
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a
reference method with minor changes in methodology.
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
(3) 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.
(4) Waives the requirement for performance tests because the owner
or operator of a source has demonstrated by other means to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the affected facility is in
compliance with the standard.
(5) 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.
(k) Performance tests must be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator shall specify to the plant operator based on
representative performance of the affected facility. The owner or
operator must make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of the performance tests.
(l) The owner or operator of an affected facility 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, the owner or operator of an affected facility must notify the
Administrator (or delegated state or local agency) 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 (or delegated
state or local agency) by mutual agreement.
(m) The owner or operator of an affected facility must provide, or
cause to be provided, performance testing facilities as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test methods applicable to such
facility. This includes the following:
(i) 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.
(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(n) 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. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an applicable standard, the arithmetic
means of results of the three runs apply. In the event that a sample is
[[Page 31992]]
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 the owner or operator's
control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's approval, be
determined using the arithmetic mean of the results of the two other
runs.
57. Section 60.2695 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2695 How are the performance test data used?
You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through
10 of this subpart.
58. Section 60.2700 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2700 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the amended
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?
(a) You must conduct an initial performance test, as required under
Sec. 60.2690 and Sec. 60.2670, to determine compliance with the
emission limitations in table 2 of this subpart and tables 6 through 10
of this subpart and to establish operating limits using the procedures
in Sec. 60.2675 or Sec. 60.2680. The initial performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 10 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec.
60.2690. The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall
invalidate the performance test.
(b) You may use the results from a performance test conducted
within the two previous years that demonstrated compliance with the
emission limits in table 2 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of
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 in table 2 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 9 of this subpart. The test must use the test methods
in table 2 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart.
59. Section 60.2706 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2706 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the final compliance date for
meeting the amended emission limitations.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the state agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
60. Section 60.2710 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
and adding paragraphs (d) through (t) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2710 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
amended emission limitations and the operating limits?
(a) You must conduct an annual performance test for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and opacity for each CISWI unit
as required under Sec. 60.2690 to determine compliance with the
emission limitations. The annual performance test must be conducted
using the test methods listed in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6
through 10 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2690.
(b) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec. 60.2675 or established under Sec. 60.2680.
Operation above the established maximum or below the established
minimum operating limits constitutes a deviation from the established
operating limits. Three-hour rolling average values are used to
determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is established under Sec. 60.2680.
Operating limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance
tests.
* * * * *
(d) For energy recovery units, incinerators, burn-off ovens and
small remote units, you must perform annual visual emissions test for
ash handling.
(e) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for opacity (except where particulate matter
continuous emissions monitoring systems are used for compliance) and
the pollutants (except for carbon monoxide) listed in table 2 of this
subpart and tables 6 through 10 of this subpart.
(f) For energy recovery units, demonstrate continuous compliance
with the carbon monoxide emission limit using a carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring system according to the following
requirements:
(1) Determine continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit using a 24-hour block average, calculated as specified
in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this
part.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring
system in accordance with the applicable requirements of performance
specification 4B of appendix B and the quality assurance procedures of
appendix F of this part.
(g) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr, demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit using a particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2730(n).
(h) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and
opacity (as mentioned in section 60.2710(a)), nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide as listed in table 8 of this subpart. You must determine
compliance with the mercury emissions limit using a mercury continuous
emissions monitoring system according to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a continuous emission monitor in accordance with
performance specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with performance
specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or appendix K of 40 CFR
part 75. The duration of the performance test must be a calendar month.
For each calendar month in which the waste-burning kiln operates,
hourly mercury concentration data and stack gas volumetric flow rate
data must be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous emissions
monitoring system must install, operate, calibrate and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas
flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements of
performance specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality
assurance procedure 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, upon promulgation.
(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury continuous emission monitor
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is not operating.
(i) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air
[[Page 31993]]
pollution control device. The inspection must include, at a minimum,
the following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (j) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(j) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section,
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this
paragraph (j) that addresses paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
(i) 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).
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(vi) 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).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(k) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (j)
and (k)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent
of the flow rate.
(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to
upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(l) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (j) and (l)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) 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.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH
measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (j)
and (m)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor voltage and secondary current (or total power
input) of an electrostatic precipitator, you must use voltage and
secondary current monitoring equipment to measure voltage and secondary
current to the electrostatic precipitator.
(o) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of
equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh
hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (j) and (o)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(3) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with the
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(p) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system
to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install,
calibrate, maintain and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system as specified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for
each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(q) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit,
compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be demonstrated
by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified in Sec.
60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 24-hour daily
geometric average emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 19,
sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable. The sulfur dioxide continuous
emission monitoring system must be operated according to performance
specification
[[Page 31994]]
2 in appendix B of this part and must follow the procedures and methods
specified in this paragraph (q). For sources that have actual inlet
emissions less than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative
accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous emission
monitoring systems should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean
value of the reference 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 reference method and the continuous
emission monitoring systems, whichever is greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 in
appendix B of this part, sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and (q)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17] must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as
an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17] as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system at
the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device must be 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the
unit subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous emission
monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide control device
must be 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the unit subject to this rule.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of
this part.
(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks and/or zero and span adjustments, emissions data must be
obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for
a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of the hours
per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year
that the affected facility is operated and combusting solid waste (as
that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA).
(r) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission
limit, compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit may be
demonstrated by using the continuous emission monitoring system
specified in Sec. 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a
24-hour daily arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA
Reference Method 19, section 4.1. The nitrogen oxides continuous
emission monitoring system must be operated according to performance
specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(5) of
this section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 of
appendix B of this part, nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) and (r)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E
must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17], as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system
must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential nitrogen
oxide emissions of unit.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of
this part.
(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions monitoring data are
not obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained using other monitoring systems as
approved by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day,
90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year the unit is operated and combusting solid
waste.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit 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 (r)(5)(i) through
(r)(5)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be reestablished
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be used to determine
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a sampling
location. Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC-
19.10-1981--Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), 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 3 runs must be performed.
(s) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate continuous compliance with any of the emission limits of
this subpart, you must complete the following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s)
using a 24-hour block average, calculated following the procedures in
EPA Method 19 of appendix A-7 of this part.
(2) Operate all continuous emissions monitoring system in
accordance with the applicable procedures under appendices B and F of
this part.
(t) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an emissions standards
deviation for particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg.
61. Section 60.2715 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2715 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
You must conduct annual performance tests within 12 months
following the initial performance test. Conduct subsequent annual
performance tests within 12 months following the previous one.
[[Page 31995]]
62. Section 60.2716 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2716 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution
control device inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous
annual air pollution control device inspection), you must complete the
air pollution control device inspection as described in Sec. 60.2706.
63. Section 60.2720 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2720 May I conduct performance testing less often?
(a) You can test less often for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, provided:
(1) You have test data for at least 3 consecutive years.
(2) The test data results for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity is less than 75 percent of the
emissions or opacity limit.
(3) There are no changes in the operation of the affected source or
air pollution control equipment that could affect 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.
(b) If your CISWI unit continues to emit less than 75 percent of
the emission limitation for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
fugitive ash, or opacity and there are no changes in the operation of
the affected facility 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.
(c) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission or opacity limitation for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or opacity, you must conduct annual
performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over a
3-year period are within 75 percent of the applicable emission
limitation.
64. Section 60.2730 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2730 What monitoring equipment must I install and what
parameters must I monitor?
* * * * *
(c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber, activated
carbon, selective non-catalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations under Sec.
60.2670, you must install, calibrate (to the manufacturers'
specifications), maintain and operate the equipment necessary to
monitor compliance with the site-specific operating limits established
using the procedures in Sec. 60.2680.
(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, you must measure the minimum
mercury sorbent flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must complete the following:
(1) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.2690, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or the minimum reagent
flow rate measured as 3-hour rolling averages (calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 3 operating hours) at all times. Operating
parameter limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance
tests.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge
rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature and below the
minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously constitute a violation of the
nitrogen oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you must monitor the voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates and
maintain the 3-hour block averages at or above the operating limits
established during the mercury or particulate matter performance test.
(g) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a hydrogen chloride
continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the hydrogen
chloride annual performance test, monitoring the minimum hydrogen
chloride sorbent flow rate and monitoring the minimum scrubber liquor
pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a particulate
matter continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the
particulate matter annual performance test and monitoring the minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the dioxin/furan annual performance test.
You must record the output of the system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Method 23 of appendix A-7 of this part. This option to
use a continuous automated sampling system takes effect on the date a
final performance specification applicable to dioxin/furan from
continuous monitors is published in the Federal Register. The owner or
operator who elects to continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions
instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method 23 of appendix A-7
must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and must comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the mercury annual performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet appropriate performance
criteria. This option to use a continuous automated sampling system
takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable
to mercury from monitors is published in the Federal Register. The
owner or operator who elects to continuously sample mercury emissions
instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method 29 of appendix A-8 of
this part, ASTM D6784-02 (2008), Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), or an approved
alternative method for measuring mercury emissions, must install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated sampling system
and must comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and
(q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
emissions monitoring system for the nitrogen oxides annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix
[[Page 31996]]
B of this part, the quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this
part and the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for
installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous emission
monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
required under Sec. 60.52b(d) must be determined based on the 24-hour
daily arithmetic average of the hourly emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million by volume
(dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using
the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the sulfur dioxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. Requirements under
performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the quality
assurance requirements of procedure 1 of appendix F of this part and
the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for installation,
evaluation and operation of the continuous emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 24-hour daily geometric average of the hourly
arithmetic average emission concentrations using continuous emission
monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
expressed in parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour daily geometric average
emission concentrations and daily geometric average emission percent
reductions. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the
data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet scrubber, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (5) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.
60.2670. Energy recovery units that use a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system to demonstrate initial and continuing
compliance according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2730(n) are not
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system and must
perform the annual performance tests for opacity consistent with Sec.
60.2710(e).
(1) Install, operate and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to performance specification 1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13 and
according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.13(e)(1), each continuous opacity
monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system data as
specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and 1-hour
block averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate matter testing with EPA Method 5,
an owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring particulate matter
emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the
system. The owner or operator of an affected facility who continuously
monitors particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance
testing using EPA Method 5 must install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission monitoring system and must comply with
the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(14) of this
section.
(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use of the
system.
(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use of the
system.
(3) The monitor must be installed, evaluated and operated in
accordance with the requirements of performance specification 11 of
appendix B of this part and quality assurance requirements of procedure
2 of appendix F of this part and Sec. 60.13.
(4) The initial performance evaluation must be completed no later
than 180 days after the final compliance date for meeting the amended
emission limitations, as specified under Sec. 60.2690 or within 180
days of notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous
monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously determining
compliance by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility must be established according to the
procedures and methods specified in Sec. 60.2710(r)(5)(i) through
(r)(5)(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility must conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.2690. Compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit must be determined by using the continuous emission monitoring
system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to measure
particulate matter and calculating a 24-hour block arithmetic average
emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1.
(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 24-hour daily (block) average of the hourly
arithmetic average emission concentrations using continuous emission
monitoring system outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified inSec. 60.2735(e).
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7)
of this section must be expressed in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) (dry basis) and
must be used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average emission
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using
the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph
(n)(8) of this section are not met.
(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 11 in
[[Page 31997]]
appendix B of this part, particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the
following test methods:
(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or
3B, as applicable must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F of
this part.
(14) When particulate matter emissions data are not obtained
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,
calibration checks and zero and span adjustments, emissions data must
be obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by the
Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day,
90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected facility is operated and
combusting waste.
(o) For energy recovery units, you must install, operate, certify
and maintain a continuous emissions monitoring system for carbon
monoxide, according to the requirements of performance specification 4B
of appendix B of this part and quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part.
(p) The owner/operator of an affected source with a bypass stack
shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain
and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time and duration.
65. Section 60.2735 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must
obtain?
(a) You must conduct all monitoring at all times the CISWI unit is
operating.
(b) You must use all the data collected during all periods in
assessing compliance with the operating limits.
(c) For continuous emission monitoring systems for measuring sulfur
dioxide emissions, valid continuous monitoring system hourly averages
must be obtained as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of
the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per
calendar year that the affected facility is combusting waste. All valid
continuous emission monitoring system data must be used in calculating
average emission concentrations and percent reductions even if the
minimum continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of this
paragraph (c) are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to calculate each
1-hour arithmetic average.
(2) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour arithmetic average must be corrected
to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour arithmetic
average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous emission
monitoring system data.
(d) For continuous emission monitoring systems for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions, valid continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages must be obtained as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2) of this section for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of
the hours per calendar year that the affected facility is combusting
waste. All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating average emission concentrations and percent
reductions even if the minimum continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of this paragraph (d) are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to calculate each
1-hour arithmetic average.
(2) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour arithmetic average must be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
(e) For continuous emission monitoring systems for measuring
particulate matter emissions, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of the
hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar
year that the affected source is combusting waste. All valid continuous
emission monitoring system data must be used in calculating average
emission concentrations and percent reductions even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of this
paragraph (c) are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour must be used to calculate each
one-hour arithmetic average.
(2) Each particulate matter one-hour arithmetic average must be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the one-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
66. Section 60.2740 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
d. Adding paragraphs (n) through (t).
Sec. 60.2740 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (t) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for
controls other than wet scrubbers under Sec. 60.2675(d) through (f) or
Sec. 60.2680, you must maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits.
* * * * *
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show
a deviation from the operating limits in table 3 of this subpart or a
deviation from other operating limits established under Sec.
60.2675(d) through (f) or Sec. 60.2680 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(n) Maintain records of the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each CISWI unit subject to the
emissions limits in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 10 of
this subpart, any required maintenance and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
state regulatory agency.
(o) For continuously monitored pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All one-hour average concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All one-hour average concentrations of mercury emissions.
[[Page 31998]]
(7) All one-hour average concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(p) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates,
times and durations.
(q) If you choose to stack test less frequently than annually,
consistent with Sec. 60.2720(a) through (c), you must keep annual
records that document that your emissions in the previous stack test(s)
were less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source operations including fuel
composition and operation of air pollution control equipment that would
cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past
year.
(r) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(s) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(t) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
67. Section 60.2770 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2770 What information must I include in my annual report?
* * * * *
(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit
that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no
deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the
reporting period and that caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are not using a CMS to
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the
annual report must contain the following information.
(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, the annual
report must contain the following information for each deviation from
an emission or operating limitation occurring for a CISWI unit for
which you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with the
emission and operating limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) 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.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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 CISWI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.
(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was not
out of control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, a
statement that there were not periods during which the continuous
monitoring system was out of control during the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control if any of the
following occur.
(1) 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.
(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
68. Section 60.2780 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and
removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 60.2780 What must I include in the deviation report?
* * * * *
(c) Durations and causes of the following:
(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or operating limits
and your corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
* * * * *
69. Section 60.2795 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2795 In what form can I submit my reports?
(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(b) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation conducted to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart, the owner or operator of the affected
facility must submit the test data to EPA by entering the data
electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database through EPA's Central Data
Exchange. The owner or operator of an affected source shall enter the
test data into EPA's database using the Electronic Reporting Tool or
other compatible
[[Page 31999]]
electronic spreadsheet. Only performance evaluation data collected
using methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
70. Section 60.2805 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2805 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain incinerator affected by this
subpart must operate pursuant to a permit issued under Section 129(e)
and title V of the Clean Air Act.
71. Section 60.2860 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2860 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
After the date the initial stack test is required or completed
(whichever is earlier), you must meet the limitations in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values), except as described in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 35 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values) during the startup period that is
within the first 30 minutes of operation.
72. Section 60.2870 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air curtain incinerators?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The types of materials you plan to combust in your air curtain
incinerator.
(2) The results (as determined by the average of three 1-hour
blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values) of the
initial opacity tests.
* * * * *
73. Section 60.2875 is amended by:
a. Adding definitions for ``Burn-off oven'', ``Bypass stack'',
``Energy recovery unit'', ``Incinerator'', ``Kiln'', ``Minimum voltage
or amperage'', ``Opacity'', ``Raw mill'', ``Small remote incinerator'',
``Solid waste incineration unit'' and ``Waste-burning kiln'', in
alphabetical order.
b. Revising the definitions for ``Commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration (CISWI) unit'' and ``Deviation''.
c. Removing the definitions for ``Agricultural waste'',
``Commercial or industrial waste'', ``Malfunction'' and ``Solid
Waste''.
Sec. 60.2875 What definitions must I know?
* * * * *
Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation
unit, or drum reclamation unit.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
* * * * *
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit
means any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts any solid waste as that term is defined in 40
CFR part 241. While not all CISWI units will include all of the
following components, a CISWI unit includes, but is not limited to, the
solid waste feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat
recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does
not include air pollution control equipment or the stack. The CISWI
unit boundary starts at the solid waste hopper (if applicable) and
extends through two areas: The combustion unit flue gas system, which
ends immediately after the last combustion chamber or after the waste
heat recovery equipment, if any; and the combustion unit bottom ash
system, which ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment
that transfers the ash to final disposal. The CISWI unit includes all
ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling system.
* * * * *
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 limitation,
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.
* * * * *
Energy recovery unit means a combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) for energy recovery. Energy recovery units include units that
would be considered boilers and process heaters if they did not combust
solid waste.
* * * * *
Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of combusting
solid waste (as the term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to
Subtitle D of RCRA) for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste
by removing combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single
chamber, two-chamber and cyclonic burn barrels.
* * * * *
Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any associated preheater
or precalciner devices, used for processing a substance by burning,
firing or drying. Kilns include cement kilns, that produce clinker by
heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of
Portland cement and lime kilns, that produce quicklime by calcination
of limestone.
* * * * *
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run
average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured
from the pressure drop and liquid flow rate monitors during the most
recent particulate matter or mercury performance test demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limits.
* * * * *
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
* * * * *
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, vertical roller mill or other
size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill,
used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or
removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is
used to remove moisture from feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also includes the air separator
associated with the raw mill.
* * * * *
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid
waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator pursuant to
Subtitle D of RCRA) and has the capacity to combust 1 ton per day or
less solid waste and is more than 50 miles driving distance to the
nearest municipal solid waste landfill.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of
any facility which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or
industrial establishments or the general public (including single and
multiple
[[Page 32000]]
residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include incinerators
or other units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ``solid waste incineration unit''
does not include (A) materials recovery facilities (including primary
or secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of
recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power production facilities, as
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in
section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which
burn homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil, but
not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric
energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn
homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and steam or
forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial,
commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain
incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood wastes,
yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators
comply with opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator
by rule.
* * * * *
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA).
* * * * *
74. Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 is revised to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of Progress
and Compliance Schedules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later
than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised State
plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that commenced construction on or
before June 4, 2010.
75. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is amended by revising the heading and
adding footnote b to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission
Limitations That Apply Before. [Date to be specified in state plan] \b\
* * * * *
\b \ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3
years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or
[THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
76. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is amended by:
a. Revising the entry for ``Annual Report''.
b. Revising the entry for ``Emission limitation or operating limit
deviation report''.
Table 5 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Annual report.................... No later than 12 Name and Sec. Sec. 60.2765 and 60.2770.
months following address.
the submission of Statement
the initial test and signature by
report. Subsequent responsible
reports are to be official.
submitted no more Date of
than 12 months report.
following the Values for
previous report. the operating
limits.
Highest
recorded 3-hour
average and the
lowest 3-hour
average, as
applicable, for
each operating
parameter recorded
for the calendar
year being
reported.
If a
performance test
was conducted
during the
reporting period,
the results of the
test.
If a
performance test
was not conducted
during the
reporting period,
a statement that
the requirements
of Sec.
60.2720(a) or (b)
were met.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified CISWI
unit operators
were unavailable
for more than 8
hours but less
than 2 weeks.
* * * * * * *
Emission limitation or operating By August 1 of that Dates and Sec. 60.2775 and 60.2780
limit deviation report. year for data times of deviation.
collected during Averaged
the first half of and recorded data
the calendar year. for those dates.
By February 1 of Duration
the following year and causes of each
for data collected deviation and the
during the second corrective actions
half of the taken.
calendar year.
Copy of
operating limit
monitoring data
and any test
reports.
[[Page 32001]]
Dates,
times and causes
for monitor
downtime incidents.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
77. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60-Model Rule-Emission Limitations That Apply to Incinerators on and After [Date
To Be Specified in State Plan] a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \b\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0013 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 2.2 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part). Use
a maximum allowable
drift of 0.2 ppm and a
span gas with a CO
concentration of 10
ppm or less. The span
gas must contain
approximately the same
concentration of CO2
expected from the
source.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.031 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.0025 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 29 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 0.0026 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0028 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 or 30B of
meter. dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Opacity.............................. 1%..................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 34 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........ 13 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meter). appendix A-8 of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 2.5 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a maximum
allowable drift of 0.2
ppm and a span gas
with concentration of
5 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
\b\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
78. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
[[Page 32002]]
Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply To Energy Recovery Units After
[Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00041 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 150 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.75 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.059 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 1.5 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 0.002 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meters). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.00096 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A of this part).
meters).
Opacity.............................. 1%..................... 6-minute averages; 1- Continuous opacity
hour block average for monitoring
units that operate dry (performance
control systems. specification 1 of
appendix B of this
part), unless equipped
with a wet scrubber.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 130 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........ 9.2 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meter). appendix A-8 of this
part) if the unit has
a design capacity less
than or equal to 250
MMBtu/hr; or PM CEMS
(performance
specification 11 of
appendix B of this
part) if the unit has
a design capacity
greater than 250 MMBtu/
hr.
Sulfur dioxide....................... 4.1 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
79. Table 8 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Waste-burning Kilns After
[Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0003 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part).
meters).
Carbon monoxide...................... 710 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 2.1 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.17 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 1.5 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 0.0027 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part).
meters).
[[Page 32003]]
Mercury.............................. 0.024 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Mercury CEMS
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (performance
meter. dry standard cubic specification 12A of
meter). appendix B of this
part or mercury
sorbent trap method
specified in appendix
K of part 75)
Opacity.............................. 4%..................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 1100 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........ 60 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 of this
meter). part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 410 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
80. Table 9 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Burn-off Ovens After [Date of
Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0045 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meter). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 80 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10, 10A, or
per run). 10B of appendix A-4 of
this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 310 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 25 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 130 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 0.041 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part). Use
meter). ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.014 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part).
meter).
Opacity.............................. 2%..................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 120 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........ 33 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meter). appendix A-8 of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 11 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part. Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 50 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
[[Page 32004]]
81. Table 10 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Small, Remote Incinerators
After [Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.26 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-8 of this part).
meter).
Carbon monoxide...................... 78 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 1600 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 130 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meter).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 150 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A of
dry standard cubic appendix A-8 of this
meter). part).
Lead................................. 1.4 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-8 of this part).
meter).
Mercury.............................. 0.0029 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 of this part).
meter).
Opacity.............................. 13%.................... Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 of appendix
minute average opacity A-4 of this part).
values.
Oxides of nitrogen................... 210 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E of appendix
per run). A-4 of this part).
Particulate matter filterable........ 240 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 of
dry standard cubic appendix A-3 or
meter). appendix A-8 of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 44 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c of
per run). appendix A-4 of this
part).
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
hourly observation A-7 of this part).
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
[FR Doc. 2010-10821 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P