[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15372-15454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4491]
[[Page 15371]]
Vol. 76
Monday,
No. 54
March 21, 2011
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15372]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-9272-9]
RIN 2060-AP90
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA's new source performance standards
and emission guidelines for sewage sludge incineration units located at
wastewater treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage
sludge. This final rule sets limits for nine pollutants under section
129 of the Clean Air Act: Cadmium, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride,
lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur
dioxide.
DATES: The final rule is effective on May 20, 2011. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of May 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This docket includes previous actions
including the standards proposed on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and
a supplemental notice issued on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All
documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource and
Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.
7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
ANSI American National Standards Institute
As Arsenic
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System
CBI Confidential Business Information
Cd Cadmium
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System
The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
Cr Chromium
CWA Clean Water Act
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
FF Fabric Filter
FB Fluidized Bed
FGR Flue Gas Recirculation
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration
ICR Information Collection Request
ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System
ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
MH Multiple Hearth
Mn Manganese
MWC Municipal Waste Combustion
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
Ni Nickel
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTAA National Tribal Air Association
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OP Office of Policy
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
OTM Other Test Method
OW Office of Water
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans
PM Particulate Matter
POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPM Parts per Million
PPMV Parts per Million by Volume
PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specifications
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SBA Small Business Administration
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TMB Total Mass Basis
TPD Tons per Day
TPY Tons per Year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UL Upper Limit
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
WWW Worldwide Web
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background
A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
C. What is the relationship of the final standards to other
standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge and associated
air emissions?
III. Summary of the Final Standards
A. What units are affected by the final standards?
B. What are the emission limits in the emission guidelines for
existing sources?
C. What are the emission limits in the new source performance
standards for new sources?
[[Page 15373]]
D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?
E. What are the other requirements for new and existing SSI
units?
F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
G. What are the SSM provisions?
H. What are the Title V permit requirements?
I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?
J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test
results to EPA?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Subcategories
C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission Limits
D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimation
E. Compliance Requirements
F. Definitions
V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the
Proposed Rule
A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI Under Section
112 vs. Section 129
B. Subcategories
C. MACT Floor Analysis
D. Baseline Emissions
E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis
F. Cost and Economic Impacts
G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
H. Compliance Requirements
VI. Impacts of the Final Action
A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units
B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: 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 this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by the final action
are those that operate sewage sludge incinerators (SSI). Although there
is no specific NAICS code for SSI, these units may be operated by
wastewater treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage
sludge. The following NAICS codes could apply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS code potentially
regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid waste combustors and 562213 Municipalities with
incinerators. SSI units.
Sewage treatment facilities....... 221320 ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
general guide for identifying entities likely to be affected by the
final action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by
the final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of subpart
MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the
final action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the final action will also be available on the WWW through the TTN.
Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is
available only by filing a petition for review in the Court by May 20,
2011. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for EPA to
convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds
for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is
of central relevance to the outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration to EPA should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to both of the contacts
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and
the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office,
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule
may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?
Section 129 of the 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.'' 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 RCRA (section
129(g)(6)). Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions
from new units (i.e., NSPS), and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) address
emissions from existing units (i.e., EG). The NSPS are directly
enforceable Federal regulations, and under CAA section 129(f)(1),
become effective 6 months after promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG
are not themselves directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implemented
and enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a promulgated
Federal plan.
[[Page 15374]]
States are required to submit a plan to implement and enforce the EG to
EPA for approval not later than 1 year after EPA promulgates the EG
(CAA section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be ``at least as
protective as'' the EG and must ensure compliance with all applicable
requirements not later than 3 years after the state plan is approved by
EPA, or 5 years after promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is
sooner. EPA's procedures for submitting and approving state plans are
set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state plan is approved
by EPA, the plan requirements become federally enforceable, but the
state has primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the
plan. However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce a
Federal plan for solid waste incineration units located in any state
which has not submitted an approvable state plan within 2o years after
the date of promulgation of the relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)).
The Federal plan must assure that each solid waste incineration unit
subject to the Federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of the
EG not later than 5 years after the date the relevant guidelines are
promulgated. EPA views the Federal plan as a ``place-holder'' that
remains in effect only until such time as a state without an approved
plan submits and receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an
applicable state plan has been approved, the requirements of the
Federal plan no longer apply to solid waste incineration units covered
by that state plan.
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 incineration 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, nonair quality health and 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 5 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.
In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to establish the
first-stage technology-based standards for the 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 nonair 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 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.''
Maximum Achievable Control Technology analyses involve an
assessment of the emissions from the best performing unit or 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, state regulatory requirements that may enable
EPA to estimate the actual performance of the regulated units, or other
emissions information. For each source category, the assessment
involves a review of actual emissions data with an appropriate
accounting for emissions variability. Other methods of estimating
emissions can also be used, if the methods can be shown to provide
reasonable estimates of the actual emissions performance of a source or
sources. In addition to the MACT floor limit, EPA must examine whether
more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' standards should be adopted. In
considering whether such standards are appropriate, EPA must consider
the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. The CAA
requires that the MACT floor for new sources be no less stringent than
the emissions control achieved in practice by the best-controlled
similar unit. EPA is also required to consider beyond-the-floor
standards for new sources, consistent with the factors described above.
Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies five categories of solid
waste incineration units:
Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity greater
than 250 tpd.
Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal to
or less than 250 tpd.
Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious
waste.
Units that combust commercial or industrial waste.
Units that combust waste and which are not specifically
identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D) are referred to in
section 129(a)(1)(E) as ``other categories'' of solid waste
incineration units.
A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewater treatment
facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge that combusts sewage
sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by
removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of
having not been specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through
(D), have been interpreted to be part of the broader category of
``other categories'' of solid waste. EPA has issued emission standards
for large and small MWC, HMIWI, CISWI, and OSWI units; however, as
explained further below, none of those emission standards apply to SSI
units.
EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on December 16, 2005
(70 FR 74870). Based on EPA's interpretation of the CAA at that time,
the OSWI standards did not include emission standards for SSI units.
EPA received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI standards on
February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of certain categories,
including SSI.\1\ While EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on
June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became effective January 22,
2007, concluded that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005
OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being held in
abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the emission standards for
OSWI units in the future,
[[Page 15375]]
and that rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sierra Club v. EPA; DC Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA stated that it
had decided not to regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 (70 FR
74870), but rather to regulate SSI units under CAA section 112,
pointing to a statement in EPA's 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating
that sewage sludge incinerators do not combust waste from a commercial
or industrial establishment or the general public. We declined to
revise that decision to regulate SSI units under 112 in the response to
the petition for reconsideration on this issue for five reasons,
including our position that section 129(a)(1)(E) did not require
regulation of all ``other'' solid waste incineration units and that
section 129(g)(1)'s enumerated exemptions to the definition of ``solid
waste incineration unit'' were not exclusive, and that section
129(h)(2) gave EPA the discretion to choose whether to regulate
incinerators under section 112 or section 129 of the Act. (72 FR 2620).
In June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA's December 1, 2000,
emission standards for CISWI units, the Court held that any unit
combusting any solid waste must be regulated under section 129 of the
CAA. The impact of this decision on EPA's regulation of SSI is
explained in detail in the NPRM.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA considers SSI units to be ``other solid waste incineration
units,'' since that category is intended to encompass all solid waste
incineration units that are not included in the first four categories
identified in CAA section 129(a) through (d). EPA plans to re-issue
emission standards for the remaining OSWI units at a later time. EPA is
taking final action on emission standards for SSI units at this time
because these emission standards are needed as part of EPA's
fulfillment of its obligations under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 112(c)(6). Clean Air Act section
112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as
the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to
public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA must then
ensure that sources representing 90 percent of the aggregate area
source emissions of each of the 30 identified HAP are subject to
standards pursuant to section 112(d).\3\ Sewage sludge incineration
units are one of the source categories identified for regulation to
meet the 90 percent requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. EPA
is ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation under CAA section
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii).
\4\ Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.DC No. 1:01CV01537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of source
categories for regulation under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4).
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of
sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources counting
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) (63 FR 17838). Sewage sludge incineration units are one of
the identified source categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent
requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in the Memorandum
titled, ``Emission Standards for Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement
under Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act'' in the SSI docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0559).Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prior
to taking action on the remaining source categories that will be
regulated under CAA section 129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI units.
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by municipalities
or other entities. Incineration continues to be used to dispose of
sewage sludge. Combustion of solid waste, and specifically sewage
sludge, causes the release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of
which exist in the waste feed material and are released unchanged
during combustion, and some of which are generated as a result of the
combustion process itself. The pollutants for which numerical limits
must be established, as specified in section 129 of the CAA, include
Cd, CO, HCl, Hg, NOX, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO2;
and, where appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be
established. These emissions come from the SSI unit's stack and
fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by the associated visible
emissions, also occur from ash handling.
C. What is the relationship of the final standards to other standards
for the use or disposal of sewage sludge and associated air emissions?
Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, as amended 33
U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated regulations on February 19,
1993, at 40 CFR part 503 designed to protect public health and the
environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain
pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 503
regulations establish requirements for the final use and disposal of
sewage sludge when: (1) The sludge is applied to the land for a
beneficial use (e.g., for use in home gardens); (2) the sludge is
disposed on land by placing it on surface disposal sites; and (3) the
sewage sludge is incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate
or treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who uses or
disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment works.
The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in a SSI are in
subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E includes general requirements;
pollutant limits; operational standards; management practices; and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the National
Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E,
respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The regulations also require that the
allowable concentration of five other inorganic pollutants be
calculated using equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants
included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the equations must be
determined on a case-by-case basis, except for the risk-specific
concentration for the inhalation exposure pathway to protect
individuals when these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific
variables for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor,
control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be used to
calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Pb and Ni in
the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.
Also included in subpart E of part 503 is an operational standard
for THC. The value for THC in the final part 503 regulation cannot be
exceeded in the exit gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and
frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
also included in this subpart.
Under today's final standards, EPA is establishing limits for three
of the inorganic pollutants covered by the current part 503 regulations
(Cd, Pb and Hg) and the following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO,
NOX, SO2, PM, and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the
pollutants covered here, there are other differences between the part
503 regulations and these final standards. The emission limits for
inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based numbers rather than
technology-based. Also, part 503 does not distinguish between new and
existing units or between incinerator types (i.e., MH or
[[Page 15376]]
FB incinerator) for setting emission limits since emission limits are
based on risks to a highly exposed individual.
Because both part 503 and these final standards cover the same
universe of facilities, there are certain issues that arise in terms of
potential impacts to current SSI facilities. First, the regulation of
sewage sludge under CAA section 129 will result in stricter emission
standards than under the current CWA rule. Additional pollution
controls will increase costs for facilities that continue to use the
incineration disposal method. If the additional costs are high enough,
many entities may choose to adopt alternative disposal methods (e.g.,
surface disposal in landfills or other beneficial land applications).
Consequently, a potential impact of this rule is that some of the
estimated 110 facilities that operate SSI as the primary means of
disposal could discontinue this practice and would instead landfill or
land apply their sewage sludge. Second, one must consider the available
capacity of surface disposal sites to receive additional sewage sludge
and the potential for added costs if the use of SSI is discontinued.
Third, SSI will be subject to two different sets of requirements
(numeric standards, operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting) under the two different statutes, creating an additional
burden to these facilities unless alternative regulatory approaches are
implemented. EPA plans to evaluate the requirements under both statutes
to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the part 503
regulations.
III. Summary of the Final Standards
This preamble discusses the final standards as they apply to the
owner or operator of a new or existing SSI unit. This preamble also
describes the major requirements of the SSI regulations. For a full
description of the final requirements and compliance times, see the SSI
standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM.
A. What units are affected by the final standards?
The final standards and guidelines apply to owners or operators of
SSI units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 CFR 60.5065) located at
wastewater treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage
sludge. A SSI unit is an enclosed device or devices using controlled
flame combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing
the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. A SSI
unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed
system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system,
waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI
unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash
handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the
truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to
final disposal. The SSI unit does not include air pollution control
equipment or the stack. The affected facility is each individual SSI
unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply to new and
existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as defined in the subparts.
The final standards define two subcategories for new and existing SSI
units: MH incinerators and FB incinerators.
The combustion of sewage sludge that is not burned in a SSI unit
located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic
sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the
CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part),
the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC
standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this
part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart
EEE).
B. What are the emission limits in the emission guidelines for existing
sources?
The final emission limits for existing sources in the MH
incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are presented in
Table 1 of this preamble. Existing sources may comply with either the
PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emission limits.
These standards apply at all times.
Table 1--Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit Emission limit
Pollutant Units for MH for FB
incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.095 0.0016
CO.......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 3,800 64
HCl......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 1.2 0.51
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.28 0.037
NOX......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 220 150
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.30 0.0074
PCDD/PCDF, TEQ.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.32 0.10
PCDD/PCDF, TMB.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 5.0 1.2
PM.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 80 18
SO2......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 26 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the emission limits in the new source performance standards
for new sources?
The final emission limits for new sources in the MH incinerator
subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are presented in Table 2 of
this preamble. Existing sources may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF
TEQ or TMB emission limits.
These standards apply at all times.
Table 2--Emission Limits for New SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit Emission limit
Pollutant Units for MH for FB
incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0024 0.0011
CO.......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 52 27
HCl......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 1.2 0.24
[[Page 15377]]
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.15 0.0010
NOX......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 210 30
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0035 0.00062
PCDD/PCDF, TMB.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.045 0.013
PCDD/PCDF, TEQ.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0022 0.0044
PM.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 60 9.6
SO2......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 26 5.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?
These final standards require all new and existing SSI units to
demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the emission limits
using EPA-approved emission test methods. The final standards also
provide an option for less frequent testing if sources demonstrate that
their emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresholds of the
emission limits.
For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and annual
emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring or
continuous sampling as an alternative), bag leak detection systems for
FF controlled units, continuous parameter monitoring, and annual
inspections of air pollution control devices, if they are used to meet
the emission limits. Additionally, existing units are required to
conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) visible emissions
test of the ash handling operations during each compliance test.
For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and annual emissions
performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring or continuous
sampling as an alternative), bag leak detection systems for FF
controlled units, as well as continuous parameter monitoring and annual
inspections of air pollution control devices that may be used to meet
the emission limits. The final rule requires all new SSI units to
install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are also required to conduct
Method 22 visible emissions testing of the ash handling operations
during each compliance test.
For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb
or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling with
periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to parametric
monitoring and annual compliance testing. For new SSI units, CO CEMS
are required, and use of Cd, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or
SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling, with
periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to parametric
monitoring and annual compliance testing.
E. What are the other requirements for new and existing SSI units?
Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are required to
meet operator training and qualification requirements, which include:
Ensuring that at least one operator or supervisor per facility complete
the operator training course, that qualified operator(s) or
supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course specified
in the regulation, and that they maintain plant-specific information,
updated annually, regarding training.
Owners or operators of new SSI units are required to conduct a
siting analysis, which includes submitting a report that evaluates
site-specific air pollution control alternatives that minimize
potential risks to public health or the environment, considering costs,
energy impacts, non-air environmental impacts and any other factors
related to the practicability of the alternatives.
Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are required to
submit a monitoring plan for any continuous monitoring system or bag
leak detection system used to comply with the rule. They must also
submit a monitoring plan for their ash handling system that specifies
the operating procedures they will follow to ensure that they meet the
fugitive emission limit.
F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS tests,
deviation reports, operating parameter data, continuous monitoring
data, maintenance and inspections of the air pollution control devices,
the siting analysis (for new units only), monitoring plan and operator
training and qualification must be maintained for 5 years. The results
of the stack tests and PS tests and values for operating parameters are
required to be included in initial and subsequent compliance reports.
G. What are the SSM provisions?
The Court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA's CAA section
112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), (the
``General Provisions Rule,'') that EPA promulgated under section 112 of
the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) regulations for
specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from
the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM.
While the Court's ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA directly affects
only the subset of CAA section 112(d) rules that incorporate 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by reference and that contain no other regulatory
text exempting or excusing compliance during SSM events, the legality
of source category-specific SSM provisions is questionable.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is requiring that emission
limitations in these final standards apply at all times the unit is
operating. In establishing these standards, EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not established different standards for those periods.
We are not promulgating a separate emission standard for the source
category that applies during periods of startup and shutdown. Based on
the information available at this time, we believe that SSI units will
be able to meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units we
have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to
start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion
temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill gas or
distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be lower than from
burning solid wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also
generally lower than emissions during normal operations because the
[[Page 15378]]
materials in the incinerator would be almost fully combusted before
shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors
for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on actual performance
for each pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of
emissions variability. Because we accounted for emissions variability,
we believe we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may
potentially occur during startup or shutdown.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are 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.
Nothing in CAA section 129 or in case law requires that EPA anticipate
and account for the innumerable types of potential malfunction events
in setting emission standards.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir.
1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual
permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety
of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for
specification in advance by regulation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA 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 controlled'' or ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT,
the level of stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying
the concept of ``best controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a source
that is malfunctioning presents significant difficulties. The goal of
best controlled or best performing sources is to operate in such a way
as to avoid malfunctions of their units.
Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above,
by definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, and it
would be difficult to set a standard that takes into account the myriad
different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in
the category. Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and
duration, further complicating standard setting.
For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be reported in
deviation reports. We will then review the deviation reports to
determine if the deviation is a violation of the standards.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 129 standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the
CAA section 129 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can fail and that such failure can sometimes
cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard.\7\ EPA is
therefore finalizing the proposed affirmative defense to civil
penalties for exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by
malfunctions, with some revisions to the proposed regulatory
provision.\8\ Under this provision, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria ensure that
the affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes
an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner
* * *.'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40
CFR part 60, subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and to
prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial or administrative
proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the
affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA
(see also 40 CFR 22.77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown
(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,
Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983).
\8\ See proposed definition 40 CFR 60.4930 and 40 CFR 60.5250
(defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof,
and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated
in a judicial or administrative proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. What are the Title V permit requirements?
All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final SSI rule are
required to apply for and obtain a Title V permit. These Title V
operating permits assure compliance with all applicable requirements
for regulated SSI units, including all applicable CAA section 129
requirements.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source
applying for a Title V operating permit depends on when the source
first becomes subject to the relevant Title V permits program. If a
regulated SSI unit is a new unit and is not subject to an earlier
permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application must
be submitted on or before the relevant date below.
For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new source on
or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the
source must submit a complete Title V permit application no later than
12 months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL;
or
For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new source
after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must
submit a complete Title V permit application no
[[Page 15379]]
later than 12 months after the date the SSI unit commences operation as
a new source.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and
71.5(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject to an
earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a
complete Title V permit application by the earlier of the following
dates:
Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable
EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an EPA approved state
or tribal plan that implements the SSI EG); or
Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable
Federal plan; or
Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMMM.
For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the
promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, applies regardless of
whether or when any applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or
when any applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is
approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA sections 129(e),
503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of some
triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned above, for
example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or part of a major source),
then you may be required to apply for a Title V permit prior to the
deadlines specified above. If more than one requirement triggers a
source's obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time
frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered by the
requirement which first causes the source to be subject to Title V.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b),
70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional background information on the interface between CAA
section 129 and Title V, including EPA's interpretation of section
129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications
and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final ``Federal Plan
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,'' October 3,
2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the ``Summary of Public Comments and
Responses'' document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156).
I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?
New SSI units that commence construction after October 14, 2010, or
that are modified 6 months or more after the date of promulgation, must
meet the NSPS emission limits of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within 6
months after the promulgation date of the standards or upon startup,
whichever is later.
Under the final EG, and consistent with CAA section 129 (b)(2) and
40 CFR 60, subpart B, states are required to submit state plans
containing the existing source emission limits of subpart MMMM of this
part, and other requirements to implement and enforce the EG within 1
year after promulgation of the EG. States must submit state plans to
EPA by March 21, 2012. State plans apply to existing SSI in the state
(including SSI that are modified prior to and including the date 6
months after promulgation) and must be at least as protective as the
EG.
The final EG requires existing SSI to demonstrate compliance with
the standards as expeditiously as practicable after approval of a state
plan, but no later than 3 years from the date of approval of a state
plan or 5 years after promulgation of the EG, whichever is earlier.
Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects states to require
compliance as expeditiously as practicable. However, because we believe
that many SSI units will find it necessary to retrofit existing
emissions control equipment and/or install additional emissions control
equipment in order to meet the final limits, EPA anticipates that
states may choose to provide the 3-year compliance period allowed by
CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA does not approve a state plan or issue a
Federal plan, then the compliance date is 5 years from the date of the
final rule.
EPA intends to develop a Federal plan that will apply to existing
SSI units in any state that has not submitted an approved state plan
within 2 years after promulgation of the EG. The final EG allows
existing SSI units subject to the Federal plan up to 5 years after
promulgation of the EG to demonstrate compliance with the standards, as
allowed by CAA section 129(b)(3).
J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test results
to EPA?
EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes
including compliance determinations, emission factor development, and
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for
us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators to
locate, collect, and submit emissions test data because of varied
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. One
improvement that has occurred in recent years is the availability of
stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement for cumbersome
paper copies.
In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve data
accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of reporting for
sources. Owners and operators of SSI facilities are required to submit,
to EPA's ERT database, electronic copies of reports of certain
performance tests required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Data entry will
be through an electronic emissions test report structure called the
Emissions Reporting Tool (ERT) whenever conducting performance tests.
The ERT was developed with input from stack testing companies who
generally collect and compile performance test data electronically and
offices within state and local agencies that perform field test
assessments. The ERT is currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html, and access to direct data submittal to EPA's
electronic emissions database (WebFIRE) will become available by
December 31, 2011.
The requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA
would not require any additional performance testing and would apply to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported
by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for
most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. The Web site listed
below contains a listing of the pollutants and test methods supported
by the ERT. In addition, when a facility submits performance test data
to WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for emissions test
data compilation. Moreover, we believe industry will benefit from
development of improved emission factors, fewer follow-up information
requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. The
information to be reported is already required for the existing test
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
One major advantage of submitting source test data through the ERT
is a standardized method to compile and store much of the documentation
required to be reported by this rule that also clearly states what
testing information would be required. Another important benefit of
submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted
is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved
[[Page 15380]]
in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has source
category performance test data in hand, there will likely be fewer or
less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with
prospective required residual risk assessments or technology reviews.
This results in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms
of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in
terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests and
assessing the results).
State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that their review
may be more streamlined and accurate because they would 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 greatly improve the overall
quality of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing the
pool of emissions test data upon which the emission factor is based and
by ensuring that data are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and
regulators is that 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 range of operational
practices. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation
development, control strategy development, and other air pollution
control activities, receiving test data already collected and using
them in the emissions factors development program will save industry,
state/local/tribal agencies, and EPA significant time, money, and
effort while improving the quality of emission 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 Web.
The WebFIRE Web site was constructed to store emissions test data for
use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE
database can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. The ERT will be able to transmit the
electronic report through EPA's CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE
database. Although ERT is not the only electronic interface that can be
used to submit source test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it
makes submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of
the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal
EPA received over 90 public comments on the proposed rulemaking.
Furthermore, we conducted one public hearing to allow the public to
comment on the proposed rulemaking. After consideration of public
comments received, EPA is making several changes to the standards.
Following are the major changes to the standards since the proposal.
The rationale for these and any other significant changes can be found
in section V of this preamble or in the ``Sewage Sludge Incineration
(SSI) Rule: Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' in the SSI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
A. Applicability
The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of sewage sludge is
burned in an incinerator at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI
standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning sewage
sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge that is not
burned in a SSI located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 standards,
such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of
this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and
FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA,
and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR
part 63 subpart EEE).
B. Subcategories
The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new sources. In the final
NSPS, SSI units at new sources are subcategorized into two
subcategories: MH and FB.
C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission Limits
At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation to determine
variability. For the final rule, for existing FB units, we are using a
weighted 99 percent UPL calculation to account for the biasing of
emissions data from one facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH
units.
In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, skewness and
kurtosis, were examined to determine if the data used to calculate the
MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed. If both the
reported values and the natural-log transformed reported values had
skewness and kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were normally
distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis of the
floor to be conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis
hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the natural
log-transformed reported values, the analysis done on the reported data
values was chosen to be conservative. We have modified our assumptions
when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show
whether a normal or log-normal distribution better represents the data,
or when there are not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtosis
tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the log-normal results for
the final MACT floor calculation.
In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond-the-floor emission
standards for Hg emissions from existing MH units. In the final rule,
we are establishing MACT floor emission limits but are not setting
beyond-the-floor standards. Also, we are not finalizing the proposed
opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limits for both PCDD/PCDF
TMB and PCDD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units to meet both limits. In
the final standards, we are allowing affected sources to comply with
either the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits.
In the proposed rule, we did not compare the CO span of the test to
the measured CO values to determine if the values were consistent. For
the final rule, we reviewed the CO values obtained from emission test
reports to determine whether the span of the test used was capable of
accurately reading the reported value. If the span was inconsistent
with the reported value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a value
that was more consistent with the span. We revised the CO limits based
on the results of this analysis.
The final emission limits resulting from the revised MACT floor
calculations are presented in Tables 3 through 6 of this preamble, and
compared to the proposed emission limits.
[[Page 15381]]
Table 3--Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing FB SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Final emission
Pollutant Units emission limit limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0019 0.0016
CO.......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 56 64
HCl......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 0.49 0.51
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0033 0.037
NOX......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 63 150
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0098 0.0074
PCDD/PCDF, TEQ.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.056 0.10
PCDD/PCDF, TMB.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.61 1.2
PM.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 12 18
SO2......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 22 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing MH SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Final emission
Pollutant Units emission limit limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.095 0.095
CO.......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 3,900 3,800
HCl......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 1.0 1.2
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.02 0.28
NOX......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 210 220
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.30 0.30
PCDD/PCDF, TEQ.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.32 0.32
PCDD/PCDF, TMB.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 5.0 5.0
PM.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 80 80
SO2......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 26 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New FB SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Final emission
Pollutant Units emission limit limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.00051 0.0011
CO.......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 7.4 27
HCl......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 0.12 0.24
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0010 0.0010
NOX......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 26 30
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.00053 0.00062
PCDD/PCDF, TEQ.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0022 0.0044
PCDD/PCDF, TMB.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.024 0.013
PM.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 4.1 9.6
SO2......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 2.0 5.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New MH SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Final emission
Pollutant Units emission limit limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.00051 0.0024
CO.......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 7.4 52
HCl......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 0.12 1.2
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0010 0.15
NOX......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 26 210
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.00053 0.0035
PCDD/PCDF, TEQ.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.0022 0.0022
PCDD/PCDF, TMB.............................. ng/dscm @ 7% O2............... 0.024 0.045
PM.......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2............... 4.1 60
SO2......................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2................. 2.0 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and Impacts Estimation
For the final rule, we have revised the baseline emissions, costs,
and impacts to incorporate information provided by commenters. A
discussion of the changes is presented in section V of this preamble.
The results of these analyses are summarized in section VI of this
preamble.
E. Compliance Requirements
For both the standards, the following changes have been made:
SSI units must submit (at least 60 days before their
initial compliance test date) a monitoring plan to establish that
[[Page 15382]]
their ash handling system will meet the visible emissions limit on a
continuous basis.
The alternative to test less frequently (every third year)
is being revised to be the following:
[cir] If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a specified
threshold during two consecutive performance tests, they may test every
3 years instead of annually. Any year that the emission threshold is
not met, the SSI must test annually until the threshold is met over a
consecutive 2 year period. The alternative in the standards no longer
requires that SSI units establish that they meet the lower thresholds
for three consecutive years.
[cir] For all pollutants, less frequent testing is allowed if
emissions are no greater than an emissions threshold of 75 percent of
the emission limit.
[cir] For fugitive emissions from ash handling, less frequent
testing is allowed as long as visible emissions of combustion ash occur
less than or equal to two percent of each hourly observation period
(the standard is five percent of each of three hourly observation
periods).
The final rule removes the requirements in the standards
to maintain sludge feed rate and moisture content within specified
parameters. However, sludge feed rate and sludge moisture content are
still required to be monitored during performance test runs, and daily
records of sludge feed rate and sludge moisture content are required to
be kept.
At proposal, operating limits were calculated based on a
specified percentage of the average parameter value recorded during
pollutant performance tests. In the final standards, operating
parameter limits are determined on a site-specific basis as the minimum
or maximum operating parameter value for the parameter, as applicable,
recorded during pollutant performance tests.
The proposed standards schedule for conducting annual
performance tests was each 10-12 months. This has been changed to
specify that performance tests must be conducted on a calendar year
basis (no less than nine calendar months and no more than 15 calendar
months following the previous performance test); and you must complete
five performance tests for each such pollutant in each 5-year calendar
period.
The averaging time for demonstrating compliance with the
CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed from a 4-hour rolling
averaging period to a 24-hr block averaging period. The averaging times
for all other operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, has been
changed from a 4-hour rolling averaging period to a 12-hour block
averaging period.
During each compliance test run, SSI units must be
operated at a minimum of 85 percent of their maximum permitted
capacity.
F. Definitions
The following definitions have been revised:
Process change means a significant permit revision, but
only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission units for which
the proposed permit revision is applicable, including but not limited
to:
(1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment
facility associated with the affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of
tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for
disposing of process solids and processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply
with the emission limits for the affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an
incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing
the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage
sludge incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and multiple
hearth. A SSI unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage
sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas
system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system.
The SSI unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom
ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the
truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to
final disposal. The SSI unit does not include air pollution control
equipment or the stack.
V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes to the
Proposed Rule
This section contains a brief summary of major comments and
responses. EPA received many comments on this subpart covering numerous
topics. EPA's responses to all comments, including those below, can be
found in the comment response document for SSI units in the docket.
A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI Under Section 112 vs.
Section 129
Comment: Many commenters contended that SSI are within the CWA
definition of POTW; therefore, according to CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA
must regulate SSI units under CAA section 112(d), and not CAA section
129. The commenters emphasized that SSI units are located within each
respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the solids handling and
treatment processes at each POTW.
Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be regulated under
CAA section 129 because they are combusting material that is generated
by the POTW, which is neither a commercial or industrial establishment
nor the general public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The
commenters added that, based on the proposed definition of solid waste,
even if they had a new point of generation within the POTW where they
were generating solid waste, the POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal
source and does not pass the broad applicability for solid waste
incineration under CAA section 129. Another commenter added that CAA
section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set standards for solid
waste incineration units combusting municipal waste, but to qualify as
a unit combusting municipal waste, the unit must first be a solid waste
incineration unit. The commenters concluded that this would not include
SSI units.
Several commenters stated that EPA's determination to regulate SSI
units under CAA section 129 contradicts previous decisions where EPA
has stated that regulations were being developed for SSI under CAA
section 112. Another commenter stated that EPA's revision to the list
of source categories under CAA section 112 to delete SSI units was
because there were no major sources in the source category. One
commenter added that EPA's decision to regulate SSI units under CAA
section 129 is based on an overly broad reading of the NRDC case. The
commenter also claimed that SSI units are not within the scope of the
definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' in section 129 because
sewage sludge is not generated by a commercial or industrial
establishment or by the general public.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
regulation of SSI units under section 129 is inconsistent with past EPA
statements. As explained in the NPRM, EPA issued emissions standards
for POTW in 1999 pursuant to section 112(d), and those emissions
standards did not include standards for SSI units. In the proposed POTW
emissions standards, EPA stated that ``[s]ewage sludge incineration
will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA[.]'' See 63 FR 66087
(December 1,
[[Page 15383]]
1998). EPA also explained in the NPRM for today's action that the EPA's
statements regarding SSI units during its promulgation of emissions
standards for OSWI units are squarely in conflict with the Court's
decision in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007), which states
in pertinent part that any unit that combusts any solid waste at all is
subject to CAA section 129. The commenter does not appear to disagree
with that conclusion, but instead simply argues that EPA cannot
regulate SSI units under section 129 because it previously stated that
it would regulate them under section 112. However, the NRDC decision
precludes EPA from doing so. Additionally, section 112(c)(6) requires
that EPA promulgate emission standards assuring that sources accounting
for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the
HAP identified in section 112(c)(6) are subject to emission standards.
EPA has determined that section 129 source categories can be included
to meet our 90 percent obligations. Therefore, EPA has included SSI
units in the section 112(c)(6) list of sources because SSI units are
need to meet our 90 percent requirement for mercury. This decision is
documented in the memorandum ``Emission Standards for Meeting the
Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air
Act'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559)
Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to issue emissions
standards for SSI units under section 112(d). Rather, it simply governs
the schedule for the issuance of section 112(d) emissions standards for
POTW. Section 112(e), titled ``Schedule for Standards and Review,''
generally requires EPA to establish emissions standards for initially
listed source categories as expeditiously as practicable, with certain
specific deadlines in section 112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further
describes how EPA shall prioritize source categories for regulation,
and requires EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissions
standards for section 112 listed source categories. Finally, Congress
specified a different schedule for POTW in section 112(e)(5), stating
that emissions standards shall be issued no later than November 15,
1995. Thus, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI
units under section 112(d), but rather simply identifies the date by
which EPA must issue emissions standards for POTW.
Additionally, the commenter's interpretation of section 112(e)(5)
would conflict with section 129(g) and with the DC Circuit's
interpretation of section 129(g) as explained in NRDC v. EPA. Section
129(g) defines ``solid waste incineration unit'' to include any unit
combusting any solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA's
position that it could choose to regulate certain units, combusting
solid waste, under section 112 instead of under section 129. Since SSI
units do combust solid waste, EPA does not have the discretion under
section 129 to create an exemption for SSI units from the statutory
definition of solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) itself
specifies certain units that combust solid waste but are exempt from
the definition, and noted that where Congress created such enumerated
exemptions, the EPA lacks discretion to create additional ones.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter that SSI units do not combust
waste from the general public. Sewage sludge clearly originates from
the general public, including residential and commercial facilities.
Simply because the waste is treated at a POTW prior to combustion does
not change the original source of the sewage sludge. The commenter
refers to a statement in EPA's 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda to
support its argument. However, the Regulatory Agenda did not represent
an Agency interpretation following a notice and comment process.
Moreover, as explained above, EPA's position regarding the section of
the Act under which SSI units must be regulated has changed since 2000,
in light of the DC Circuit's decision in NRDC v. EPA. Finally, EPA
notes that its final action on reconsideration of the OSWI rule did not
refer to the source of sewage sludge as a basis for concluding that
regulation under section 129 was not required. Instead, as explained
above, it referred to discretion the Agency believed it had at the time
to choose to regulate certain solid waste incinerators under section
112--discretion the Agency no longer believes it has.
The commenter's reference to statements made in other Federal
Register notices that pre-date the NRDC decision similarly fail to
support its argument that EPA must regulate SSI units under section
112. Specifically, commenters refer to EPA's inclusion of SSI on the
list of area source categories listed under section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. See 67 FR 70427 (Nov. 22, 2002). However,
that listing does not lead to the conclusion that SSI must be regulated
under section 112. First, as explained above, EPA's interpretation of
its authority to regulate SSI has changed following the issuance of the
DC Circuit's decision in NRDC v. EPA, which occurred after the 2002
listing referred to by the commenter. Additionally, that listing
included source categories that would clearly be regulated under
section 129, such as medical waste incinerators and municipal waste
combustors, Id. at 70428, because EPA's regulation of incinerator
source categories under section 129 serves towards meeting its
statutory obligations under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii).
Therefore, the inclusion of SSI on that list does not indicate that
such units must be regulated under section 112.
EPA further disagrees that regulation of SSI units under section
129 is unnecessary because SSI units are already regulated under
section 405 of the CWA and that section 129 regulation will therefore
provide no public health or environmental benefit. As explained in
section VI of this preamble, today's action will benefit public health
and the environment by achieving reductions of the section 129
pollutants from SSI units beyond those required by regulations issued
pursuant to the CWA. Today's action must be undertaken to comply with
the Clean Air Act and the court decision in NRDC v. EPA. EPA further
notes that section 405 of the CWA expressly provides that nothing in
that section is intended to waive more stringent requirements of any
other law. Therefore, Congress clearly did not intend for regulation of
SSI units under the CWA to preclude any other regulations, including
regulation under CAA section 129. Overlap with Other Standards
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that other types of
solid waste incineration units could be considered SSI units and
subject to the SSI standards if they combust any amount of sewage
sludge. Some commenters added that the definition of a SSI does not
have a de minimis level of sewage sludge burned. Other commenters
requested clarification on whether SSI units burning non-sludge
industrial waste would be subject to both SSI and CISWI. Some
commenters suggested that SSI units be consistent with the MWC
standards and provide an exemption for co-fired combustors firing 30
percent or less by weight of sewage sludge.
Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide exclusions for
all solid waste incineration units that meet the applicability
requirements of other CAA section 129 standards, including MWCs
regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters
noted that the CISWI standards specifically exempted MWC units and
other units subject to CAA section 129 standards.
[[Page 15384]]
Several commenters contended that EPA should exempt incineration
units subject to hazardous waste combustor regulations and/or hazardous
waste management permits under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The
commenters added that CAA section 129(g)(1) states that a solid waste
incineration unit does not include incinerators or other units required
to have a permit under section 3005 of the SWDA. Other commenters
requested EPA include an exemption for hazardous waste combustion units
that are affected sources under 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.
Response: Section 129 defines solid waste incineration unit to
include any unit combusting any solid waste. Therefore, EPA is not
setting de minimus levels for solid waste burned in incinerators. An
incinerator located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge that combusts any amount of sewage sludge
is subject to the final SSI standards. We have clarified that the final
standards and guidelines do not apply to sewage sludge that is not
burned in a SSI located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge. Sewage sludge that is not burned in a SSI
located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic
sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the
CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part),
the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC
standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this
part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart
EEE).
Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to have a permit
under CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste Disposal Act are exempt from
CAA section 129 standards per CAA section 129(g)(1), therefore we do
not believe an exemption is needed for this rule.
Comment: Several commenters objected to EPA issuing the proposed
SSI standards prior to making determinations regarding the definition
of non-hazardous solid waste.
Response: EPA is not making determination in this rule about the
definition of non-hazardous solid waste. Section 129 of the CAA states
that ``solid waste'' shall have meaning promulgated by the
Administrator under RCRA. Therefore, today's action is consistent with
using the defintion of non-hazardous secondary materials promulagted
RCRA rule, elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Comment: Several commenters contended that sewage sludge is not a
solid waste, as the CAA defines solid waste by referencing the
definition of solid waste under RCRA. The commenters added that RCRA
excludes sewage sludge in what is commonly referred to as the domestic
sewage exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states that solid
waste does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage.
Response: This comment is not relevant to EPA's establishment of
emissions standards for SSI units. Rather, it is relevant to EPA's
proposed Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are
Solid Waste rule, and is addressed in EPA's final action on that
proposed rule.
B. Subcategories
Comment: Many commenters agreed with the development of separate EG
for existing MH and FB units. The commenters also requested adding the
same subcategories for the NSPS. The commenters added that it was
inappropriate to consider the best performing FB SSI as the best
performing similar source for the MH SSI new source category. They also
stated that, as proposed, the NSPS standards would discourage a POTW's
ability to modify existing MH units, including modifications to improve
combustion efficiency or boost steam output for electricity generation.
Some commenters stated that, by using the best performing FB unit as
the basis for the NSPS for MH units, EPA was effectively setting a
beyond-the-floor MACT limit for SSI units without considering any
criteria that the statute requires. Other commenters agreed with the
decision to use the best-performing FB unit as the best similar source
for the MH SSI source category.
Other commenters requested further subcategorization based on size
of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludge incinerated, limited use units,
and distance over which the SSI would need to transport its sludge for
disposal.
Response: We have considered the commenters' concerns and are
setting separate standards for FB and MH units at new sources in the
final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, there are two types of
incinerators currently used to combust sewage sludge: MH and FB
incinerators. The differences between the two combustor designs result
in significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas stream,
ability to handle variability in the feeds, control of temperature and
other process variables, auxiliary fuel use and other characteristics.
To reflect the differences in their combustion mechanisms, two
subcategories, FB and MH, were developed in the NPRM for new and
existing SSI sources.
At proposal for the MH new source subcategory, we considered the
best-performing FB incinerator to be the best-performing similar source
because we were not aware of any new MH sources that have been
constructed in the last 20 years, and information provided by the
industry indicates that future units that will be constructed are
likely to be FB incinerators.
We have re-evaluated our decision. Although few MH units have been
constructed over the last 20 years, there is no technical reason that
would preclude a source from constructing a MH unit. The same design
differences that distinguish existing FB and MH units also apply to new
units, and provide a similar basis for subcategorizing between the two
types of units. Therefore, we are setting separate standards for MH
units at new and reconstructed sources. Such subcategorization is
appropriate based on the differences between FB and MH units described
above, and will also serve to ensure that MH units do not avoid making
modifications that may require them to meet standards based on FB
units. We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any other basis because
we do not have data to support distinguishing units based on class,
type, or size. Without such information, we do not have a basis for
concluding that these types of units should be placed in a different
subcategory.
C. MACT Floor Analysis
Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach
Comment: Many commenters objected to setting the MACT floors using
a pollutant by pollutant approach because none of the facilities in
EPA's database can simultaneously meet all the proposed standards. One
commenter stated that EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to
involve ``review of actual emissions data with an appropriate
accounting for emissions variability''. However, the commenter
contended that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practical manner
in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units and that this results is
unrealistically stringent limits that are not achievable for any SSI.
Several commenters noted that this was especially true for the new
source standards. Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-
pollutant basis violates the statute and its own views of the statute.
One commenter stated that if EPA cannot demonstrate that the top
performers can simultaneously meet all standards, EPA has improperly
circumvented the
[[Page 15385]]
section 129 for establishing ``beyond-the-floor'' standards because the
``floor standards would force industry-wide technological upgrades
without consideration of the factors (cost and energy in particular)
which Congress mandated for consideration when establishing beyond-the-
floor standards.''
Many commenters specifically mentioned that EPA's pollutant-by-
pollutant, lowest emission methodology for setting the CO and
NOX standards is flawed because EPA did not take into
account the inherent conflict in complying with two standards. The
commenters noted that CO and NOX emissions are inversely
proportional. The commenters explained that decreases in CO tend to
elevate NOX and vice versa. The commenters added that high
temperature combustion with long residence times and high oxygen
concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that those same
operating conditions favor high NOX emissions. The
commenters added that the conditions used to minimize CO (i.e., high
temperature afterburners) consume more fuel and produce more
CO2 emissions.
One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most advanced
control technologies, and those EPA indicated were costed in the
impacts analysis, would not meet the emission limits for all of the
pollutants all of the time. The commenter provided an example showing
that of 11 of 30 test data points from the SSI unit in EPA's database
would not comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points would not
comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not comply with the HCl
standard, six of six data points would not comply with the PCDD/PCDF
TMB or TEQ, 86 of 105 would not comply with the CO standard, and eight
of 15 would not comply with the NOX standard. The commenter
concluded that data variability has not been appropriately accounted
for and that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor based on the
best performing unit for each pollutant is not reasonable.
Response: We disagree with the commenters who object to setting
MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. EPA previously has
explained that although CAA section 129 does not unambiguously declare
that MACT floors must be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis,
applying the requirement to set MACT floors based on what has been
achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the pollutants
covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonable interpretation of EPA's
obligation under that provision (62 FR 48363-64).
EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a)(2) to support
establishing emissions standards based on the actual emissions of ``the
best controlled similar unit'' or ``best-performing 12 percent of units
in the category'' for each covered pollutant. Even if we were to
conclude that the commenters' interpretation is equally reasonable
under the statute, which we do not, the commenters' interpretation is
certainly not compelled by the statute. We maintain that our
interpretation is reasonable under the statute and appropriate given
the problems associated with implementing the commenters' approach.
The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to ``establish performance
standards and other requirements pursuant to section [111] of this
title and this section [129] for each category of solid waste
incineration units.'' Pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2), those
standards ``shall reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions
of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4)* * *.'' (emphasis added).
Subsection (a)(4) then states: ``The performance standards promulgated
under section [111] of this title and this section [129] and applicable
to solid waste incineration units shall specify numerical emissions
limitations for the following substances or mixtures: PM (total and
fine), opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride,
oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, mercury, and dioxins and
dibenzofurans.'' Thus, the statute requires EPA to set individual
numeric performance standards based on the maximum degree of reduction
in emissions actually achieved for each of nine listed pollutants.
Based on this, EPA believes--and has long believed--the statute
supports, if not requires, that MACT floors be derived for each
pollutant based on the emission levels achieved for each pollutant.
Moreover, although the provisions do not state whether there is to be a
separate floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress singled out
these pollutants suggests that the floor level of control need not be
limited by the performance of devices that only control some of these
pollutants well.
Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in the 1997
rulemaking for medical waste incinerators ``The EPA does not agree that
the MACT floors are to be based upon one overall unit'' (62 FR 48364).
Pointing for instance to subsection 129(a)(4), EPA explained:
This provision certainly appears to direct maximum reduction of
each specified pollutant. Moreover, although the provisions do not
state whether there is to be a separate floor for each pollutant,
the fact that Congress singled out these pollutants suggests that
the floor level of control need not be limited by the performance of
devices that only control some of these pollutants well.
Id.
Since 1997, the courts have consistently repeated that EPA must set
emission standards based on the best-performing source for each
pollutant. See, e.g., Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (DC Cir.) (``[T]he
Agency first sets emission floors for each pollutant and source
category * * *.''). Accordingly, EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant approach
has, as outlined above, been in place since 1997 for medical waste
incinerators, and even earlier for other types of incinerators
regulated under section 129. See, e.g., 59 FR 48198 (September 20,
1994) (municipal waste combustors). In addition, such an approach has
been upheld in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA,
870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing CWA best
available technology standards on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis was a
rational interpretation of EPA's obligations under that similar
statute). We note that the CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that
CWA program. S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34.
Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would likely result in
EPA setting the standards at levels that could, for some pollutants,
actually be based on emissions limitations achieved by the worst-
performing unit, rather than the best-performing unit, as required by
the statute. See 61 FR 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363-64
(September 15, 1997). For example, if the best performing 12 percent of
facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF as well as a different 12
percent of facilities, the floor for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up
not reflecting best performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach would
require EPA to make value judgments as to which pollutant reductions
are most critical in working to identify the single unit that reduces
emissions of the nine pollutants on an overall best-performing basis.
Such value judgments are antithetical to the command of the statute at
the MACT floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to prioritize
the nine pollutants based on the relative risk to human health of each
pollutant, a criterion that has no place in the establishment of MACT
floors. Sierra Club v. EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (DC
Cir. 2004).
[[Page 15386]]
The fact that the statute does not contain the phrase ``for each
pollutant'' does not compel any inference that Congress was sub
silentio mandating a different result when it left the provision
ambiguous on this issue. The argument that MACT floors set pollutant-
by-pollutant are based on the performance of a hypothetical facility,
so that the limitations are not based on those achieved in practice,
just re-begs the question of whether CAA section 129(a)(2) refers to
whole facilities or individual pollutants. All of the emission
limitations in this rule reflect actual performance and are achieved in
practice.
An interpretation that the floor level of control must be limited
by the performance of devices that only control some of these
pollutants effectively ``guts the standards'' by including worse
performers in the averaging process, whereas EPA's interpretation
promotes the evident Congressional objective of having the floor
reflect the average performance of best performing sources. Since
Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, and EPA's
interpretation effectuates statutory goals and policies in a reasonable
manner, its interpretation must be upheld. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467
U.S. 837 (1984).
Commenters made much of the fact that no single facility is
presently achieving all of the nine pollutant limits proposed. However,
the available information compared to the final standards disputes this
assertion. For the final standards, based on the data we have, our
estimate of baseline emissions, and the revised emission limits, we are
estimating that 155 of 204 existing SSI units can meet standards for
all nine pollutants, without installing additional pollution control.
We cannot make this assessment for new sources, because none have been
constructed. However, we are not aware of any technical reason that new
units could not install the most advanced pollution control techniques
or reduce the pollutant concentrations in the sludge to meet the new
source standards.
We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach for
determining the MACT floor can, as it does in this case, increase the
overall cost of the regulation compared to what would result under a
unit-based methodology. We interpret CAA section 129 to require that
the MACT floor be determined in this manner, and we believe that
Congress did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regulations
developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limits that are achieved
by the best controlled unit for each pollutant, as long as the control
systems are compatible with each other. To our knowledge, there is no
technical reason why these air pollution control systems cannot be
combined.
Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and NOX
with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the SSI
facility to determine whether combustion conditions can be adjusted to
meet both standards and, if not, install NOX controls as
necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, FGR, or low NOX
burners). In the proposed rule, we conjectured reasons why SCR and SNCR
were not used or may not be able to be used at SSI units. While we are
not aware of any SSI unit that currently uses SNCR or SCR, we also do
not know of technical reason why they could not be used. Given the
limited data available on SSI units with FGR, we could not definitely
determine how effective the technology was on SSI units. However, we
also do not know of a technical reason why they could not be used, if
necessary, to meet NOX limits, and commenters did not
provide any reasons they could not be used.
Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis
Comment: Many commenters urged EPA to collect more information to
set the standards. Many commenters contended that EPA does not have
sufficient actual emission data from enough SSI units to properly set
the MACT floor. Some commenters contended that the floor-setting
provision in section 129 requires them to set the existing floor
standards ``based on the best performing 12 percent of sources in the
category'' and not just based on the sources for which they have
information. The commenters contended that EPA did not have emissions
data from the best-performing 12 percent of sources or even from 12
percent of sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is
no evidence that the sources for which EPA collected data are among the
top 12%. One commenter added that EPA is using actual data from as
little as 4.3 percent of a subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to
determine how the top 12 percent perform.
Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit its ICR to just
nine entities because collecting information from ten or more entities
would have triggered the PRA obligations and a more rigorous OMB
review. The commenters concluded that EPA's plan to circumvent the PRA
and OMB review resulted in an inadequate dataset for this rulemaking
that leaves EPA unable to reliably take the first necessary step in a
section 129 rulemaking: To determine which of the SSI units are the
best performing sources.
Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted its ICR to the
nine POTW expected to have the lowest emissions based on the type of
unit and the installed air pollution controls. The commenters contended
that EPA's targeted approach to collecting data from expected top
performers undermines its ability to presume the data is a random
sample representative of the entire source category or subcategory. The
commenters stated that if the data gathered are not representative at
the outset, then the data cannot reliably be used in a statistical
equation to predict the emissions data across the source category or
subcategory.
Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has used permit or
other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed rate control, and other
information to establish MACT standards. Despite this flexibility, the
commenters stated that EPA is proposing to use an ``actual emissions''
method in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actual emissions
for each of the regulated pollutants from at least 12% of the units.
Another commenter stated that EPA used emission data from state
databases for an additional nine MHs. The commenter stated that EPA was
instructed by the Court to collect data from the best-performing 12% of
existing sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emissions data from
the state databases for the additional nine MHs were the 12% best
performing MHs.
Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
requested several SSI to conduct emissions testing and provide the
results to EPA for purposes of this rulemaking. Specifically, EPA
collected information on the best-performing sources to establish MACT
floor standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent emissions tests requests
under section 114 of the CAA to nine entities that own and operate SSI
units. EPA identified SSI units that were expected to be the best-
controlled sources and the best performers for further emissions
testing. The Agency acknowledges that this selection methodology
targets identifying the best-performing sources rather than selecting a
representative sample of sources. However, given the court-ordered
deadline for EPA to issue the final SSI rule, it was not possible to
undertake the time-consuming process of sending an ICR to all the
affected SSI units consistent with the requirements of the PRA.
[[Page 15387]]
To select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the inventory of SSI
units for the control devices being operated, and identified a subset
of units expected to have the lowest emissions based on the type of
unit and the installed air pollution controls. These controls generally
achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA section 129
pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify for each pollutant the
units with the lowest emissions. For example, units were selected that
operated more than one of the following technologies: Activated carbon
injection to reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to
reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; high
efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and impingement tray
scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, and acid gases such as
HCl and SO2; and units with multiple control devices that
could reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi scrubber in
combination with impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or with another
particulate control device. The 9 owners or operators selected were
from different states in different regions of the country, providing a
wide spectrum of sources for sludge generated.
Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, resulting in 13 MH
units surveyed. Three of the nine operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB
units surveyed. Some owners of multiple units at a facility provided
information for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit
instead of 2, because not all units were in operation during the test
period. Of those 20 units from the nine surveyed municipalities, EPA
collected data from 17 units that were in operation (11 MH units and 6
FB units). While testing was being undertaken, the EPA also collected
emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collected from state
environmental agencies public databases. For some pollutants, the
emissions from these supplemental test reports were lower than those
from the nine ICR sources. The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to
use all the emissions information from these test reports in the MACT
floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test reports that were
older than 15 years. The older reports were determined to not be
appropriate for this rulemaking because they were unlikely to represent
current emissions performance, due to their age and because they pre-
dated required compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In total,
emissions information were collected from 6 FB units and 20 MH units
from facilities responding to the ICR and additional test reports
provided by state environmental agencies.
As discussed in the NPRM and background documentation, the EPA
conducted a statistical analysis to verify the minimum number of
observations needed to accurately characterize the distribution of the
best-performing 12 percent of units in each subcategory. The results
showed that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the number of
observations necessary to provide an accurate representation of that
data distributed from the best-performing 12 percent of the source
population. The EPA maintains that the emissions information that we
have collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor for the best-
performing sources. The EPA disagrees with the commenters'
recommendation to use other types of data, such as permits, other
regulatory limits, or feed rate controls with the emissions information
to calculate the MACT floor. The other types of data mentioned do not
represent the actual emissions or operation of the unit but are
potential values in their permits or limits. Most units are typically
operating at lower than permitted levels or emission limits.
Additionally, it would be difficult to incorporate such data into
the EPA's UPL calculation because the UPL calculation is based on
emission test runs of actual data, rather than limits based on permits.
The permit or emission limits would be on a different basis and
potentially skew the MACT floor UPL calculation.
The EPA has also updated the inventory of sources based on
additional data provided in the comment letters. The inventory now
contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB units and 144 MH units. Given this change
in population, 12 percent of each subcategory are equal to 8 FB units
and 18 MH units. Although we do not have any more emissions information
than at proposal, the change in inventory results in more than 12
percent of MH units with data for PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we
determined the MACT floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of
emissions data, as documented in the memorandum ``Revised MACT Floor
Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category'' in the SSI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). EPA solicited additional emission test
reports in the NPRM. Although many commenters summarized the results of
their most recent emission tests when comparing their site-specific
emissions to EPA's baseline emissions, none of the commenters actually
provided the emissions test reports. The emission test reports are
necessary for the EPA to review the test methods and procedures to
ensure consistency with other emissions data, and to verify the tests
represent a valid test result that can be used in the MACT floor
analysis. Additionally, the test reports provide information necessary
to correct the emissions measured into the units used for the MACT
floor analysis. Therefore, these additional test result summaries,
without background documentation, could not be used in the MACT floor
UPL calculation.
Comment: One commenter stated that, to fill the data gap caused by
the lack of actual emissions data from the required number of units in
each subcategory, EPA applied statistical analysis to single test run
results. Several commenters contended that, in order to enhance the
data available for MACT development, EPA counted each test run as a
separate data point.
Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on test runs,
instead of tests, is improper. The commenters noted that CAA section
129 states that MACT standards for existing sources must be as
stringent as the ``emissions limitation achieved by the best performing
12 percent of units in, the category.'' The commenters added that,
assuming that EPA equates the term ``emissions limitation'' with the
concept of emission level (as often stated by EPA), this clause means
that EPA must use the emission levels that have been achieved to set
the MACT floors. The commenters contended that, under the MACT program,
it takes a ``minimum'' of three test runs to make up a valid emissions
level test. The commenter stated that a test run is not an accurate
measure of the performance of the unit and should not be used as if it
were. Commenters added that EPA should use the results of the test for
each unit (comprised of at least three test runs) to represent what is
being achieved by a unit.
Several commenters contended that EPA must go back and reset the
process based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI sources (not individual
incinerators). The commenters added that it is important that
individual sources, not units, be utilized because the composition of
the sludge varies greatly from source to source and utilizing multiple
units at one source skews the data development process and ultimately
provides the basis for a flawed MACT standard at best.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 percent UPL
values were calculated for each pollutant and for each subcategory
using the test run
[[Page 15388]]
data for those units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consistent with
EPA's procedures on other MACT standards, such as HMIWI, CISWI, and
boilers, the MACT floor emission limits were calculated on a run basis
since compliance is based on the average of a 3-run test. The 99
percent UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean of
future 3-run performance tests form the best-performing 12 percent of
sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based upon the
results of the independent sample observations from the same best-
performing sources.
Variability Calculation
For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are incorporating
variability in the MACT floor calculation for this source category
using the 99 percent UPL. We are also following the same procedures for
establishing limits and incorporating non-detect values as discussed in
the NPRM. We have made three revisions to the variability calculation
for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT floor variability
calculation to incorporate weighted UPL's for existing FB units.
Second, we selected log-normal results when it is not clear that data
are normally distributed. Lastly, we revised the CO limits based on an
analysis of the span of the test. The weighted UPL's and log-normal
results are discussed in responses to comments. The revision to the CO
limits based on reviewing the CO span was done to correct errors in the
CO values provided in test reports and to be consistent with the
calculation methods used in the CISWI and boilers rules.
Carbon monoxide values obtained from emission test reports were
reviewed to determine whether the span of the test used was capable of
accurately reading the reported value. If the span was inconsistent
with the reported value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a value
that was more consistent with the span. EPA Method 10 is structured
such that measurement data quality relative to the calibration span of
the instrument can be assessed. For a measurement made using an
instrumental test method, the equivalent of the method detection level
can be assessed using: a square root formula, the reported calibration
span value, and the allowable data quality criteria (i.e. the allowable
calibration error, bias, and drift values). The estimated CO
measurement error resulting from the square root formula was adjusted
by a factor of three to be consistent with the methodology EPA applied
for non-detect data (where limits no less than three times the method
detection level were established).
In order to develop a basis for measurement error, instrument
calibration spans in available test reports were reviewed. Where no
span values could be found, it was assumed that if the test was
conducted on or before May, 2008, the associated CO span would be 1000
ppm, and tests conducted after May 2008 would have a CO span of 100
ppm. This assumption was made because, before revisions were made to
Method 10 in May of 2008, it was common that units were using the
prescriptive span guidance that was listed in the old method. The
current version of EPA Method 10 does not include these span
requirements but instead requires the tester to choose calibration
ranges that reflect the range of expected emission concentrations at
the unit. In cases where the reported emission concentrations were
lower than their corresponding measurement errors, the default
measurement errors were used in lieu of the reported concentration.
These revisions are further documented in the memorandum ``Revised
MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category''
in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 7 of this preamble
shows the revised results of the MACT floor analysis for existing
sources, and Table 8 of this preamble shows the results for new
sources.
Table 7--Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor MACT floor
emission limit emission limit
Pollutant Units for FB for MH
incinerators a incinerators a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 0.0016 0.095
CO.......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 64 3,800
HCl......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... b 0.51 1.2
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 0.037 b 0.28
NOX......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 150 220
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 0.0074 0.30
PCDD/PCDF TEQ............................... ng/dscm@7% O2................. 0.1 0.32
PCDD/PCDF TMB............................... ng/dscm@7% O2................. 1.2 5.0
PM.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 18 80
SO2......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 15 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
b Limits represent three times the detection level.
Table 8--Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor MACT floor
emission limit emission limit
Pollutant Units for FB for MH
incinerators a incinerators a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 0.0011 0.0024
CO.......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 27 52
HCl......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 0.24 c 1.2
Hg.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 0.0010 b 0.15
NOX......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 30 210
Pb.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 0.00062 0.0035
CDD/CDF TEQ................................. ng/dscm@7% O2................. 0.0044 0.0022
CDD/CDF TMB................................. ng/dscm@7% O2................. 0.013 0.045
[[Page 15389]]
PM.......................................... mg/dscm@7% O2................. 9.6 60
SO2......................................... ppmvd@7% O2................... 5.3 26c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
b Limits represent three times the detection level.
c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less stringent than EG.
Comment: One commenter contended that because CAA section 129
unambiguously requires EPA to set floors reflecting the ``average''
emission level achieved by the best sources, setting floors that
instead reflect a UPL for those sources is unlawful. The commenter,
added that by claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the
top twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider variability
under the CAA and relevant case law. The commenter explained that,
although EPA may consider variability in estimating an individual
source's actual performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case
law even suggests that EPA may account for differences in performance
between sources except as section 129 provides, by averaging the
emission levels achieved by the sources in the top twelve percent.
Response: In assessing sources' performance, EPA may consider
variability both in identifying which performers are ``best'' and in
assessing their level of performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT),
479 F. 3d 875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville
Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (D.C. Cir 2004)
(EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant
factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions control
that has been achieved by the best performing sources considering these
sources' operating variability). The Brick MACT decision indicated that
floors for existing sources must reflect the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources. The Brick MACT decision also reiterated that EPA may account
for variability in setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA
erred in assessing variability because it relied on data from the worst
performers to estimate best performers' variability. The Court held
that ``EPA may not use emission levels of the worst performers to
estimate variability of the best performers without a demonstrated
relationship between the two.'' 479 F. 3d at 882.
In determining the MACT floor limits, we first determine the floor,
which, for existing sources, is the emissions limitation achieved in
practice by the average of the top 12 percent of existing sources, or
the level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source
for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest emissions limitation
as the measure of best performance. We then assess variability of the
best performers by using a statistical formula designed to estimate a
MACT floor level based on the average of the best performing sources
using the expected distribution of future compliance tests. We used the
UPL to perform this calculation, as explained below.
Variability can be accounted for using different statistical
methods. For example, recent standards have used the UL or the UPL to
determine the MACT floor emission limits. A UL is based on the
distribution of the available emission observations (e.g., test runs),
and does not embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A prediction
interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an interval that
will, with a specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or some
other pre-specified) randomly selected observation from a population.
In other words, the prediction interval estimates what future values
will be, based on present or past background samples taken. Given this
definition, the UPL represents the value the mean of three future test
run observations (three-run average) can be expected to fall below,
based on the results of the independent sample of size (n) from the
same population. Therefore, should a future test condition be selected
randomly from any of these sources (i.e., average of three runs), we
can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall below a
MACT floor emission limit calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an
appropriate statistical tool to use in determining variability in the
SSI data. For this source category, where there is a limited sampling
of the source category and we do not have test data from all of the SSI
units in the best performing 12% for each subcategory, the predictive
aspect of the UPL calculation is especially important.
Because the UPL represents the value which we can expect the mean
(i.e., average) of three future observations (3-run average) to fall
below, based upon the results of the independent sample size from the
same population, the UPL reflects average emissions. The UPL is also
consistent with other recent rulemakings.
Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting MACT
standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized data from all
available test runs for the best performing units without regard to the
number of data points available for each unit. The commenters added
that, for all pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to
unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases the
statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by over-weighting
the performance of the units that have more data. The commenter
suggested that EPA should employ an alternate methodology which
determines the emissions limitation achieved for each best performing
unit first, and then averages these limitations to determine the least
stringent standard, or MACT floor.
Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed units
contains data from six units at four facilities. The entities surveyed
were requested to provide recent (within the previous 5 years)
emissions test reports. Most survey recipients provided only the most
recent report. One facility, with three units, provided results of
emissions test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year
period. This facility also uses the most advanced pollution controls on
their fluidized bed units in the subcategory. This facility constitutes
70 percent of the Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and
75 percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the existing
source MACT floors calculated using the UPL methodology, and all the
test run data from the one facility, effectively result in calculating
more stringent limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an
existing
[[Page 15390]]
source MACT floor, because it is based primarily on only the emissions
performance of the best-performing single source, rather than the
average of the best-performing 12 percent of sources. In order to
adequately incorporate the emissions from the best-performing SSI units
in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was used for
calculating the existing source MACT floors for the final rule. The
weighted UPL is calculated from a weighted mean and weighted variance
as described below.
There are many different types of weighting procedures. We have
chosen the most straightforward methodology, to base it on the number
of data points (i.e., test runs) from each SSI unit.\12\ This weighting
scheme ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool is
over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. The first step
in weighting procedure is to assign a weighting factor to each test run
by multiplying each observation for source i and run j with a weight
term, wij, as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). ``NIST
Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands'',
National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June
2003. [Available at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
Mi= Number of observations (i.e., runs) for source i and
N= Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool.
The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance for the
weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 2 and 3 of this
preamble:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.016
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.017
is the total number of observations in the MACT best performers
pool.
When the weights are equal to one, the above equations reduce to
those for un-weighted data, as expected. As shown in Equation 4 of this
preamble, the weighted mean and weighted variance are then used in the
UPL calculation (discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e.,
un-weighted) mean and variance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.018
For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions data from a
larger number of facilities/units. For example, we have data on Cd and
Pb from 11 facilities with 14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18
units. The MACT floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units
or facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing multiple
hearth units does not need to be calculated using a weighted UPL.
The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are discussed in detail
in the memorandum ``Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Source Category'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should determine the MACT
floor emission limits to be consistent with EPA's Guidance for Data
Quality Assessment Manual, which holds that it is more likely that
environmental data are distributed log-normally. The commenter
considered it reasonable to believe that environmental emission
distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots typically show many
readings approaching zero and fewer large readings forming an elongated
tail to the right. The commenter concluded that normal distributions
may exist for certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many
standard deviations away from zero, and values are controlled by an air
pollution control process with set points and feedback and control
loops.
Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and agree with
the commenter that the referenced document shows that environmental
data are more likely to be log-normally distributed than normally
distributed. In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, skewness
and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the data used
[[Page 15391]]
to calculate the MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed.
If both the reported values and the natural-log transformed reported
values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were
normally distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis of
the floor to be conservative. If the results of the skewness and
kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the
natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done on the
reported data values was chosen to be conservative.
Based on ``Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods
for Data Analysis'' EPA/600/R-96/084, July 2000, we have modified our
assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests do not
clearly show whether a normal or log-normal distribution better
represents the data, or when there are not enough data to complete the
skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the
log-normal results for the final MACT floor calculation.
Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA incorrectly presumes
that stack test results account for the full variability of a SSI's
performance. Several commenters stated that emissions from SSI units
are affected not just by control technology but also by other factors
including the contents of the sludge that a unit is burning. Many
commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT floor limits by
incorporating the variability of the sludge contents. The commenters
added that the methodology in developing the proposed standards does
not take into account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions
are a function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and
sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits were based on
test results obtained with sludge containing very low concentration of
metals, chlorides, and sulfur. The commenter explained that if the
sludge burned during an emissions test was not at or near the maximum
constituent concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a
new source emission limit based on these data could not be achieved
over the full range of expected normal operating conditions confronted
by the best performing source.
The commenters contended that EPA must consider all available data
(including Part 503 data) for the best performing source and use that
to establish a variability factor applied to the stack test data. The
commenters added that EPA's request for metals data during the stack
test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source variability.
The commenters added that variability for the compounds not regulated
by Part 503 must also be accounted for as well before setting the new
source limit.
The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI units, are
statutorily obligated to manage all of the sewage that enters into the
sanitary sewer system, resulting in highly variable and often
unpredictable spikes in concentrations. The commenters continued that
POTW inlet concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of
dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat wastewater from
residential, commercial and industrial dischargers in varying degrees,
and pretreatment opportunities also vary because POTW authority to
control discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way that
authority is exercised varies. The commenters also noted that the
nature of sewage entering the POTW changes over time as the character
of a community changes, the age of the population changes, and
commercial and industrial dischargers come and go. The commenters added
that without the use of long-term data to support the level of emission
standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based limits
impractical and infeasible. The commenters also explained that POTW
also face significant regional and seasonal variability that is not
captured by EPA's dataset. The commenters stated that initial high flow
periods in the spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier
material that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow periods,
which often results in a spike in metals concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd,
Pb) in the sewage sludge. The commenters noted that the ICR stack tests
in January and February that were used for the EPA database would not
have captured these events. The commenter also noted that northern
cities that use salt for de-icing roadways experience significant
increases in chlorides during the winter months, and high chloride
concentrations are known to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at
existing wet scrubbers.
Response: The variability analysis is based on emissions
information gathered from nine different facilities located in nine
different states. The facilities we collected emissions information
from are located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and western
states. Each facility has its own unique sludge characteristics from
different residential and commercial populations. We agree that the
emissions data represents a ``point in time''. However, combined
together, they represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and
populations that adequately incorporates variability in wastewater
treatment systems across the U.S. We have also incorporated variability
using the UPL. The variability analysis based on the emissions data
collected adequately characterizes the potential differences in sludge
contents and regional differences. Because we have a mixture of
southern and northern states in the emissions database, we believe that
it also adequately considers differences between cold and warm weather
climates. Additionally, we did not have sufficient information at
proposal to consider if it were appropriate to incorporate variability
based on sludge content. We requested additional information in the
NPRM, but did not receive adequate sampling data from the best-
performing sources.
Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA's identification of the
relevant best performing units for both existing and new unit standards
is both unlawful and arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources' control
technology as a proxy for their actual performance unless ``pollution
control technology is the only factor determining emission levels.''
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855. 863 (DC Cir.
2001). The commenters stated that, in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir 2001) (``CKRC''), the Court considered
Sierra Club's challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely
on the performance of one method: Add-on technology. The commenters
added that the Court remanded the rule because EPA did not consider all
of the ways facilities control emissions. The commenters stated that
this requirement is consistent with doing a more complete study as
required by section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based
solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this fashion does
not require EPA to examine all methods of control. The commenters
concluded that EPA's performance data approach in this rule may violate
CKRC because EPA did not check for all methods that sources use to
reduce pollution.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges that EPA has
not properly identified the best performing SSI units for purposes of
calculating MACT floor limits. As explained above, EPA targeted its
emissions testing requests to units it believed had the lowest
emissions, while accounting for factors such as sludge content and
seasonal variation by selecting units in different geographic areas of
the country.
[[Page 15392]]
EPA further notes that SSI units currently employ non-technology
measures (pollution prevention) to reduce emissions to comply with CWA
regulations at 40 CFR part 503. These regulations establish daily
average concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage
sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also requires that
SSI meet the National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in
subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the
40 CFR part 503 standards, facilities are already incorporating
management practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the
concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as
segregating contaminated and uncontaminated wastes and establishing
discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for non-domestic users
discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus, the facilities from which EPA
received emissions test results are already applying non-technology
measures to reduce emissions.
Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs the
statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it should use the
99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated that the 99.9 percent UPL
represents a 0.1 percent probability of a failure for individual tests,
or a one percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual
performance test program. The commenter concluded that this value
better encompasses unit emissions variability and represents a
manageable risk to the responsible facility operator.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the final standards,
we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is appropriate and sufficiently
addresses variability in the emissions information. Our analysis of
variability is explained in detail in the memorandum ``Revised MACT
Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category'' in
the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit of zero
percent because opacity is a subjective measurement and no unit can
meet opacity limits of zero at all times. Another commenter suggested
that control and monitoring of PM is sufficient.
Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero opacity) limit
for combustion processes is impractical for both compliance and
enforcement purposes. We also believe that a measurable opacity may or
may not be indicative of compliance with a PM emissions limit when
applied to multiple sources within the category. That is, an opacity
limit applied to one facility could very readily correspond to a PM
emissions level different than that same opacity limit applied to
another facility and one or both may be emitting above the PM limit.
That opacity limits do not apply very well when wet control devices are
used further confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. We also
agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific parametric monitoring
approaches applicable to various control devices that can be more
closely aligned with PM control and compliance with the PM emissions
limit than would an opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of
establishing opacity limits that may or may not assure compliance with
PM emissions limits, the final rules include rigorous requirements for
establishing site-specific operating limits derived from the results of
performance testing. The rules also include a requirement that sources
update those enforceable operating limits with each repeated
performance test. Re-establishing operating limits periodically will
assure that the monitoring will continue to indicate compliance with
the PM emissions limits. The rules also provide the source the option
of apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of interest in lieu of
parametric monitoring. We believe that continuous compliance with
operating limits and periodic stack testing to verify the operating
limits plus the CEMS option will ensure that sources demonstrate
continuous compliance with the PM emission limits more effectively than
would periodic or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable opacity
limit.
Format of the Standards
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA develop emission
limits for some pollutants in different units or to provide a control
efficiency alternative. The commenters expressed concern that the use
of concentration limits would not reflect the variability of the unique
sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly penalize
units with very low or very high feed concentrations of certain
pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or Pb. Some commenters suggested
establishing limits similar to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided
emission limits based on control efficiencies coupled with feed
concentration limits.
Response: We did not have sufficient data to set alternative
control efficiency standards or standards in other units at proposal.
We requested additional information in the proposal. However,
sufficient data were not provided in response to our request for
alternative formats to be developed.
D. Baseline Emissions
Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated baseline
emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate parameters,
pollution control device efficiencies, sludge feed rates, and operating
hours. Many commenters provided stack test data, emission estimates,
and corrections to the EPA's SSI inventory database. Other commenters
noted that EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate
factors in combination with pollutant concentrations corrected to seven
percent oxygen.
Response: We have incorporated corrections to the inventory and
calculation inputs provided by the commenters where applicable. In some
cases, commenters did not provide information sufficient for us to
revise the inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter's
facility. For example, commenters may have provided an average
concentration for a pollutant, but did not provide run-specific
information that would allow us to convert the concentration
information provided to standardized units (7 percent oxygen). Other
commenters may have provided emission rates in pounds per hour, but did
not provide vent gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to
convert to concentration units. None of the commenters provided test
reports that would have include this information.
We have also revised the calculation of baseline emissions by
revising the defaults assigned to SSI units where information was not
available. Defaults were necessary to be assigned because, even after
new data were received in comments, a significant number of units did
not have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A detailed
discussion of the methodology used to estimate baseline emissions for
the final standards is presented in the memorandum ``Revised Estimation
of Baseline Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units''(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other
corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions shown in
Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range of emissions for each
pollutant. The lower bound represents an estimation of actual emissions
based on the actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their
units were running. The upper bound represents an estimation of
potential emissions if the sludge feed rate was at the dry sludge
capacity of each unit. We estimated the potential
[[Page 15393]]
emissions because the amount of wastewater treated (and sludge
produced) may vary significantly based on changes in population or
sources of wastewater. Facilities have the potential to burn up to
their units permitted capacity although they may not be doing so
currently.
Table 9--Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of baseline emissions by
subcategory (TPY) Range of total
Pollutant -------------------------------------- baseline
FB MH emissions (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd..................................................... 0.0022-0.0015 0.91-1.2 0.91-1.2
CO..................................................... 73-100 8,400-11,500 8,500-11,600
HCl.................................................... 1.6-2.2 26-41 28-43
Hg..................................................... 0.040-0.058 0.85-1.15 0.9-1.2
NOX.................................................... 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300
Pb..................................................... 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1
PCDD/PCDF TEQ \a\...................................... 0.00012-0.00016 0.00076-0.0010 0.0009-0.0012
PCDD/PCDF TMB \a\...................................... 0.0014-0.0020 0.011-0.015 0.013-0.017
PM..................................................... 25-37 310-410 330-450
SO2.................................................... 43-57 660-1,020 700-1,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF.
E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA reconsider the
beyond-the-floor Hg limit for MH units because baseline Hg emissions
were overstated and costs for Hg control were understated. Many of the
commenters contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology
for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility with FB
units. The commenters added that the facility is undergoing significant
issues with the technology.
Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon injection
cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, such as venturi
scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. The commenters added that
the high moisture content in the form of liquid droplets from the
incinerator will plug FFs, and additional equipment may be necessary to
keep the temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner.
Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor analysis to
incorporate changes made to the baseline emissions, new facility
specific data and inputs provided by commenters, and revised control
options. We analyzed several beyond-the-floor controls for the final
rule. First, we evaluated the use of an afterburner for control of CO
at MH units. We then evaluated whether additional control of Hg should
be required at MH units. We have reviewed the commenters concerns
regarding Hg control technologies and agree that applying carbon
injection to existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be
effective at removing Hg. For combustion sources that are not SSI, such
as boilers, carbon injection in combination with a FF has proven to be
highly effective in removing Hg. However, for high moisture flue gas
streams, such as emitted from SSI units, the use of FFs is problematic
due to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with a FF
with high moisture streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, or afterburner is
necessary to maintain a high enough temperature to keep the stream
above the dew point prior to sending the stream to the FF.
Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of using an
afterburner, carbon injection, and FF for additional control of Hg at
MH units. Additional equipment may also be necessary to reduce the
temperature of the flue gas to prevent damage to the fabric filter
bags. Sufficient information was not collected to estimate this cost.
Table 10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existing SSI units to
apply different controls that were analyzed.
Table 10--Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units To Apply MACT Controls
Analyzed
[2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized
Control analyzed Total capital costs (million ($/
costs (million $) yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--MACT Floor................... 55 18
2--MACT Floor + Afterburner for 155 46
MH units.......................
3--MACT Floor + Afterburner and 490 138
Activated carbon injection and
FF for MH units................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a seven percent discount factor.
Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions of
each pollutant for various controls analyzed.
[[Page 15394]]
Table 11--Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units To Apply the MACT Controls Analyzed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Reductions for MACT Controls Analyzed (TPY)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant MACT floor + MACT floor +
MACT floor afterburner for MH afterburner + ACI and
units FF for MH units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd................................... 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.87-1.1
CO................................... 0 6,900-9,300 6,900-9,300
HCl.................................. 19-30 19-30 19-30
Hg................................... 0.0022-0.0025 0.0022-0.0025 0.67-0.89
NOX.................................. 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16
Pb................................... 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 2.3-2.9
PCDD/PCDF TEQ........................ 0 0 0.0000003-0.0000004
PCDD/PCDF TMB........................ 0 0 0.000005-0.000007
PM................................... 58-70 58-70 300-400
SO2.................................. 430-700 430-700 430-700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this preamble were
calculated using data gathered for each source (e.g., emissions, vent
gas flow rates, controls currently used), as well as default values for
emissions, sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate for sources where
data were unavailable. We estimate that requiring the use of an
afterburner for MH units not already having an afterburner could
require as much as 1,010 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to be
burned, resulting in NOX and CO emissions of 51 and 43 TPY,
respectively. We estimate that applying activated carbon injection with
a FF and an afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg and PCDD/
PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 million dollars
(using a discount rate of seven percent) and would achieve Hg
reductions of 0.67-0.89 TPY. The incremental cost-effectiveness of
adding afterburners/RTO, activated carbon injection, and FFs to all MH
units is estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per pound of Hg removed.
Costs would increase if equipment necessary to cool the flue gas is
also necessary. Therefore, given these factors, we are not finalizing
any beyond-the-floor requirements for SSI units.
We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require packed bed
scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, a wet ESP
for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR for additional
NOX reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to
go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater reduction of HCl,
SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOX considering the cost and
secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor analyses for the final
standards are documented in the memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Beyond
the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for
Existing SSI Units'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
F. Cost and Economic Impacts
Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had underestimated the cost
of the proposed rule for the beyond-the-floor option of Hg control as
well as for the MACT floor for other pollutants because it only has
information for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The commenters
added that EPA used information from these limited sources and applied
it to remaining sources for which they did not have. The commenters
contended that this results inaccurate determinations of which units
could meet the proposed emission limits and which could not. The
commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of sources that
could meet the proposed standards resulting in a significant
underestimation of controls.
Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of controls to
cost for compliance with the proposed standards were inappropriate for
SSI units. Many commenters stated that the high moisture content of
flue gas streams in some applications may mean that FFs would not be an
appropriate control for PM, Cd, or Pb.
Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control technology or
method. A source is required to meet the final emissions limits in
these standards, and has the flexibility to use the control method or
technology that is best suited for their individual facility. EPA's
costs are estimated based on technologies we believe may be appropriate
for the sources to meet the emissions limits.
At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated costs and
emissions reductions based on the best available information to us. We
acknowledge that the inventory database did not have complete
information for all 204 SSI units. Consequently, we developed defaults
for flue gas flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other
inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses using data
provided by the commenters as summarized in section IV. Summary of
Significant Changes Following Proposal and the memorandum titled,
``Post-Proposal SSI Database Revisions and Data Gap Filling
Methodology'' in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). However, for a
number of inputs, we are still assigning default values where data were
not available for each SSI. For the final rule, we have correlated some
of the defaults to populations served by the facilities in order to
better estimate costs and emission reductions more specifically to each
facility. Sources will have the best idea of the costs of controls for
their site specific conditions. For some sources, the costs and
emission reductions estimated by EPA may be higher than what the source
estimates, and for others they will be less. EPA's estimates are
estimates based on the best information available to us. We also note
that the MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination of
the number of sources estimated to require control, estimated for the
final rule are also based on the revised MACT floor limits.
For the final standards we have also revised the types of controls
costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI that we estimate will
need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have
costed out wet ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture
streams. We have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will
need further control of NOX to meet the MACT floor limits.
As at proposal, we have costed out packed scrubbers for SSI that we
estimate will need further control of HCl or SO2. At the
MACT floor level, we do not estimate that any SSI will need to add
control for Hg, PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A detailed discussion of the costs
and emissions reductions estimates for the final
[[Page 15395]]
standards is provided in the memorandum ``Revised Cost and Emission
Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control'' in the SSI docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had incorrectly calculated
the costs of the landfilling alternative because it used dry tons of
sewage sludge instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons
is the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the
dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent moisture. Many
of the commenters provided estimates for landfilling sludge from their
specific unit. The commenters added that because of the error, EPA has
significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting sludge by
truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not evaluated the negative
social impact of hauling sludge to a landfill. Some commenters added
that EPA did not consider the additional costs for specific state
landfilling regulations.
Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly estimated the on-
site sludge storage requirements because calculations were not done on
a wet basis. Commenters added that the cost of the storage units would
be significant and would need to include odor control as well as a
settling basin.
Other commenters expressed concern regarding the availability of
landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. The commenters contended
there was insufficient landfill capacity to handle the influx of sewage
sludge.
Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the landfill
alternative based on comments received on the proposal and corrections
made to the analysis. Table 14 of this preamble summarizes the revised
costs and impacts of this alternative if small entities choose to
landfill rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of
the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the memorandum
``Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of
Control'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many sources will
find landfilling an appropriate alternative. The selection of a
management option for sewage sludge is often a local decision that is
based on environmental protection concerns, community needs, geographic
constraints, and economic conditions. Given a full evaluation of these
factors, for some sources, landfilling or land treatment may be a
better management option than incineration.
G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed language
requiring facilities to meet the proposed SSI standards ``at all
times'' because it would be difficult to comply with certain proposed
emission limits during startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters
were specifically concerned about not being able to meet the proposed
CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI because when a heat up
burner system is fired into a cold vessel, the flame tip is quenched
before the combustion is completed creating a small flow of CO. One
commenter contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard
without any evidence that it can be achieved during startup, shutdown,
or malfunction. This commenter provided an example of CO data from one
hazardous waste combustor that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal
operations but averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during
shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters stated that
absolute pollutant levels tend to increase during startup and shutdown
due to incomplete combustion that is unavoidable at lower temperatures,
and noted that the influence of unstable combustion may be more
pronounced during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining
sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters recommended that
EPA account for situations where higher emissions occur during the time
it takes to bring control equipment from startup to steady-state
operations.
Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a separate emission
standard for the source category that applies during periods of startup
and shutdown. We do not have data that would allow us to set a separate
standard during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested
information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. Based on the
information available at this time, we believe that SSI units will be
able to meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units we
have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to
start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion
temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill gas or
distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be lower than from
burning solid wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also
generally lower than emissions during normal operations because the
materials in the incinerator would be almost fully combusted before
shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors
for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on actual performance
for each pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of
emissions variability. Because we accounted for emissions variability,
we believe we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may
potentially occur during startup or shutdown.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be viewed as
a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at
such times were not needed to be factored into development of CAA
section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. We
note that continuous compliance is demonstrated using continuous
parametric monitoring, except for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are
required for new source using a 24-hour block average.
Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly claims that
its authority to prescribe unique standards for SSM periods is
constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). These
commenters stated that EPA has failed to account adequately for
emissions that occur during SSM periods. One commenter contended that
the Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA section
129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 111), and pointed
out that this interpretation is not merely a technical distinction. The
commenter pointed out that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions
during SSM events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111
(referenced 40 CFR 60.8(c)). The commenter argued that Congress enacted
the continuous basis language in section 302(k) knowing that EPA`s
emissions standards under section 111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed
out that there is nothing in the legislative history of the 1977
amendments to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that
practice.
Response: As explained above, EPA believes the reasoning in the DC
Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA applies equally to section
129. Additionally, EPA explains above the reasons it is not
establishing different emissions standards for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
H. Compliance Requirements
Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed operating
parameter ranges for minimum pressure
[[Page 15396]]
drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, minimum
scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion temperature (or minimum
afterburner temperature) would not be achievable. They explained that
these ranges are too narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the
operating standards already required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart O, 40
CFR part 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed with the
proposed operating parameter ranges.
Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by the
commenters and determined that proposed procedure for establishing the
operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the average of three test runs
and as 90 percent of the minimum value recorded during the applicable
performance tests) may be too restrictive on control device operations
in terms of energy or other operating needs. We determined that the
operating limits should be more appropriately based on values recorded
during the performance test runs. The final rule requires that
operating limits be established on a site-specific basis as the minimum
(or maximum, as appropriate) operating parameter value measured during
the performance test. This approach has been incorporated into the
final rule for all operating parameters and will result in achievable
operating ranges that will ensure that the control devices used for
compliance will be operated to achieve continuous compliance with the
emissions limits.
Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed operating range
for sludge feed rate would not be achievable, that it results in the
EPA changing the current state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and
that it could force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum
rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach fails to take
into account the normal feed condition and rate variation that occur on
a daily and seasonal basis. A few commenters suggested that charging a
SSI at 75 percent to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a
steadier state of control and more efficient combustion of the sludge.
Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating range for
sludge moisture content would not be achievable and that EPA does not
need sludge moisture content to determine whether SSI units are in
compliance with their emission limits. They explained that sludge
moisture is very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used,
seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by a SSI, temperature
changes, the biological systems that treat the sewage, and to
operational changes, and that these changes cannot always be
anticipated and are not always immediately correctable.
Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to require that
SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and sludge moisture content of
the incinerated sludge within specified ranges. We determined that the
operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber (or
afterburner temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion
practice, and that moisture content is not needed to establish that SSI
units are in compliance with their emission limits. If a SSI has a
higher moisture content, the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply
with their operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber.
We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge moisture
content within specified ranges. We are also no longer requiring SSI
units to maintain sludge feed rates within specified ranges due to the
seasonal variability at wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate
information is necessary during performance test runs to establish that
SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that they conduct
performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We are retaining the
requirement to keep daily records of sludge feed rates and moisture
contents, as SSI units should already be keeping records of these
parameters, and this information will be useful in establishing
representative operating limitations for a SSI unit.
EPA added a requirement that performance tests be conducted at 85
percent of the permitted maximum capacity. This level has been selected
based on the performance test operating information provided by the
commenters and previous EPA standards.
Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour rolling
averaging period selected in the proposed rule for determining
compliance with the operating parameters and CO limit was more
burdensome and difficult to achieve. They explained that the
recordkeeping and compliance burden is less if the averaging period for
CEMS and CPMS are both based on a 24-hour block average. They also
explained that the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis
would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to achieve
with FB incinerators.
Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block averaging
period for compliance with the CO CEMS requirement for new sources will
provide a sufficient indication of compliance and will allow more
flexibility for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission
guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI units has
changed in the final guidelines to 27 ppm, and this change is discussed
in Section IV of this preamble. We have also revised the averaging
periods for all other operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH,
to be on a 12-hour block average instead of a 4-hour rolling average
basis in order to relate the averaging time for operating limits to the
duration of the performance tests (e.g., a three run test of 4 hour
test runs would equal a 12-hour averaging time). For scrubber liquid
pH, we chose 3-hour averages to be consistent with the performance test
duration for acid gas scrubbers.
In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the alternative
THC compliance requirement. Section 129 requires that limits be set for
each of the 9 regulated pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be
used in place of the regulated pollutants.
Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the requirement in the
proposed rule for annual testing, and argued that annual testing of
each SSI is not needed to demonstrate compliance, too costly, and
inconsistent with current Title V permits. They also argued that Method
22 compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not feasible or
difficult to conduct due to space constraints, and that many FB
incinerators utilize wet ash removal systems that do not require annual
testing. They explained that the cost for emissions testing may be
significantly higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They
further explained that Title V permits require facilities to test each
of its SSI units once per 5 years. They pointed out that current
management practices and strict health-based sludge content limits
under the CWA section 405 and the CAA 40 CFR part 503 regulations will
help ensure that SSI units are in compliance with their emission
limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed compliance schedule
of every 10 to 12 months will essentially shorten the testing year by
one month each year.
Response: The proposed standards included provisions for less
frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has revised these
provisions, making it easier for facilities to qualify for less
frequent testing, allowing less frequent testing for more pollutants,
and ensuring that facilities that do less frequent testing are well
below their emission limits. In the final standards,
[[Page 15397]]
owners or operators are required to establish that emissions of a given
pollutant are under a specified threshold for two consecutive years,
rather than 3 years as proposed, to qualify for less frequent testing
for that pollutant. We have also extended the option to do less
frequent testing to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. The
threshold is 75 percent of the emission limit for each of the nine
regulated pollutants. In order to allow a decrease in testing
frequency, EPA must have assurance that SSI units can meet a more
stringent threshold than the limits. This is particularly necessary
because of the variability in sludge that may occur at wastewater
treatment facilities. Additionally, in the final standards we are also
providing assurance that the SSI unit is being operated properly and
emission limits are being met continuously by requiring stringent
parametric monitoring requirements. Specifically, exceedances of the
minimum or maximum values established during the performance tests are
considered deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash handling, owners
or operators must demonstrate that visible emissions occur no more than
2 percent of the time during each Method 22 1-hour observation period.
This allowance for fugitive ash emissions has been included in the
final standards with a new requirement that all facilities must submit
a monitoring plan at least 60 days before their initial compliance test
to establish that their ash handling system will continuously meet the
visible emissions limit.
Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility regarding their
test dates, to ensure that facilities are not forced to test at
intervals less than 12 months, and to ensure that facilities are
testing once per year, we have revised the testing schedule provisions.
In the final standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that
qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a calendar year
basis (no less than nine calendar months and no more than 15 calendar
months following the previous performance test); and facilities must
complete five performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar
period.
Comment: Many commenters requested that the definition of ``process
change'' be revised to exclude the provision that a process change
include an increase in the allowable wastewater received from an
industrial source. They pointed out that any such increase would
trigger a performance test, as required by the proposed standards, and
that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They explained that
industrial discharges often constitute only a small percentage of total
influent flow (e.g., 3.5 percent, four to eight percent), that such
discharges are sometimes from sources that do not discharge the
pollutants regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food
processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities regularly
receive variable amounts of sludge from other regional wastewater
treatment plants and POTW, and that it is difficult for impossible to
anticipate some industrial load changes ahead of time. Several
commenters argued that this proposed requirement would be redundant to
the National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR part 403, which are
incorporated into their SSI's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, which require them to establish local limits on
industrial discharges to prevent interference with sludge processes,
use, and disposal. The commenters anticipate that they would establish
similar limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission limits.
A few commenters suggested that the proposed provision for industrial
discharges is vague and open to interpretation.
Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of ``process change'' and
agrees with the commenters that there are some situations where an
increase in the allowable wastewater received from an industrial source
should not trigger a performance test. We have revised the definition
of ``process change'' to more specifically and clearly identify the
type of process change that will trigger a performance test. The
revised definition identifies a ``process change'' as pollutant-
specific and as including only situations where the SSI has undergone a
significant permit revision. This revision will ensure that facilities
retest whenever they have a significant change in the process that
could trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant.
Comment: Several commenters requested EPA clarify what equipment
are included as part of the SSI unit. The commenters stated that the
proposed rules do not specify the equipment and without clarification,
a SSI unit could be interpreted inconsistently or over-broadly.
Commenters requested clarification regarding whether the
``modification'' (which refers to an ``SSI unit'') applies to the
multiple hearth or fluid bed ``reactor'' or whether it includes the
entire system including all air emission controls and auxiliary
equipment.
Response: We agree that the definition of the SSI unit in the
proposed rule was unclear as to what equipment constitutes the SSI
unit. We have revised the definition of SSI unit in the final rule. A
SSI unit means an incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the
purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing
combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit designs include
fluidized bed and multiple hearth. We have clarified that a SSI unit
also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed system,
auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat
recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit
includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling
system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the truck loading
station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal.
The SSI unit does not include air pollution control equipment or the
stack.
VI. Impacts of the Final Action
As discussed in sections IV and V of this preamble, we have made
several revisions to the impacts analyses for the final rules. We have
incorporated revisions to the variability calculation. These revisions
include: incorporating weighted UPL's for existing FB units, selecting
log-normal results when it is not clear that data are normally
distributed, and revising CO limits based on an analysis of the span of
the test. The result of these changes increased UPL values for most
pollutants.
Additionally, we have incorporated corrections to the inventory and
calculation inputs provided by the commenters where applicable. We have
also revised the calculation of baseline emissions by revising the
defaults assigned to SSI units where information was not available.
These changes resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for each of
the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL and decreased baseline
emissions resulted in less SSI units estimated to need additional
control to meet the MACT floor limits.
For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floor level of
control for both subcategories instead of selecting a beyond-the-floor
requirement.
For the final rules we have also revised the types of controls
costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI that we estimate will
need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have
costed out wet ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture
streams. We have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will
need further control of NOX to meet the MACT floor limits.
As at proposal, we have costed out packed-bed scrubbers
[[Page 15398]]
for SSI that we estimate will need further control of HCl or
SO2.
A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the final emission limits. As
discussed in section V of this preamble, we have revised the estimation
of baseline emissions and emission reductions to present a range to
show the variability in the emission calculations between estimated
actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. Table 12 of this
preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT compliance for
each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Revised
Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559).
Table 12--Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of reductions achieved through
meeting MACT by subcategory (TPY) Range of total
Pollutant -------------------------------------- reductions (TPY)
FB MH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd..................................................... 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6
CO..................................................... 0 0 0
HCl.................................................... 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30
Hg..................................................... 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025
NOX.................................................... 6.8-16 0 6.8-16
Pb..................................................... 0 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5
PCDD/PCDF TEQ.......................................... 0 0 0
PCDD/PCDF TMB.......................................... 0 0 0
PM..................................................... 0 58-70 58-70
SO2.................................................... 17-21 420-680 430-700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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 234 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater will be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbents.
The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Revised Secondary
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category'' in the SSI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
3. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed emission
limits consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run added
or improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased
scrubber pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity
consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. We anticipate that an additional
5,420 megawatt-hours per year will be required for the additional and
improved control devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum
``Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source
Category'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For SSI units adding controls to meet the final emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel
needed to generate additional electricity will yield slight increases
in emissions, including NOX, CO, PM and SO2 and
an increase in CO2 emissions. Since NOX and
SO2 are covered by capped emissions trading programs, and
methodological limitations prevent us from quantifying the change in CO
and PM, we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for
this rule from additional electricity demand.
5. What are the cost and economic impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with Option 1
(i.e., the selected SSI standards). Based on this analysis, we
anticipate an overall total capital investment of $55 million with an
associated total annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and
using a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of this
preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will need to install one
or more air pollution control devices for 43 of the 204 affected units
to meet the final emission limits. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' in the SSI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Table 13--Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities Comply With
Proposed Emission Limits
[Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost
Subcategory Capital cost ($million/yr)
($million) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FB.................................... 10.1 3.1
MH.................................... 45.0 14.7
---------------------------------
Total 55.0 17.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent.
Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At proposal, we
evaluated landfilling as an alternative disposal method. We have
revised our costs and impacts of this alternative based on comments
received on the proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14
of this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this
alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather than incinerate
sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of the landfilling alternative
analysis is provided in the memorandum ``Revised Cost and Emission
Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control'' in the SSI docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many sources will
find landfilling an appropriate alternative. However, the selection of
a management option for sewage sludge is often a local
[[Page 15399]]
decision that is based on environmental protection concerns, community
needs, geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a full
evaluation of these factors, for some sources, landfilling or land
treatment may be a better management option than incineration.
Table 14--Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that Landfill in
Lieu of Incineration
[Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost
Subcategory Capital cost ($million/yr)
($million) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FB.................................... 278 38
MH.................................... 313 42.7
---------------------------------
Total 591 80.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent.
B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units
As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI units
constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB incinerators, and
information provided by the industry on likely units constructed, we
believe that new SSI units constructed are likely to be FB
incinerators.
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the final emission limits on two new
FB incinerators potentially being constructed in the next 5 years.
Table 15 of this preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT
compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. The
analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Revised Estimation of
Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 Years After Promulgation of
the SSI NSPS'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Table 15--Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., Fluidized Bed
Incinerators) Constructed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
Pollutant reduction (TPY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.................................................... 0
CDD/CDF, TEQ.......................................... 0.0000000033
CDD/CDF, TMB.......................................... 0.000000051
CO.................................................... 0.26
HCl................................................... 0
Hg.................................................... 0.0026
NOX................................................... 14
Pb.................................................... 0.00053
PM.................................................... 0
PM2.5................................................. 0
SO2................................................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
We anticipate affected sources would need to apply controls in
addition to what they would have planned to include in the absence of
this rule to meet the final emission limits. These controls may utilize
water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We
estimate an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater will be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbents for the two new units
expected to come on-line in the next 5 years. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts
for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category'' in the SSI docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
Likewise, the application of PM controls results in particulate
collected that would require disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon
injection may be used by some sources, which would result in solid
waste needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will
require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY from
activated carbon injection for the two units.
3. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with meeting the final emission
limits would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run
added or improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased
scrubber pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity
consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate
that an additional 300 megawatt-hours per year will be required for the
additional and improved control devices for the two new units modeled
to come on-line in the next 5 years. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage
Sludge Incineration Source Category Analysis of New Units for the
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0559).
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For SSI units adding controls to meet the final emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The analysis is documented
in the memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
5. What are the cost impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units coming on-line
in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on a model plant, the
assumption that two new units will come on-line and will add the
necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI standards.
Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $8 million (2008$) with an associated total annualized
cost of $2 million (2008$ and using a seven percent discount rate).
This analysis assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB
incinerators.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is a ``significant
regulatory action'' because it was likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more based on the proposed standards.
However, the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Despite the
change in costs, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the potential
costs and benefits associated with the proposed standards we are simply
updating the RIA rather than revising it.
A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the proposed Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on
the lower costs associated with the selected alternative in this final
action we are providing an update of the RIA rather than completely
revising the RIA. Within this update, we are providing updated costs
and benefits of the controls analyzed and have provided a comparison of
the selected controls with the alternatives.\13\ While the
characteristics of the controls analyzed have changed, we have also
provided a comparison of the costs and benefits of
[[Page 15400]]
the proposed controls analyzed with the selected alternative in this
final action. A summary of the differences are presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred to as Option
1 (MACT floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH
units), and Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated
carbon injection and fabric filter for MH units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for the selected controls analyzed for promulgation
are 80% lower and benefits are 81% lower than they were for the
selected controls analyzed for proposal.
Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a
government provided service that does not involve a market, no price,
quantity, or employment impacts were estimated for the proposal RIA.
The economic impact analysis focused on the comparison of control cost
to total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% lower for the
selected controls analyzed for promulgation compared to the proposed
controls analyzed, the control costs are expected to be a smaller
portion of government revenues for the selected controls for
promulgation than they were for the proposed controls.
Because of insufficient information, employment changes
due to the requirements for operating and maintaining control equipment
were not estimated. Also, we did not have the information needed to
estimate any labor changes related to governmental decisions to switch
from incineration to landfilling.
Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the selected
option by $3 million to $34 million at three percent and $1 million to
$29 million at seven percent. The benefits from reducing exposure to
HAP, direct exposure to NOX and SO2, ecosystem
effects, and visibility impairment have not been monetized, including
reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of Pb, and 1,000
pounds of Cd.
Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG
[Millions of $2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT floor (selected) 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits.......... $21 to $52.......... $19 to $47.
Costs....................... $18 to $18.......... $18 to $18.
Net Benefits................ $3 to $34........... $1 to $29.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total monetized benefits for
final controls analyzed 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
(millions of 2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT Floor (Selected)....... $21 to $52.......... $19 to $47.
MACT Floor + Afterburner for $20 to $50.......... $18 to $45.
MH units.
MACT Floor + Afterburner and $55 to $140......... $50 to $130.
Activated carbon injection
and fabric filter for MH
units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized benefits changes
for MACT floor (millions of 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (MACT Floor, all $110 to $270........ $100 to $250.
comply).
Final (MACT Floor).......... $21 to $52.......... $19 to $47.
% Change.................... -81%................ -81%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized benefits changes
for selected controls 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
analyzed (millions of 2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (BTF Option 2, all $110 to $270........ $100 to $250.
comply).
Final (MACT Floor).......... $21 to $52.......... $19 to $47.
% Change.................... -81%................ -81%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs for final controls analyzed (millions of 3% or 7%
2008$) Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT Floor (selected)................................... $18
MACT Floor + Afterburner for MH units................... 46
MACT Floor + Afterburner and activated carbon injection 138
+ fabric filter for MH units...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% or 7%
Costs changes for MACT floor (millions of 2008$) Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (MACT Floor, all comply)....................... $63
Final (MACT Floor)...................................... $18
% Change................................................ -71%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost changes for selected controls analyzed (millions of 3% or 7%
2008$) Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (BTF Option 2, all comply)..................... $92
Final (MACT Floor)...................................... $18
[[Page 15401]]
% Change................................................ -80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA
have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, and 2403.02
for subpart MMMM.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this rule are based
on the information collection requirements in CAA section 129 and EPA's
NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory
pursuant to CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other
than emissions data submitted to EPA pursuant to the information
collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The requirements in this action result in industry recordkeeping
and reporting burden associated with review of the amendments for all
SSI and initial and annual compliance with the emission limits using
EPA approved emissions test methods. The burden also includes
continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of air pollution
control devices that may be used to meet the emission limits. Operators
are required to obtain qualification and complete annual training. New
units are also required to submit a report prior to construction,
including a siting analysis.
When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to
the applicable reporting requirements of Subparts LLLL and MMMM. An
affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission
limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it
can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied.
The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only
where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets
the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source took
necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must
meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the
source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written
report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions
and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of
the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense
position adopted by a source, EPA provides an administrative adjustment
to this ICR that shows what the notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative
defense might entail. EPA's estimate for the required notification,
reports and records, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141
and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review
relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events
surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission
limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record
and reports for submission to EPA. EPA provides this illustrative
estimate of this burden because these costs are only incurred if there
has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the
affirmative defense.
The annual average burden associated with the emission guidelines
over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated to be $9.6
million. This includes 39,350 hours at a total annual labor cost of
$2.2 million and total annualized capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the
monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and photocopying
and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. The annual inspection
costs are included under the recordkeeping and reporting labor costs
The annual average burden associated with the NSPS over the first 3
years following promulgation is estimated to involve 701 hours at a
total annual labor cost of $40,000. The total annualized capital/
startup costs are estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a
cumulative annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it currently displays
a valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, a small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small business as
defined by the SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
In the proposal, we certified that there would not be a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The economic
analysis conducted at proposal identified 18 small entities none of
which had cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost
analysis for the final standards showed a significant decrease (35 to
98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 small entities. The cost-
revenue-ratios were again estimated using the costs for the final rule
and the same revenue estimates used in the proposal screening analysis.
The revenue estimates were obtained using census average per capita
revenue numbers ($1,696 for entities with populations between 10
thousand and 25 thousand and $1,677 for entities with populations
between 25 thousand and 50 thousand) The resulting cost-revenue-ratios
ranged between 0.04% and 0.5. Thus all cost-revenue-ratios were well
below 1%. Therefore, we consider the final rule to
[[Page 15402]]
have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the
18 small entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent.
Thus, this is not considered to be a significant impact.
Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by allowing optional
CEMS instead of requiring them, allowing information from tests
conducted in recent years to show compliance rather than require all
new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued compliance.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year.
Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement that is summarized in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble
(75 FR 63260, October 14, 2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement
can be found in the docket.
At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the estimated
costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA prepared an RIA, including
EPA's assessment of costs and benefits, which is detailed in the
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units'' in the docket. Based on estimated
compliance costs associated with the final rule and the predicted
change in prices and production in the affected industries, the
estimated social costs of the final rule are $55 million ($).
At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities expected to
be affected by the proposed rule, consistent with the intergovernmental
consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations
are discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260).
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because this final
rule's requirements apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by
governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private entities,
there would be no requirements that uniquely apply to such government
or impose any disproportionate impacts on them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed action.
EPA's proposed action estimated expenditures of greater than $100
million to state and local governments and therefore as specified by
the Executive Order, EPA consulted with elected state and local
government officials, or their representative national organizations,
when developing regulations and policies that impose substantial
compliance costs on state and local governments. Pursuant to Agency
policy, EPA conducted a briefing for the ``Big 10'' intergovernmental
organizations representing elected state and local government
officials, as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75
FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on the action.
The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the proposed standards and EG
for SSI units.
EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have federalism
implications, as defined by Agency guidance for implementing the
Executive Order, due to the final rule's direct compliance costs on
state or local governments resulting in expenditures of less than $100
million.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule
from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or operated by
an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, Executive Order 13175 did
not appear to have implications. However as specified in Executive
Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to
outreach and discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts.
EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and specifically
solicited additional comment on the proposed action from tribal
contacts in the proposal period via the NTAA conference calls.
EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; those comments
can be reviewed in the public docket, document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0559-0130.1. Commenters expressed that SSI units located in proximity
to Indian country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger tribal
consultation with regard to potential impact from the SSI unit.
Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA failed to consult with
Indian tribes regarding the standards and have failed to fully assess
the potential impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly,
commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that accounts for
both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can acquire a better
understanding on how they might be affected by such sites and these
standards in general.
EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to discuss the rule
development process, first to provide general information on the
development of the SSI standards and second providing more specific
background information on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and
locations of units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying
questions and requested information if any NTAA members were aware of
any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge in Indian Country. EPA
will provide a map overlay for the SSI docket so that tribes can
acquire a better understanding on how they might be affected by SSI
sites and the standards in general.
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
Executive Order has the
[[Page 15403]]
potential to influence the regulation. This final action is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance. We note however, that reductions in air emissions by these
facilities will improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for
children's health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (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. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
EPA conducted searches for the ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units'' through the Enhanced National Standards
Service Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted VCS
organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of
the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the
ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), ``Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas
Generated From Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)''
is an acceptable alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also decided
to use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 22, 23, 26A, 29
and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 22.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to EPA's reference method, 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 that
meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative
methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures
in EPA reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
The search identified other VCS that were potentially applicable
for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-
1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC-38-1980 (1985),
ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981, ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM
D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO
11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 (2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-
MI983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996),
EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-
MI987) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data,
and other important technical and policy considerations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures in the final rule
and any amendments.
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. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this final
rule to determine if there was existing disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of
demographic data showed that the average of populations in close
proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be effected by the
sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.
The results of the demographic analysis are presented in ``Review of
Environmental Justice Impacts,'' June 2010, a copy of which is
available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
This final action establishes national emission standards for new
and existing SSI units. The EPA estimates that there are approximately
204 such units covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce
emissions of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This
includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. Adverse health effects from
these pollutants include cancer, irritation of the lungs, skin and
mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous system and damage to
the kidneys and acute health disorders. The rule will also result in
substantial reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO,
NOX, PM and PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur
dioxide and NOX are precursors for the formation of
PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions will reduce ozone
and PM2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as
adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma and
other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. For additional
information, please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this
rulemaking. In EPA's July 2010 ``Interim Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action,'' EPA
defines ``environmental justice'' as the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development,
[[Page 15404]]
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.
To help achieve EPA's goal for Environmental Justice (i.e., the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people), EPA places
particular emphasis on the public health of and environmental
conditions affecting minority, low-income, and indigenous populations.
In recognizing that these populations frequently bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, EPA works to
protect them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
its programs. EPA looks at the vulnerabilities of these populations
because they have historically been exposed to a combination of
physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors that have
imposed greater environmental burdens on them than those imposed on the
general population.
To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a
communication and outreach strategy to ensure that interested
communities have access to this final rule, are aware of its content
and have an opportunity to comment during the comment period. During
the comment period, EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental
newsletters, tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and
the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will also provide general
rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community)
for environmental justice 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.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective May 20, 2011.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 21, 2011.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(93);
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(4); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),
approved April 1, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 60.2165(j),
60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 to subpart CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, and 9
to subpart DDDD, Sec. Sec. 60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables
1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec. 60.56c(b)(4),
Sec. 60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), Sec. 60.106(e)(2), Sec. Sec.
60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4),
(i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), Sec. 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4),
(g)(2), and (g)(4), Sec. 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v),
(a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and Sec. 60.107a(a)(1)(ii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of
subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ,
Sec. Sec. 60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii),
60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and (ii),
60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 60.2730(q)(3),
60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and
(viii), 60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2
and 3 to subpart MMMM.
* * * * *
(o) The following material is available from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202) 272-0167, http://www.epa.gov.
(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2),
60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B).
(2) [Reserved]
0
3. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and MMMM to read as
follows:
Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
Sec.
Introduction
60.4760 What does this subpart do?
60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?
Applicability and Delegation of Authority
60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration
unit?
60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?
60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from this
subpart?
60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.4790 How are these new source performance standards structured?
60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?
Preconstruction Siting Analysis
60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
Operator Training and Qualification
60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified operators and plant personnel?
[[Page 15405]]
Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits and
Requirements
60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet and by
when?
60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and operating
limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for exceedance of an
emission limit or standard during malfunction?
Initial Compliance Requirements
60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash handling systems,
and by what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements
60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
Recordkeeping and Reporting
60.4910 What records must I keep?
60.4915 What reports must I submit?
Title V Operating Permits
60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating
permit for my unit?
60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application for my new
SSI unit?
Definitions
60.4930 What definitions must I know?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Summary of Reporting
Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units *COM019*
Introduction
Sec. 60.4760 What does this subpart do?
This subpart establishes new source performance standards for
sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the extent any requirement
of this subpart is inconsistent with the requirements of subpart A of
this part, the requirements of this subpart will apply.
Sec. 60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?
This subpart takes effect on September 21, 2011. Some of the
requirements in this subpart apply to planning a SSI unit and must be
completed even before construction is initiated on a SSI unit (i.e.,
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.4800 and 60.4805).
Other requirements such as the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins operation.
Applicability and Delegation of Authority
Sec. 60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration
unit?
Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets all the
criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit for which construction commenced
after October 14, 2010 or for which modification commenced after
September 21, 2011.
(b) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit as defined in Sec. 60.4930.
(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under Sec. 60.4780.
Sec. 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?
(a) A new SSI unit is a SSI unit that meets either of the two
criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010.
(2) Commenced modification after September 21, 2011.
(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI unit to comply
with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM of this part (Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) do not qualify as a modification under this subpart.
Sec. 60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from
this subpart?
This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge
and are not located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge. These units may be subject to another
subpart of this part (e.g., subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or
operator of such a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an
exemption claim under this section.
Sec. 60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the
Administrator, as defined in Sec. 60.2, or a delegated authority such
as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the Administrator has
delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement
and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office
to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency, the authorities contained
in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and
are not transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of
this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards
in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and operating limits established
under Sec. 60.4850.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting.
(5) The requirements in Sec. 60.4855.
(6) The requirements in Sec. 60.4835(b)(2).
(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.8(b).
(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in Sec. 60.4800 and Sec.
60.4805.
Sec. 60.4790 How are these new source performance standards
structured?
These new source performance standards contain the nine major
[[Page 15406]]
components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
(a) Preconstruction siting analysis.
(b) Operator training and qualification.
(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
(d) Initial compliance requirements.
(e) Continuous compliance requirements.
(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
(g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(h) Definitions.
(i) Tables.
Sec. 60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?
No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis requirements
before you commence construction of the SSI unit. The operator training
and qualification, emission limits, emission standards, operating
limits, performance testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit
begins operation.
Preconstruction Siting Analysis
Sec. 60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of a SSI unit after October 14, 2010.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to
submit an initial application for a construction permit under 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
modification of your SSI unit.
Sec. 60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution control
alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the maximum
extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the
environment, including impacts of the affected SSI unit on ambient air
quality, visibility, soils, and vegetation. In considering such
alternatives, the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
(b) Analyses of your SSI unit's impacts that are prepared to comply
with state, local, or other Federal regulatory requirements may be used
to satisfy the requirements of this section, provided they include the
consideration of air pollution control alternatives specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) You must complete and submit the siting requirements of this
section as required under Sec. 60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing
construction.
Operator Training and Qualification
Sec. 60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit.
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you
must follow the procedures in Sec. 60.4835.
(b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a
state-approved program or by completing the requirements included in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Training must be obtained by completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a minimum, the three elements
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (c)(1)(x) of this section.
(i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions.
(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion.
(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by
the operator, including proper startup, sewage sludge feeding, and
shutdown procedures.
(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring.
(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors
affecting performance (if applicable).
(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air
pollution control devices.
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures.
(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards.
(x) Pollution prevention.
(2) An examination designed and administered by the state-approved
program.
(3) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.
Sec. 60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?
The operator training course must be completed by the later of the
two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
(b) The date before an employee assumes responsibility for
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the
operation of the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
(a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under Sec. 60.4810(b).
(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training
course is completed and the operator successfully passes the
examination required under Sec. 60.4810(c)(2).
Sec. 60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or
refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Update of regulations.
(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown
procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash handling.
(c) Inspection and maintenance.
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.
Sec. 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before you begin
operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, you must complete a standard
annual refresher course described in Sec. 60.4825.
(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial
qualification requirements in Sec. 60.4820(a).
Sec. 60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
If a qualified operator is not at the facility and cannot be at the
facility within 1 hour, you must meet the criteria specified in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, depending on the length of time
that a qualified operator is not accessible.
(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for more than 8
hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other
plant personnel who are familiar with the operation of the SSI unit and
who have completed a review
[[Page 15407]]
of the information specified in Sec. 60.4840 within the past 12
months. However, you must record the period when a qualified operator
was not accessible and include this deviation in the annual report as
specified under Sec. 60.4915(d).
(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions that are described in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10
days. In the notice, state what caused this deviation, what you are
doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you
anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible.
(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks
outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will
be accessible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to
continue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first status
report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is
accessible as required under Sec. 60.4810(a). You must notify the
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having
a qualified operator accessible.
Sec. 60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and how
often must it be reviewed by qualified operators and plant personnel?
(a) You must maintain at the facility the documentation of the
operator training procedures specified under Sec. 60.4910(c)(1) and
make the documentation readily accessible to all SSI unit operators.
(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information
listed in Sec. 60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified incinerator operator
and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the
provisions of Sec. 60.4835(a), according to the following schedule:
(1) The initial review of the information listed in Sec.
60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the effective
date of this subpart or prior to an employee's assumption of
responsibilities for operation of the SSI unit, whichever date is
later.
(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in Sec.
60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 months following the
previous review.
Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits and
Requirements
Sec. 60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by
when?
You must meet the emission limits and standards specified in Table
1 or 2 to this subpart within 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the
feed rate at which it will operate or within 180 days after its initial
startup, whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards apply
at all times the unit is operating, and during periods of malfunction.
The emission limits and standards apply to emissions from a bypass
stack or vent while sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e.,
until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a
period of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration residence
time).
Sec. 60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet and
by when?
You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this section,
according to the schedule specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
The operating parameters for which you will establish operating limits
for a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or
activated carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to this subpart. You
must comply with the operating requirements in paragraph (f) of this
section and the requirements in paragraph (g) of this section for
meeting any new operating limits, re-established in Sec. 60.4890. The
operating limits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the
combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor
has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge
incineration residence time).
(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for minimum
operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner
combustion chamber) that you establish in Sec. 60.4890(a)(2)(i).
(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator, or
activated carbon injection to comply with an emission limit, you must
meet the site-specific operating limits that you establish in Sec.
60.4870 for each operating parameter associated with each air pollution
control device.
(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits,
you must install the bag leak detection system specified in Sec. Sec.
60.4880(b) and 60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag leak detection
system such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm
time as specified in Sec. 60.4870.
(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your site-specific
fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted as specified in Sec.
60.4880(d) to ensure that your ash handling system will meet the
emission standard for fugitive emissions from ash handling.
(e) You must meet the operating limits and requirements specified
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section 60 days after your SSI
unit reaches the feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days
after its initial startup, whichever comes first.
(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture content of the
sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator, as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate and calculate
a daily average for all hours of operation during each 24-hour period.
Keep a record of the daily average feed rate, as specified in Sec.
60.4910(f)(3)(ii).
(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the sewage sludge fed
to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you take more than one grab sample
in a day, calculate the daily average for the grab samples. Keep a
record of the daily average moisture content, as specified in Sec.
60.4910(f)(3)(ii).
(g) For the operating limits and requirements specified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this section, you must meet any
new operating limits and requirements, re-established according to
Sec. 60.4890(d).
(h) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection to comply with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart, you must meet any site-specific operating limits or
requirements that you establish as required in Sec. 60.4855.
Sec. 60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or limit emissions in some other manner (e.g.,
materials balance) to comply with the emission limits in Sec. 60.4845,
you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and requirements in Sec.
60.4850,
[[Page 15408]]
and establish applicable operating limits according to Sec. 60.4870.
(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating parameters,
operating limits, and averaging periods to be established during the
initial performance test and to be monitored continuously thereafter.
(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the
application prior to the performance test. You must not conduct the
initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by
the Administrator, and you must comply with the operating limits as
written, pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal of an
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(2) Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section.
(i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to
monitor.
(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters, and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters that will establish the operating limits on
these parameters, including a discussion of the averaging periods
associated with those parameters for determining compliance.
(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
Sec. 60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The emission limits and standards apply at all times and during
periods of malfunction. The operating limits apply at all times that
sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage
sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not
less than the sewage sludge incineration residence time).
Sec. 60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for exceedance
of an emission limit or standard during malfunction?
In response to an action to enforce the numerical emission
standards set forth in paragraph Sec. 60.4845, you may assert an
affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunction, as defined in Sec.
60.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to
meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of
this section are met.
(1) The excess emissions meet:
(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices, and
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance, and (2) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limits were
being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs, and
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions, and
(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health, and
(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices, and
(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, and
(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions, and
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit experiencing an
exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a malfunction, shall notify
the Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon
as possible, but no later than 2 business days after the initial
occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner
or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit
a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial
occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in Sec. 60.4845 to
demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has
met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The
owner or operator may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30
additional days by submitting a written request to the Administrator
before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an
extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator
is subject to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of
the initial occurrence of the exceedance.
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and
standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis),
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive
emissions from ash handling, and follow the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have
the option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures
specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter,
[[Page 15409]]
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic
equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium,
and lead. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of
this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section, according to the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements in Sec. 60.4900(a) and (b). Except as
provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days after your
SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180
days after its initial startup, whichever comes first, you must
demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards
specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test
required in Sec. 60.8. You must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets
the emission limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans
(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash
handling using the performance test. The initial performance test must
be conducted using the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum
sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart
and according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements
specified in Sec. 60.4900(a).
(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option
to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/
furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register. The
option to use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans
takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a
continuous automated sampling system is published in the Federal
Register. Collect data as specified in Sec. 60.4900(b)(6) and use the
following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must use
the carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system specified in
Sec. 60.4900(b). For determining compliance with the carbon monoxide
concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7
percent oxygen does not apply during periods of startup or shutdown.
Use the measured carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for
oxygen concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide
concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine the 24-hour
average value.
(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits
specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic
equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium,
and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous monitoring system
in lieu of conducting the initial performance test required in
paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section
in lieu of conducting the initial performance test for that pollutant
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the initial
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in Table 1 or
2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
section, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and
follow the requirements specified in Sec. 60.4900(b). You must measure
emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic
averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must
demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour block average of these
1-hour arithmetic average emission concentrations, calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in Table 1 or
2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour block averages to determine compliance with the mercury
emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week block averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan
(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits in Table
1 or 2 to this subpart.
(ii) Comply with the provisions in Sec. 60.58b(q) to develop a
monitoring plan. For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you
must use Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and
Procedure 5 of appendix F of this part.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your initial performance evaluations required under your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring system and
continuous automated sampling systems according to the provisions of
Sec. 60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be conducted using the
procedures and acceptance criteria specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, determine
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through
octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan (tetra- through
octa-chlorinated) isomer by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified in Sec.
60.4915(c).
(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the performance
test specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the provisions of
this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force
majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as specified in
Sec. 60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial performance test as soon
as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the extension to the initial
performance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval
or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
[[Page 15410]]
Sec. 60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
(a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified
in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section or established in Sec.
60.4855, as applicable, during your initial performance tests required
in Sec. 60.4865. You must meet the requirements in Sec. 60.4890(d) to
confirm these operating limits or re-establish new operating limits
using operating data recorded during any performance tests or
performance evaluations required in Sec. 60.4885. You must follow the
data measurement and recording frequencies and data averaging times
specified in Table 3 to this subpart or as established in Sec.
60.4855, and you must follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4900 and 60.4905 or established
in Sec. 60.4855. You are not required to establish operating limits
for the operating parameters listed in Table 3 to this subpart for a
control device if you use a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for
the applicable pollutants, as follows:
(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of hydrogen
chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor, scrubber liquid flow rate or scrubber
liquid pH if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in
Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide.
(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of particulate
matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber or
scrubber liquid flow rate if you use the continuous monitoring system
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and
lead.
(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to control emissions
of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to
establish an operating limit and monitor secondary voltage of the
collection plates, secondary amperage of the collection plates, or
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in
Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead.
(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed to control
emissions of mercury, you are not required to establish an operating
limit and monitor sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or
carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for mercury.
(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed to control
emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow
rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for dioxins/furans
(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis).
(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber used to meet the
particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits in Table 1 or 2
to this subpart, equal to the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop
across each such wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter,
lead, and cadmium emission limits.
(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at the inlet to
each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour average liquid flow rate
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with all applicable emission limits.
(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used to meet
the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride emission limits in Table 1 or 2
to this subpart, equal to the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid pH
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride emission
limits.
(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature (or minimum
afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 4-hour average combustion
chamber operating temperature (or afterburner temperature) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
all applicable emission limits.
(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour average power measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. Power input
must be calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and
secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
Both the secondary voltage and secondary amperage must be recorded
during the performance test.
(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the
electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-hour average effluent
water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission
limits.
(h) For activated carbon injection, establish the site-specific
operating limits specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this
section.
(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to the lowest 4-
hour average mercury sorbent injection rate measured during the most
recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the mercury
emission limit.
(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, equal to the
lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission
limit.
(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure
drop, as follows:
(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the lowest 4-hour
average carrier gas flow rate measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit.
(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the lowest 4-hour
average carrier gas flow rate measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit.
Sec. 60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device inspection
according to Sec. 60.4900(c) within 60 days of installing an air
pollution control device or within 180 days of startup of the SSI unit
using the air pollution control device, whichever comes first.
(b) Within 10 operating days following the air pollution control
device inspection under paragraph (a) of this section, all necessary
repairs must be completed unless you obtain written approval from the
Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the
SSI unit must be completed.
[[Page 15411]]
Sec. 60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash handling systems,
and by what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation?
You must develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system
required under this subpart, according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this
section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system to comply
with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency
basis) emission limit, you must develop your monitoring plan as
specified in Sec. 60.58b(q), and you are not required to meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also
submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system, as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must submit and update
your monitoring plans as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of
this section.
(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your monitoring plan
must address the elements and requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(8) of this section. You must operate and maintain
the continuous monitoring system in continuous operation according to
the site-specific monitoring plan.
(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but is not limited to,
the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in Sec. 60.13.
(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., relative
accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part.
(C) The applicable procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration drift tests) in appendix F of this
part.
(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration of out-of-
control periods will affect the suitability of CEMS data, where out-of-
control has the meaning given in section (a)(7)(i) of this section.
(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but is not limited to
the following:
(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install 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 no greater
than 2 percent of the expected process flow rate.
(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal velocity
distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance evaluation in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than annually.
(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., particulate matter
scrubber pressure drop).
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
(4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each
performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system
continues to meet the performance requirements in your monitoring plan.
Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new pressure
sensor.
(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH monitoring
system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Install 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) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at least once each process
operating day.
(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a two-point
calibration with one of the two buffer solutions having a pH within 1
of the pH of the operating limit) of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than quarterly.
(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install the temperature sensor and other necessary equipment in
a position that provides a representative temperature.
(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.8
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic temperature
range.
(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.8
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a cryogenic temperature
range.
(4) Conduct a temperature measurement device performance evaluation
at the time of each performance test but no less frequently than
annually.
(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a secondary
electric power monitoring system for an electrostatic precipitator, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(E)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric power
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance
[[Page 15412]]
test but no less frequently than annually.
(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
monitoring system to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt,
weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(F)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent injection rate
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f) and (g).
(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous monitoring system is
out of control, as follows:
(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control if the
conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) of this section
are met.
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of control as
specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you must take the
necessary corrective action and must repeat all necessary tests that
indicate that the system is out of control. You must take corrective
action and conduct retesting until the performance requirements are
below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period
is the hour you conduct a performance check (e.g., calibration drift)
that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements
established under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is
the hour following the completion of corrective action and successful
demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits.
(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance
evaluations.
(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your monitoring plan
must include a description of the following items:
(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a position(s) that
will be representative of the relative or absolute particulate matter
loadings for each exhaust stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a
positive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.
(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established. Use a
bag leak detection system equipped with a system that will sound an
alarm when the system detects an increase in relative particulate
matter emissions over a preset level. The alarm must be located where
it is observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized easily
by plant operating personnel.
(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak detection
system, performed in accordance with your monitoring plan and
consistent with the guidance provided in Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17).
(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures.
(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the bag leak
detection system data. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a
device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(c) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as
applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan and Sec. 60.13(c).
For the purposes of this subpart, the provisions of Sec. 60.13(c) also
apply to the bag leak detection system. You must conduct the initial
performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system within 60
days of installation of the monitoring system.
(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the ash handling
system operating procedures that you will follow to ensure that you
meet the fugitive emissions limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart.
(e) You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval
of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the
standards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section, unless you document, using data or
information, that the longer averaging period will ensure that
emissions do not exceed levels achieved over the duration of three
performance test runs.
(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring requirement
is approved, you must continue to use the original monitoring
requirement until approval is received to use another monitoring
requirement.
(3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate
monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance
test. The application must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iii) of this section:
(i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the
required approach.
(ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit,
and how the limit is to be calculated.
(iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or
better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard.
Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the
Administrator will provide the following:
(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based.
[[Page 15413]]
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting
information before final action is taken on the application. This
notice will specify how much additional time is allowed for you to
provide additional supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the
application prior to the performance test. Neither submittal of an
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case
basis, that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.
(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days before your initial
performance evaluation of your continuous monitoring system(s).
(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash handling
system, as required in paragraph (d) of this section, at least 60 days
before your initial compliance test date.
(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan if there are
any changes or potential changes in your monitoring procedures or if
there is a process change, as defined in Sec. 60.4930.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and
standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic
equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium,
lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the
procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for carbon
monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, you also have the option to demonstrate continuous
compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this
section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans
(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable,
and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the
performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in Sec.
60.4900(a) and (b). You may also petition the Administrator for
alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test.
Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (e) of this section,
following the date that the initial performance test for each pollutant
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed,
you must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on an
annual basis (between 11 and 13 calendar months following the previous
performance test). The performance test must be conducted using the
test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or
durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to
the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements specified in
Sec. 60.4900(a).
(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward. The Administrator may request a repeat performance test at any
time.
(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 days of a
process change, as defined in Sec. 60.4930.
(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section, you can conduct performance tests less often for a given
pollutant, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if your
performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 consecutive years
show that your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission
limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, and there are no
changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution
control equipment that could increase emissions. In this case, you do
not have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for the next
2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the third year and
no more than 37 months after the previous performance test.
(ii) If your SSI unit continues to meet the emission limit for the
pollutant, you may choose to conduct performance tests for the
pollutant every third year if your emissions are at or below 75 percent
of the emission limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of
the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could
increase emissions, but each such performance test must be conducted no
more than 37 months after the previous performance test.
(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent of
the emission limit for a pollutant, you must conduct annual performance
tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over 2 consecutive
years show compliance.
(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option
to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/
furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register. The
option to use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans
takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a
continuous automated sampling system is published in the Federal
Register. Collect data as specified in Sec. 60.4900(b)(6) and use the
following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limit, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous emissions
monitoring system specified in Sec. 60.4900(b). For determining
compliance with the carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon
monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during
periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon monoxide
concentration without correcting for oxygen concentration in averaging
with other carbon monoxide concentrations (corrected to 7 percent
oxygen) to determine the 24-hour average value.
(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass
basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual performance test
required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section
in lieu of conducting the annual performance test for that pollutant in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of
[[Page 15414]]
conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in either
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, you must use the continuous
emissions monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13
to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a
24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limit (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart.
(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 60.4880(e).
For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use
Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5
of appendix F of this part.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your periodic performance evaluations required under your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring system and
continuous automated sampling systems, according to the schedule
specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously determining
compliance by conducting an annual performance test (or according to
the less frequent testing for a pollutant as provided in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section), you must complete the initial performance
evaluation required in your monitoring plan in Sec. 60.4880 for the
continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous emissions
monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or continuous automated
sampling system. Your performance evaluation must be conducted using
the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in Sec.
60.4880(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you
must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through
octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA Method 23.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in Sec.
60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation report specified in Sec.
60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet each emission limit
in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance
test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the
provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in Sec. 60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance test as
soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator
will determine whether or not to grant the extension to the performance
test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval or
disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
(f) After any initial requests in Sec. 60.4880 for alternative
monitoring requirements for initial compliance, you may subsequently
petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters as
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.13(i) and 60.4880(e).
Sec. 60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my
operating limits?
You must continuously monitor your operating parameters as
specified in paragraph (a) of this section and meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, according to the monitoring and
calibration requirements in Sec. 60.4905. You must confirm and re-
establish your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(a) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section using the
continuous monitoring equipment and according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.4905 or established in Sec. 60.4855. To
determine compliance, you must use the data averaging period specified
in Table 3 to this subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak
detection system) unless a different averaging period is established
under Sec. 60.4855.
(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limits established according to Sec. Sec. 60.4855 and 60.4870 and
paragraph (d) of this section for each applicable operating parameter.
(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limit for bag leak detection systems as follows:
(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must calculate the alarm
time as follows:
(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time shall be
counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is counted as the
actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action.
(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period, as specified in Sec. 60.4850(c).
(b) Operation above the established maximum, below the established
minimum, or outside the allowable range of the operating limits
specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from
your operating limits established under this subpart, except during
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. You must
submit the deviation report specified in Sec. 60.4915(e) for each
instance that you did not meet one of
[[Page 15415]]
your operating limits established under this subpart.
(c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in Sec.
60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous compliance.
(d) You must confirm your operating limits according to paragraph
(d)(1) of this section or re-establish operating limits according to
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Your operating limits must be
established so as to assure ongoing compliance with the emission
limits. These requirements also apply to your operating requirements in
your fugitive emissions monitoring plan specified in Sec. 60.4850(d).
(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating data recorded
during any performance test required in Sec. 60.4885(a) or any
performance evaluation required in Sec. 60.4885(b)(5).
(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward.
Sec. 60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution
control device used to comply with the emission limits, according to
Sec. 60.4900(c), no later than 12 months following the previous annual
air pollution control device inspection.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless you
obtain written approval from the Administrator establishing a date
whereby all necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be
completed.
Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements
Sec. 60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the monitoring requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control
device inspections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(a) Performance testing requirements.
(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum of three test
runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations, as
specified in Sec. 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits
or standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are
considered deviations from the applicable emission limits or standards.
(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the
performance test is representative of the sludge burned under normal
operating conditions by:
(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned
during the performance test by continuously monitoring and recording
the average hourly rate that sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator.
(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the sewage sludge
burned during the performance test by taking grab samples of the sewage
sludge fed to the incinerator for each 8 hour period that testing is
conducted.
(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the test methods,
minimum sampling volume, observation period, and averaging methods
specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be used to select
the sampling location and number of traverse points.
(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used
for gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen
concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be
used simultaneously with each method.
(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 7 percent
oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.019
Where:
Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent
oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis.
(20.9-7) = 20.9 percent oxygen-7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,
percent.
(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in this
subpart unless the Administrator does one of the following.
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a method
with minor changes in methodology.
(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the results of
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a
specific source is in compliance.
(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests because you have
demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the affected SSI unit is in compliance with the standard.
(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this
paragraph is construed to abrogate the Administrator's authority to
require testing under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as specified under other
subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present. If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.)
in conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify the
Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the original test
date, either by providing at least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled
date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.
(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods applicable to the
SSI unit, as follows:
(A) Constructing the air pollution control system such that
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately
determined by applicable test methods and procedures.
(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
[[Page 15416]]
(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each performance
test must consist of three separate runs using the applicable test
method. Each run must be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each
emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of
the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally lost or
conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued
because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the
sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the
Administrator's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of
the results of the two other runs.
(11) During each test run specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, you must operate your sewage sludge incinerator at a minimum
of 85 percent of your maximum permitted capacity.
(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet the following
requirements, as applicable, when using a continuous monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart. The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring
system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes
effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the
Federal Register. If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring
system instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must meet
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system instead of
conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the requirements
of paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The option to use a continuous
automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a
final performance specification for such a continuous automated
sampling system is published in the Federal Register.
(1) You must notify the Administrator one month before starting use
of the continuous monitoring system.
(2) You must notify the Administrator one month before stopping use
of the continuous monitoring system, in which case you must also
conduct a performance test prior to ceasing operation of the system.
(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the emissions to
the atmosphere in accordance with the following:
(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(ii) The following performance specifications of appendix B of this
part, as applicable:
(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11 of
appendix B of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 15 of appendix
B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B of appendix B
of this part with the modifications shown in Tables 1 and 2 to this
subpart.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of appendix B of
this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, the quality
assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests) of appendix F of this part specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For
each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions monitoring
system is two times the applicable emission limit, expressed as a
concentration.
(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure
1 shall be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B
of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or out-of-control
period, you must complete repairs and resume operation of your
monitoring system as expeditiously as possible.
(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emissions monitoring system using the performance specifications in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data for each regulated
pollutant and oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph
(b)(5) of this section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30-
to 60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions monitoring
systems and the test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through
(b)(4)(viii) of this section. Relative accuracy testing must be at
representative operating conditions while the SSI unit is charging
sewage sludge.
(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used.
(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, shall be used as specified in Tables 2 and 3 to this
subpart.
(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4, shall be used.
(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
shall be used.
(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8 shall be used. Alternatively for mercury, Method 30B at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), may be used.
(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, shall be used.
(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) must be used. For sources
that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million dry
volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide
continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater than 20
percent of the mean value of the method test data in terms of the units
of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume absolute
value of the mean difference between the method and the continuous
emissions monitoring system, whichever is greater.
(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of
this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, or as
an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be used.
(5) You may request that compliance with the emission limits 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
[[Page 15417]]
dioxide levels must be established during the initial performance test
according to the procedures and methods specified in paragraphs
(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be
re-established during subsequent performance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-2 must be used to determine the relationship between oxygen
and carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR
part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(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 three runs must be performed.
(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system and collect
data with the continuous monitoring system as follows:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods specified
in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or
quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that
you do not collect data using the continuous monitoring system
constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring system data
in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities conducted
during monitoring system malfunctions must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such
periods must be reported in a deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs
associated with periods when the monitoring system is out of control,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
conducted during out-of-control periods must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such
periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction
constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system
instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system according to the site-specific monitoring
plan developed in Sec. 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10),
and (q).
(ii) Collect data according to Sec. 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You must conduct air
pollution control device inspections that include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in Sec. 60.4880. This requirement also applies to you if
you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring
parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that sewage
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an emissions standards
deviation for all pollutants listed in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
The use of the bypass stack during a performance test invalidates the
performance test.
Sec. 60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring systems according to the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, pressure, pH,
and operating temperature measurement devices:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods specified
in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or
quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that
you do not collect data using the continuous monitoring system
constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring system data
in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities conducted
during monitoring system malfunctions must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such
periods must be reported in your annual deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs
associated with periods when the monitoring system is out of control,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
conducted during out-of-control periods must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such
periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction, as
defined in Sec. 60.4930, constitute a deviation from the monitoring
requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(vi) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring system
according to your monitoring plan required under Sec. 60.4880.
Additionally:
(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy, according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75
of this chapter.
(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon
[[Page 15418]]
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy.
(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in
continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under
Sec. 60.4880. Additionally:
(1) 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.
(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(3) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every
alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you must alleviate the cause of
the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective
action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not
limited to the following:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter
emissions.
(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous parameter
monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required
under Sec. 60.4880.
(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install,
calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a
device or method for measuring the use of the bypass stack including
date, time, and duration.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Sec. 60.4910 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs
(a) through (n) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All
records must be available on site in either paper copy or computer-
readable format that can be printed upon request, unless an alternative
format is approved by the Administrator.
(a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result of the siting
requirements of Sec. Sec. 60.4800 and 60.4805.
(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training
procedures and records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of
this section. You must make available and readily accessible at the
facility at all times for all SSI unit operators the documentation
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) Documentation of the following operator training procedures and
information:
(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart.
(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding sewage sludge.
(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction preventative
and corrective procedures.
(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply
levels.
(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and associated air
pollution control systems within the standards established under this
subpart.
(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating compliance with the
incinerator operating limits.
(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
(viii) Procedures for handling ash.
(ix) A list of the materials burned during the performance test, if
in addition to sewage sludge.
(x) For each qualified operator and other plant personnel who may
operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec. 60.4835(a), the
phone and/or pager number at which they can be reached during operating
hours.
(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec.
60.4835(a), as follows:
(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who have completed review of the information in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section as required by Sec. 60.4840(b), including the
date of the initial review and all subsequent annual reviews.
(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators who have
completed the operator training requirements under Sec. 60.4810, met
the criteria for qualification under Sec. 60.4820, and maintained or
renewed their qualification under Sec. 60.4825 or Sec. 60.4830.
Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of
their initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such
qualifications.
(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks, as required in
Sec. 60.4835(a).
(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for 2 weeks or more along with copies of reports submitted
as required in Sec. 60.4835(b).
(d) Air pollution control device inspections. Records of the
results of initial and annual air pollution control device inspections
conducted as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including
any required maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days
of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(e) Performance test reports.
(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
limits and standards and/or to establish operating limits, as
applicable.
(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test report,
including calculations.
(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate measured
during performance test runs, as specified in Sec. 60.4900(a)(2)(i).
(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that the performance
test was conducted under conditions representative of normal
operations, including a record of the moisture content measured as
required in Sec. 60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the
sewage sludge burned during the performance test.
(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 1-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans total mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead emissions.
(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all average
concentrations measured for mercury and dioxins/furans total mass basis
at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems:
(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the following operating
parameters, as applicable:
(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or afterburner
temperature).
[[Page 15419]]
(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the rule, pressure
drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid flow rate to each wet
scrubber used to comply with the emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid
flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used to comply
with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for sulfur
dioxide or hydrogen chloride.
(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to comply with the
rule, secondary voltage and secondary amperage of the electrostatic
precipitator collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the
outlet of the wet electrostatic precipitator.
(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop, as
applicable.
(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed rate and
moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge
incinerator, monitored and calculated as specified in Sec. 60.4850(f).
(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the rule, the date,
time, and duration of each alarm and the time corrective action was
initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the
alarm and the corrective action taken. You must also record the percent
of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm sounds,
calculated as specified in Sec. 60.4890.
(iv) For other control devices for which you must establish
operating limits under Sec. 60.4855, you must maintain data collected
for all operating parameters used to determine compliance with the
operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. You must keep
the following records, as applicable:
(1) Keep records of any notifications to the Administrator in Sec.
60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring
system for determining compliance with any emissions limit.
(2) Keep records of any requests under Sec. 60.4900(b)(5) that
compliance with the emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
the type of sorbent used and any changes in the type of sorbent used.
(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation reports submitted
under Sec. 60.4915(e) and (f).
(i) Equipment specifications and operation and maintenance
requirements. Equipment specifications and related operation and
maintenance requirements received from vendors for the incinerator,
emission controls, and monitoring equipment.
(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks of monitoring
devices. Records of inspections, calibrations, and validations checks
of any monitoring devices as required under Sec. Sec. 60.4900 and
60.4905.
(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for continuous
monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plans required under
Sec. 60.4880, and records of performance evaluations required under
Sec. 60.4885(b)(5).
(l) Less frequent testing. If, consistent with 60.4885(a)(3), you
elect to conduct performance tests less frequently than annually, you
must keep annual records that document that your emissions in the 2
previous consecutive years were at or below 75 percent of the
applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, and document
that there were no changes in source operations or air pollution
control equipment that would cause emissions of the relevant pollutant
to increase within the past 2 years.
(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass
stack, including dates, times, and durations as required under Sec.
60.4905(d).
(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record of the
information submitted in your annual report in Sec. 60.4915(d)(16).
Sec. 60.4915 What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (a) through (j)
of this section. See Table 5 to this subpart for a summary of these
reports.
(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a notification
prior to commencing construction that includes the four items listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section:
(1) A statement of intent to construct.
(2) The anticipated date of commencement of construction.
(3) All documentation produced as a result of the siting
requirements of Sec. 60.4805.
(4) Anticipated date of initial startup.
(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this
section prior to initial startup:
(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity.
(2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry sludge feed rate.
(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits
specified in Sec. 60.4855.
(4) The anticipated date of initial startup.
(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under Sec. 60.4880,
at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation of your
continuous monitoring system.
(6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system
required under Sec. 60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance with your fugitive ash
emission limit.
(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following
information no later than 60 days following the initial performance
test.
(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report.
(4) The complete test report for the initial performance test
results obtained by using the test methods specified in Table 1 or 2 to
this subpart.
(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring
system was conducted, the results of that initial performance
evaluation.
(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits established
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 60.4850 and 60.4855 and the calculations and
methods, as applicable, used to establish each operating limit.
(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with the emission
limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been
installed and is being operated, calibrated, and maintained as required
by Sec. 60.4850(b).
(8) The results of the initial air pollution control device
inspection required in Sec. 60.4875, including a description of
repairs.
(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an annual compliance
report that includes the items listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(d)(16) of this section for the reporting period specified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section. You must submit your first annual compliance
report no later than 12 months following the submission of the initial
compliance report in paragraph (c) of this section. You must submit
subsequent annual compliance reports no more than 12 months following
the previous annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit
these reports (or additional compliance information) more frequently by
the title V operating permit required in Sec. 60.4920.)
(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and
[[Page 15420]]
signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting
period, the results of that performance test.
(i) If operating limits were established during the performance
test, include the value for each operating limit and, as applicable,
the method used to establish each operating limit, including
calculations.
(ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test,
include the type of activated carbon used.
(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a
continuous monitoring system, the highest average value and lowest
average value recorded during the reporting period, as follows:
(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and continuous
automated sampling systems, report the highest and lowest 24-hour
average emission value.
(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, report the
following values:
(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber liquid pH, the
highest and lowest 12-hour average values.
(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-hour average
values.
(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting period from any
emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to
you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limits, emission standard, or operating limits.
(7) Information for bag leak detection systems recorded under Sec.
60.4910(f)(3)(iii).
(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system
was conducted, the results of that performance evaluation. If new
operating limits were established during the performance evaluation,
include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less frequently as
allowed in Sec. 60.4885(a)(3) and did not conduct a performance test
during the reporting period, you must include the dates of the last two
performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you achieved in
the last two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit
threshold specified in Sec. 60.4885(a)(3), and a statement as to
whether there have been any process changes and whether the process
change resulted in an increase in emissions.
(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI unit operators
were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks.
(11) Results of annual air pollution control device inspections
recorded under Sec. 60.4910(d) for the reporting period, including a
description of repairs.
(12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your
continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction.
(13) If there were no periods during the reporting period when a
continuous monitoring system was out of control, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring system was out
of control.
(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a statement
that there were no such deviations during the reporting period.
(15) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring
plan during the reporting period, a statement that you did not make any
revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan during the reporting
period. If you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan.
(16) 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.
(e) Deviation reports.
(1) You must submit a deviation report if:
(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on the averaging
time specified in Table 3 to this subpart, is above the maximum
operating limit or below the minimum operating limit established under
this subpart.
(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5
percent of the operating time for the 6-month reporting period.
(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions level is above
the emission limit, if a continuous monitoring system is used to comply
with an emission limit.
(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash
conveying system for more than 5 percent of the hourly observation
period.
(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any
emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of control.
(vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system
malfunction) that caused or may have caused any applicable emission
limit to be exceeded.
(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 1 of that year
for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January
1 to June 30), and by February 1 of the following year for data you
collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to
December 31).
(3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring
system to comply with an associated emission limit or operating limit,
report the items described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(viii)
of this section.
(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of
the report.
(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents.
(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each
deviation and any test report that documents the emission levels.
(viii) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system malfunctioned or was out of control, you must include the
following information for each deviation from an emission limit or
operating limit:
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out of control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
[[Page 15421]]
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction, during
a period when the system as out of control, or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the SSI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the SSI unit.
(I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(4) For each deviation where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system to comply with the associated emission limit or
operating limit, report the following items:
(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI during the
reporting period.
(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating limits, and
your corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vii) A copy of any performance test report that showed a deviation
from the emission limits or standard.
(viii) A brief description of any malfunction reported in paragraph
(e)(1)(vii) of this section, including a description of actions taken
during the malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with
60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction.
(f) Qualified operator deviation.
(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
(f)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 days that
includes the three items in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through
(f)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) A statement of what caused the deviation.
(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
available.
(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks that
includes the three items in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A) through
(f)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
accessible.
(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to continue
operation of the SSI unit.
(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, under the
provisions of Sec. 60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an
accessible qualified operator, you must notify the Administrator within
5 days of meeting Sec. 60.4835(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming
operation.
(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure:
(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date you first knew, or through due diligence
should have known that the event may cause or caused a delay in
conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but the
notification must occur before the performance test deadline unless the
initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the
notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as soon as
practicable.
(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct the
performance test.
(h) Other notifications and reports required. You must submit other
notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7 and as follows:
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting or
stopping use of a continuous monitoring system for determining
compliance with any emission limit.
(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 days prior to any
performance test conducted to comply with the provisions of this
subpart, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.4900(a)(8), you must notify the
Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled
performance test for which notification was previously made in
paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
(i) Report submission form.
(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec. 63.2, conducted
to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit relative
accuracy test audit (i.e., reference method) data and performance test
(i.e., compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically to
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/) or
other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
(j) Changing report dates. If the Administrator agrees, you may
change the semi-annual or annual reporting dates. See Sec. 60.19(c)
for procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.
Title V Operating Permits
Sec. 60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are required to apply
for and obtain a Title V operating permit unless you meet the relevant
requirements for an exemption specified in Sec. 60.4780.
Sec. 60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application for my
new SSI unit?
(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is not subject to
an earlier permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit
application must be submitted on or before one of the dates specified
in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of
[[Page 15422]]
this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)).
(1) For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new SSI unit as of
March 21, 2011, then a complete title V permit application must be
submitted not later than March 21, 2012.
(2) For a SSI unit that does not commence operation as a new SSI
unit until after March 21, 2011, then a complete title V permit
application must be submitted not later than 12 months after the date
the unit commences operation as a new source.
(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is subject to
title V as a result of some triggering requirement(s) other than this
subpart (for example, a unit subject to this subpart may be a major
source or part of a major source), then your unit may be required to
apply for a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one requirement triggers a
source's obligation to apply for a title V permit, the 12-month
timeframe for filing a title V permit application is triggered by the
requirement that first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See
section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(c) A ``complete'' title V permit application is one that has been
determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority
under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40
CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the
relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in
compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)
Definitions
Sec. 60.4930 What definitions must I know?
Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean
Air Act and Sec. 60.2.
Affected source means a sewage sludge incineration unit as defined
in Sec. 60.4930.
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, fuel
oil, or diesel fuel.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on January 1 and
ending on December 31.
Continuous automated sampling system means the total equipment and
procedures for automated sample collection and sample recovery/analysis
to determine a pollutant concentration or emission rate by collecting a
single integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of the
pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on- or off-site analysis;
integrated sample(s) collected are representative of the emissions for
the sample time as specified by the applicable requirement.
Continuous emissions monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording the emissions of a pollutant
from an affected facility.
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous automated sampling system, continuous
parameter monitoring system, or other manual or automatic monitoring
that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation
on a continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term refers to
the total equipment used to sample and condition (if applicable), to
analyze, and to provide a permanent record of emissions or process
parameters.
Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording operating conditions
associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g., operating
temperature, pressure, and power).
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic precipitator means
an air pollution control device that uses both electrical forces and,
if applicable, water to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage
sludge incinerator stack.
Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a sewage sludge
incineration unit the construction of which is commenced on or before
October 14, 2010.
Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter
media, also known as a baghouse.
Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in which organic
matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge are combusted in a bed of
particles suspended in the combustion chamber gas.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit later than
September 21, 2011 and that meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit
exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the
SSI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of SSI
unit.
(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of
operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted for
which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established
standards.
Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an existing
SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as defined in this section.
Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel furnace that
contains a number of solid refractory hearths and a central rotating
shaft; rabble arms that are designed to slowly rake the sludge on the
hearth are attached to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at
the top and proceeds downward through the
[[Page 15423]]
furnace from hearth to hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms.
New sewage sludge incineration unit means a SSI unit the
construction of which is commenced after October 14, 2010 which would
be applicable to such unit or a modified solid waste incineration unit.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of sewage sludge is
combusted at any time in the SSI unit.
Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter emitted from
SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or
Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8.
Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of
the test-run average secondary voltage and the test-run average
secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
Process change means a significant permit revision, but only with
respect to those pollutant-specific emission units for which the
proposed permit revision is applicable, including but not limited to:
(1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment
facility associated with the affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of
tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for
disposing of process solids and processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply
with the emission limits for the affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated
during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage
sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or
solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment
processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incineration unit or grit and screenings generated during
preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage sludge is
fed into the incinerator unit.
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an incineration unit
combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the
sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge
incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A
SSI unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed
system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system,
waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI
unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash
handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the
truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to
final disposal. The SSI unit does not include air pollution control
equipment or the stack.
Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage sludge has been
combusted in the primary chamber.
Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid,
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, agricultural operations, and from community
activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return
flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2014).
Standard conditions, when referring to units of measure, means a
temperature of 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere
(101.3 kilopascals).
Startup means the period of time between the activation, including
the firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or distillate oil), of the
system and the first feed to the unit.
Toxic equivalency means the product of the concentration of an
individual dioxin isomer in an environmental mixture and the
corresponding estimate of the compound-specific toxicity relative to
tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency
factor for that compound. Table 4 to this subpart lists the toxic
equivalency factors.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that
utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquid to collect particulate
matter (including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to
absorb and neutralize acid gases.
You means the owner or operator of a SSI unit that meets the
criteria in Sec. 60.4770.
Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards for New Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or compliance using this
durations method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................... 9.6 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-3;
meters per run). Method 26A or Method
29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 0.24 parts per million 3-run average (Collect Performance test
by dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 26A at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8).
[[Page 15424]]
Carbon monoxide...................... 27 parts per million by 24-hour block average Continuous emissions
dry volume. (using 1-hour averages monitoring system.
of data). For (Performance
determining compliance Specification 4B of
with the carbon this part, using a low-
monoxide concentration range span of 100 ppm
limit using carbon and a high-range span
monoxide CEMS, the of 1000 ppm, and a RA
correction to 7 of 0.5 ppm instead of
percent oxygen does 5 ppm specified in
not apply during section 13.2. For the
periods of startup or cylinder gas audit of
shutdown. Use the Procedure 1, +/- 15%
measured carbon or 0.5 whichever is
monoxide concentration greater).
without correcting for
oxygen concentration
in averaging with
other carbon monoxide
concentrations
(corrected to 7
percent oxygen) to
determine the 24-hour
average value.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis); or 0.013 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency standard cubic meter a minimum volume of 3 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
basis) \b\. (total mass basis); or dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
0.0044 nanograms per meters per run). 7).
dry standard cubic
meter (toxic
equivalency basis).
Mercury.............................. 0.0010 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved part 60, appendix A-8;
2008),\c\ collect a Method 30B at 40 CFR
minimum volume of 3 part 60, appendix A-8;
dry standard cubic or ASTM D6784-02
meters per run. For (Reapproved 2008).\c\
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 30 parts per million by 3-run average (Collect Performance test
dry volume. sample for a minimum (Method 7 or 7E at 40
duration of one hour CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 5.3 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6C at 40
minimum volume of 100 CFR part 40, appendix
liters per run. For A-4; or ANSI/ASME PTC
Method 6C, sample for 19.10-1981.\c\
a minimum duration of
one hour per run).
Cadmium.............................. 0.0011 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8). Use GFAAS or ICP/
MS for the analytical
finish.
Lead................................. 0.00062 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 3 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-8.
meters per run). Use GFAAS or ICP/MS
for the analytical
finish.
Fugitive emissions from ash handling. Visible emissions of Three 1-hour Visible emission test
combustion ash from an observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
ash conveying system A-7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for
no more than 5 percent
of the hourly
observation period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
\b\ You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the
dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic equivalency basis.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
[[Page 15425]]
Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or compliance using this
durations method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter................... 60 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of (Method 5 at 40 CFR
0.75 dry standard part 60, appendix A-3;
cubic meters per run). Method 26A or Method
29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 1.2 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 200 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Carbon monoxide...................... 52 parts per million by 24-hour block average Continuous emissions
dry volume. (using 1-hour averages monitoring system.
of data). (Performance
Specification 4B of
this part, using a low-
range span of 100 ppm
and a high-range span
of 1000 ppm, and a
relative accuracy of
0.5 ppm instead of 5
ppm specified in
section 13.2. For the
cylinder gas audit of
Procedure 1, +/- 15%
or 0.5 whichever is
greater).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis); or 0.045 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency standard cubic meter a minimum volume of 3 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
basis) \b\. (total mass basis); or dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
0.0022 nanograms per meters per run). 7).
dry standard cubic
meter (toxic
equivalency basis).
Mercury.............................. 0.15 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Performance test
standard cubic meter. Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 at 40 CFR
D6784-02 (Reapproved part 60, appendix A-8;
2008),\c\ collect a Method 30B at 40 CFR
minimum volume of 1 part 60, appendix A-8;
dry standard cubic or ASTM D6784-02
meters per run. For (Reapproved 2008).\c\
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 210 parts per million 3-run average (Collect Performance test
by dry volume. sample for a minimum (Method 7 or 7E at 40
duration of one hour CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 26 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6C at 40
minimum volume of 200 CFR part 40, appendix
liters per run. For A-4; or ANSI/ASME PTC
Method 6C, collect 19.10-1981.\c\
sample for a minimum
duration of one hour
per run).
Cadmium.............................. 0.0024 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8). Use GFAAS or ICP/
MS for the analytical
finish.
Lead................................. 0.0035 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-8.
meters per run). Use GFAAS or ICP/MS
for the analytical
finish.
Fugitive emissions from ash handling. Visible emissions of Three 1-hour Visible emission test
combustion ash from an observation periods. (Method 22 of appendix
ash conveying system A-7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for
no more than 5 percent
of the hourly
observation period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
\b\ You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the
dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic equivalency basis.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
[[Page 15426]]
Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
You must establish these -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these operating parameters operating limits Data averaging period for
Data measurement Data recording \b\ compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sewage sludge incineration units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combustion chamber operating Minimum combustion Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
temperature or afterburner chamber operating
temperature. temperature or
afterburner temperature.
Fugitive emissions from ash Site-specific operating Not applicable............... Not applicable............... Not applicable.
handling. requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure drop across each wet Minimum pressure drop.... Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
scrubber.
Scrubber liquid flow rate........ Minimum flow rate........ Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
Scrubber liquid pH............... Minimum pH............... Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 3-hour block.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time of the bag leak Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in Sec. 60.4850 and is
detection system alarm. not established on a site-specific basis).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrostatic precipitator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage of the Minimum power input to Continuous................... Hourly....................... 12-hour block.
electrostatic precipitator the electrostatic
collection plates. precipitator collection
plates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator
collection plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the Minimum effluent water Hourly....................... Hourly....................... 12-hour block.
outlet of the electrostatic flow rate at the outlet
precipitator. of the electrostatic
precipitator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activated carbon injection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury sorbent injection rate... Minimum mercury sorbent Hourly....................... Hourly....................... 12-hour block.
injection rate.
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection Minimum dioxin/furan
rate. sorbent injection rate.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier Minimum carrier gas flow Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
gas pressure drop. rate or minimum carrier
gas pressure drop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As specified in Sec. 60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing
certain operating limits.
\b\ This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data
recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-
hour block average specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic
Dioxin/furan isomer equivalency
factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin................. 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............... 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.......................... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran..................... 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............... 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran.............................. 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15427]]
Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
\a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification of construction.. Prior to 1. Statement of intent to Sec. 60.4915(a).
commencing construct.
construction. 2. Anticipated date of
commencement of construction..
3. Documentation for siting
requirements..
4. Anticipated date of initial
startup..
Notification of initial Prior to initial 1. Maximum design dry sewage Sec. 60.4915(b).
startup. startup. sludge burning capacity.
2. Anticipated and permitted
maximum feed rate..
3. If applicable, the petition
for site-specific operating
limits..
4. Anticipated date of initial
startup..
5. Site-specific monitoring
plan..
6. The site-specific monitoring
plan for your ash handling
system..
Initial compliance report..... No later than 60 1. Company name and address..... Sec. 60.4915(c).
days following 2. Statement by a responsible
the initial official, with that official's
performance test. name, title, and signature,
certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report..
3. Date of report...............
4. Complete test report for the
initial performance test..
5. Results of CMS \b\
performance evaluation..
6. The values for the site-
specific operating limits and
the calculations and methods,
as applicable, used to
establish each operating limit..
7. Documentation of installation
of bag leak detection system
for fabric filter..
8. Results of initial air
pollution control device
inspection, including a
description of repairs..
Annual compliance report...... No later than 12 1. Company name and address..... Sec. Sec. 60.4915(d).
months following 2. Statement and signature by
the submission responsible official..
of the initial 3. Date and beginning and ending
compliance dates of report..
report; 4. If a performance test was
subsequent conducted during the reporting
reports are to period, the results of the
be submitted no test, including any new
more than 12 operating limits and associated
months following calculations and the type of
the previous activated carbon used, if
report. applicable..
5. For each pollutant and
operating parameter recorded
using a CMS, the highest
recorded 3-hour average and the
lowest recorded 3-hour average,
as applicable..
6. If no deviations from
emission limits, emission
standards, or operating limits
occurred, a statement that no
deviations occurred..
7. If a fabric filter is used,
the date, time, and duration of
alarms..
8. If a performance evaluation
of a CMS was conducted, the
results, including any new
operating limits and their
associated calculations..
9. If you met the requirements
of Sec. 60.4885(a)(3) and did
not conduct a performance test,
include the dates of the last
three performance tests, a
comparison to the 50 percent
emission limit threshold of the
emission level achieved in the
last three performance tests,
and a statement as to whether
there have been any process
changes..
10. Documentation of periods
when all qualified SSI unit
operators were unavailable for
more than 8 hours but less than
2 weeks..
11. Results of annual pollutions
control device inspections,
including description of
repairs..
12. If there were no periods
during which your CMSs had
malfunctions, a statement that
there were no periods during
which your CMSs had
malfunctions..
13. If there were no periods
during which your CMSs were out
of control, a statement that
there were no periods during
which your CMSs were out of
control..
14. If there were no operator
training deviations, a
statement that there were no
such deviations..
15. Information on monitoring
plan revisions, including a
copy of any revised monitoring
plan..
[[Page 15428]]
Deviation report (deviations By August 1 of a If using a CMS: 1. Company name Sec. 60.4915(e).
from emission limits, calendar year and address.
emission standards, or for data 2. Statement by a responsible
operating limits, as collected during official..
specified in Sec. the first half 3. The calendar dates and times
60.4915(e)(1)). of the calendar your unit deviated from the
year; by emission limits or operating
February 1 of a limits..
calendar year 4. The averaged and recorded
for data data for those dates..
collected during 5. Duration and cause of each
the second half deviation..
of the calendar 6. Dates, times, and causes for
year. monitor downtime incidents..
7. A copy of the operating
parameter monitoring data
during each deviation and any
test report that documents the
emission levels..
8. For periods of CMS
malfunction or when a CMS was
out of control, you must
include the information
specified in Sec.
60.4915(e)(3)(viii)..
If not using a CMS:.............
1. Company name and address.....
2. Statement by a responsible
official..
3. The total operating time of
each affected SSI..
4. The calendar dates and times
your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission
standard, or operating limits..
5. The averaged and recorded
data for those dates..
6. Duration and cause of each
deviation..
7. A copy of any performance
test report that showed a
deviation from the emission
limits or standards..
8. A brief description of any
malfunction, a description of
actions taken during the
malfunction to minimize
emissions, and corrective
action taken..
Notification of qualified Within 10 days of 1. Statement of cause of Sec. 60.4915(f).
operator deviation (if all deviation. deviation.
qualified operators are not 2. Description of actions taken
accessible for 2 weeks or to ensure that a qualified
more). operator will be available.
3. The date when a qualified
operator will be accessible..
Notification of status of Every 4 weeks 1. Description of actions taken Sec. 60.4915(f).
qualified operator deviation. following to ensure that a qualified
notification of operator is accessible.
deviation. 2. The date when you anticipate
that a qualified operator will
be accessible..
3. Request for approval to
continue operation..
Notification of resumed Within 5 days of 1. Notification that you have Sec. 60.4915(f).
operation following shutdown obtaining a obtained a qualified operator
(due to qualified operator qualified and are resuming operation.
deviation and as specified in operator and
Sec. 60.4835(b)(2)(i). resuming
operation.
Notification of a force As soon as 1. Description of the force Sec. 60.4915(g).
majeure. practicable majeure event.
following the 2. Rationale for attributing the
date you first delay in conducting the
knew, or through performance test beyond the
due diligence regulatory deadline to the
should have force majeure..
known that the 3. Description of the measures
event may cause taken or to be taken to
or caused a minimize the delay..
delay in 4. Identification of the date by
conducting a which you propose to conduct
performance test the performance test..
beyond the
regulatory
deadline; 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.
Notification of intent to 1 month before 1. Intent to start or stop use Sec. 60.4915(h).
start or stop use of a CMS. starting or of a CMS.
stopping use of
a CMS.
Notification of intent to At least 30 days 1. Intent to conduct a
conduct a performance test. prior to the performance test to comply with
performance test. this subpart.
Notification of intent to At least 7 days 1. Intent to conduct a
conduct a rescheduled prior to the rescheduled performance test to
performance test. date of a comply with this subpart.
rescheduled
performance test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
\b\ CMS means continuous monitoring system.
[[Page 15429]]
Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Sec.
Table of Contents
Introduction
60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?
60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?
60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?
60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?
60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?
60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration
letter?
60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my state plan?
60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this subpart that
apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other
acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129
(b)(2) obligations?
60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies?
60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners and
operators in my state?
Applicability of State Plans
60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?
60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?
Use of Model Rule
60.5070 What is the ``model rule'' in this subpart?
60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required elements of
my state plan?
60.5080 What are the principal components of the model rule?
Model Rule--Increments of Progress
60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of progress
and achieving final compliance?
60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?
60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?
60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal
of a control plan?
60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving
final compliance?
60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then restart it?
60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my SSI unit
and not restart it?
Model Rule--Operator Training and Qualification
60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified operators and plant personnel?
Model Rule--Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits
and Requirements
60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet and by
when?
60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit emissions in some
other manner, to comply with the emission limits?
60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and operating
limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for exceedance of an
emission limit or standard during malfunction?
Model Rule--Initial Compliance Requirements
60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?
60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash handling systems,
and by what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation?
Model Rule--Continuous Compliance Requirements
60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
Model Rule--Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration
Requirements
60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
Model Rule--Recordkeeping and Reporting
60.5230 What records must I keep?
60.5235 What reports must I submit?
Model Rule--Title V Operating Permits
60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating
permit for my existing SSI unit?
60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application for my
existing SSI unit?
Model Rule--Definitions
60.5250 What definitions must I know?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of
Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and
Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units
Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and
Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units
Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Operating Parameters
for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency
Factors
Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Summary of Reporting
Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Introduction
60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of emissions from sewage sludge incineration
(SSI) units. The pollutants addressed by these emission guidelines are
listed in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are
developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent any requirement of this
subpart is inconsistent with the requirements of subpart A of this
part, the requirements of this subpart will apply.
Sec. 60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a
state or United States protectorate with one or more SSI units that
commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010, you must submit a
state plan to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that
implements the emission guidelines contained in this subpart.
(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by March 21, 2012.
[[Page 15430]]
Sec. 60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?
No. You are not required to submit a state plan if there are no SSI
units for which construction commenced on or before October 14, 2010 in
your state, and you submit a negative declaration letter in place of
the state plan.
Sec. 60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?
(a) You must include the nine items described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(9) of this section in your state plan.
(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those that have
ceased operation but have not been dismantled.
(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in your state.
(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit.
(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and
qualification requirements, and operating limits for affected SSI units
that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in
this subpart.
(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan was held, a
list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any,
appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each
presentation or written submission.
(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA.
(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms that you
selected for implementing the emission guidelines of this subpart.
(9) Demonstration of your state's legal authority to carry out the
sections 111(d) and 129 state plan.
(b) Your state plan may deviate from the format and content of the
emission guidelines contained in this subpart. However, if your state
plan does deviate in content, you must demonstrate that your state plan
is at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this
subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory applicability,
increments of progress for retrofit, operator training and
qualification, emission limits and standards, performance testing,
operating limits, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting.
(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of this part
(Adoption and Submittal of state plans for Designated Facilities) in
your state plan.
Sec. 60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?
Yes. The EPA will review your state plan according to Sec. 60.27.
Sec. 60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?
If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a negative
declaration letter) by March 21, 2013, EPA will develop a Federal plan
according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the emission guidelines contained
in this subpart. Owners and operators of SSI units not covered by an
approved state plan must comply with the Federal plan. The Federal plan
is an interim action and will be automatically withdrawn when your
state plan is approved.
Sec. 60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative declaration
letter?
No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative declaration
letters. Once your negative declaration letter has been received, EPA
will place a copy in the public docket and publish a notice in the
Federal Register. If, at a later date, a SSI unit for which
construction commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your
state, the Federal plan implementing the emission guidelines contained
in this subpart would automatically apply to that SSI unit until your
state plan is approved.
Sec. 60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my state
plan?
(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or before October
14, 2010, your state plan must include compliance schedules that
require SSI units to achieve final compliance as expeditiously as
practicable after approval of the state plan but not later than the
earlier of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section.
(1) March 21, 2016.
(2) Three years after the effective date of state plan approval.
(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 year following
the effective date of state plan approval, state plans must include
dates for enforceable increments of progress as specified in Sec.
60.5090.
Sec. 60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this subpart
that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for developing and
processing section 111(d) state plans. This subpart applies instead of
the requirements in subpart B of this part, as specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section:
(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart must be as
protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. State
plans must require all SSI units to comply by the dates specified in
Sec. 60.5035. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.
60.24(f).
(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart are required to
include two increments of progress for the affected SSI units. These
two minimum increments are the final control plan submittal date and
final compliance date in Sec. 60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies
instead of the requirement of Sec. 60.24(e)(1) that would require a
state plan to include all five increments of progress for all SSI
units.
Sec. 60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other
acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129 (b)(2)
obligations?
Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129
obligations by submitting an acceptable written request for delegation
of the Federal plan that meets the requirements of this section. This
is the only other option for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129
obligations.
(a) An acceptable Federal plan delegation request must include the
following:
(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to
administer and enforce the Federal plan.
(2) The items under Sec. 60.5015(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(7).
(3) Certification that the hearing on the state delegation request,
similar to the hearing for a state plan submittal, was held, a list of
witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at
the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or
written submission.
(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Regional Administrator that sets forth the terms, conditions, and
effective date of the delegation and that serves as the mechanism for
the transfer of authority. Additional guidance and information is given
in EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and Enforcement
of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) Federal plans.
(b) A state with an already approved SSI Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from receiving EPA approval of a
delegation request for the revised Federal plan, provided the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met, and at the time
of the delegation request, the state
[[Page 15431]]
also requests withdrawal of EPA's previous state plan approval.
(c) A state's Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 obligations are
separate from its obligations under title V of the Clean Air Act.
Sec. 60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, local,
or tribal agencies?
The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this
section.
(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards
in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and operating limits established
under Sec. 60.5175 or Sec. 60.5190.
(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods.
(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring.
(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting.
(e) The requirements in Sec. 60.5175.
(f) The requirements in Sec. 60.5155(b)(2).
(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.8(b).
Sec. 60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners and
operators in my state?
(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI unit owners and
operators in your state. However, SSI unit owners and operators must
comply with the state plan you develop to implement the emission
guidelines contained in this subpart. States may choose to incorporate
the model rule text directly in their state plan.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines contained in this subpart by March 21, 2012, EPA
will implement and enforce a Federal plan, as provided in Sec.
60.5025, to ensure that each unit within your state that commenced
construction on or before October 14, 2010 reaches compliance with all
the provisions of this subpart by the dates specified in Sec. 60.5035.
Applicability of State Plans
Sec. 60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?
(a) Your state plan must address SSI units that meet all three
criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) SSI units in your state that commenced construction on or
before October 14, 2010.
(2) SSI units that meet the definition of a SSI unit as defined in
Sec. 60.5250.
(3) SSI units not exempt under Sec. 60.5065.
(b) If the owner or operator of a SSI unit makes changes that meet
the definition of modification after September 21, 2011, the SSI unit
becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this part and the state plan no
longer applies to that unit.
(c) If the owner or operator of a SSI unit makes physical or
operational changes to a SSI unit for which construction commenced on
or before September 21, 2011 primarily to comply with your state plan,
subpart LLLL of this part does not apply to that unit. Such changes do
not qualify as modifications under subpart LLLL of this part.
Sec. 60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?
This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge
and are not located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge. These units may be subject to another
subpart of this part (e.g., subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or
operator of such a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an
exemption claim under this section.
Use of Model Rule
Sec. 60.5070 What is the ``model rule'' in this subpart?
(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission guidelines
(Sec. Sec. 60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the regulatory
requirements applicable to SSI units. The model rule provides these
requirements in regulation format. You must develop a state plan that
is at least as protective as the model rule. You may use the model rule
language as part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used
in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alternative language is
at least as protective as the model rule contained in this subpart.
(b) In the model rule of Sec. Sec. 60.5085 through 60.5250,
``you'' and ``Administrator'' have the meaning specified in Sec.
60.5250.
Sec. 60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required elements
of my state plan?
Use the model rule to satisfy the state plan requirements specified
in Sec. 60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5).
Sec. 60.5080 What are the principal components of the model rule?
The model rule contains the nine major components listed in
paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
(a) Increments of progress toward compliance.
(b) Operator training and qualification.
(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
(d) Initial compliance requirements.
(e) Continuous compliance requirements.
(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
(g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(h) Definitions.
(i) Tables.
Model Rule--Increments of Progress
Sec. 60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of
progress and achieving final compliance?
If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the
effective date of state plan approval, you must meet the two increments
of progress specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Submit a final control plan.
(b) Achieve final compliance.
Sec. 60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?
Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for each
increment of progress.
Sec. 60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of achievement
of increments of progress?
Your notification of achievement of increments of progress must
include the three items specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(a) Notification that the increment of progress has been achieved.
(b) Any items required to be submitted with each increment of
progress.
(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
Notifications for achieving increments of progress must be
postmarked no later than 10 business days after the compliance date for
the increment.
Sec. 60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?
If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a
notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days
after the date for that increment of progress in Table 1 to this
subpart. You must inform the Administrator that you did not meet the
increment, and you must continue to submit reports each subsequent
calendar month until the increment of progress is met.
Sec. 60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for
submittal of a control plan?
For your control plan increment of progress, you must satisfy the
two
[[Page 15432]]
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the four items
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(1) A description of the devices for air pollution control and
process changes that you will use to comply with the emission limits
and standards and other requirements of this subpart.
(2) The type(s) of waste to be burned, if waste other than sewage
sludge is burned in the unit.
(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity.
(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits
under Sec. 60.5175.
(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control plan.
Sec. 60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for
achieving final compliance?
For the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete
all process changes and retrofit construction of control devices, as
specified in the final control plan, so that, if the affected SSI unit
is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution
control devices would operate as designed.
Sec. 60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then restart
it?
(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it prior to the
final compliance date in your state plan, you must meet the increments
of progress specified in Sec. 60.5085.
(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it after your final
compliance date, you must complete emission control retrofits and meet
the emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits on the
date your unit restarts operation.
Sec. 60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my SSI
unit and not restart it?
If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply with the
state plan, submit a closure notification, including the date of
closure, to the Administrator by the date your final control plan is
due.
Model Rule--Operator Training and Qualification
Sec. 60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit.
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you
must follow the procedures in Sec. 60.5155.
(b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a
state-approved program or by completing the requirements included in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Training must be obtained by completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a minimum, the three elements
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (c)(1)(x) of this section.
(i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions.
(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion.
(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by
the operator, including proper startup, sewage sludge feeding, and
shutdown procedures.
(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring.
(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors
affecting performance (if applicable).
(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air
pollution control devices.
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures.
(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards.
(x) Pollution prevention.
(2) An examination designed and administered by the state-approved
program.
(3) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.
Sec. 60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed?
The operator training course must be completed by the later of the
three dates specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2).
(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
(c) Six months after an employee assumes responsibility for
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the
operation of the SSI unit.
Sec. 60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
(a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under Sec. 60.5130(b).
(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training
course is completed and the operator successfully passes the
examination required under Sec. 60.5130(c)(2).
Sec. 60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or
refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Update of regulations.
(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown
procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash handling.
(c) Inspection and maintenance.
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.
Sec. 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before you begin
operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, you must complete a standard
annual refresher course described in Sec. 60.5145.
(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial
qualification requirements in Sec. 60.5140(a).
Sec. 60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
If a qualified operator is not at the facility and cannot be at the
facility within 1 hour, you must meet the criteria specified in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, depending on the length of time
that a qualified operator is not accessible.
(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for more than 8
hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other
plant personnel who are familiar with the operation of the SSI unit and
who have completed a review of the information specified in Sec.
60.5160 within the past 12 months. However, you must record the period
when a qualified operator was not accessible and include this deviation
in the annual report as specified under Sec. 60.5235(d).
(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions that are
[[Page 15433]]
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10
days. In the notice, state what caused this deviation, what you are
doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you
anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible.
(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks
outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will
be accessible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to
continue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first status
report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is
accessible as required under Sec. 60.5130(a). You must notify the
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having
a qualified operator accessible.
Sec. 60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and how
often must it be reviewed by qualified operators and plant personnel?
(a) You must maintain at the facility the documentation of the
operator training procedures specified under Sec. 60.5230(c)(1) and
make the documentation readily accessible to all SSI unit operators.
(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information
listed in Sec. 60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified incinerator operator
and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the
provisions of Sec. 60.5155(a), according to the following schedule:
(1) The initial review of the information listed in Sec.
60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the effective
date of this subpart or prior to an employee's assumption of
responsibilities for operation of the SSI unit, whichever date is
later.
(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in Sec.
60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 months following the
previous review.
Model Rule--Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits
and Requirements
Sec. 60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by
when?
You must meet the emission limits and standards specified in Table
2 or 3 to this subpart by the final compliance date under the approved
state plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission
limits and standards apply at all times the unit is operating and
during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards apply
to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage sludge is in the
combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor
has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge
incineration residence time).
Sec. 60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet and
by when?
You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this section,
according to the schedule specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
The operating parameters for which you will establish operating limits
for a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or
activated carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to this subpart. You
must comply with the operating requirements in paragraph (f) of this
section and the requirements in paragraph (g) of this section for
meeting any new operating limits, re-established in Sec. 60.5210. The
operating limits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the
combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor
has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge
incineration residence time).
(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for minimum
operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner
combustion chamber) that you establish in Sec. 60.5190.
(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
activated carbon injection, or afterburner to comply with an emission
limit, you must meet the site-specific operating limits that you
establish in Sec. 60.5190 for each operating parameter associated with
each air pollution control device.
(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits,
you must install the bag leak detection system specified in Sec. Sec.
60.5200(b) and 60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag leak detection
system such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the
operating time during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm
time as specified in Sec. 60.5210(a)(2)(i).
(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your site-specific
fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted as specified in Sec.
60.5200(d) to ensure that your ash handling system will meet the
emission standard for fugitive emissions from ash handling.
(e) You must meet the operating limits and requirements specified
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section by the final compliance
date under the approved state plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as
applicable.
(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture content of the
sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator, as specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate and calculate
a daily average for all hours of operation during each 24-hour period.
Keep a record of the daily average feed rate, as specified in Sec.
60.5230(f)(3)(ii).
(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the sewage sludge fed
to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you take more than one grab sample
in a day, calculate the daily average for the grab samples. Keep a
record of the daily average moisture content, as specified in Sec.
60.5230(f)(3)(ii).
(g) For the operating limits and requirements specified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this section, you must meet any
new operating limits and requirements, re-established according to
Sec. 60.5210(d).
(h) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection to comply with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart, you must meet any site-specific operating limits or
requirements that you establish as required in Sec. 60.5175.
Sec. 60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit emissions in some other
manner, to comply with the emission limits?
If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated carbon
injection, or afterburner, or limit emissions in some other manner
(e.g., materials balance) to comply with the emission limits in Sec.
60.5165, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and requirements in Sec.
60.4850, and establish applicable operating limits according to Sec.
60.5190.
[[Page 15434]]
(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating parameters,
operating limits, and averaging periods to be established during the
initial performance test and to be monitored continuously thereafter.
(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the
application prior to the performance test. You must not conduct the
initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by
the Administrator, and you must comply with the operating limits as
written, pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal of an
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(2) Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section.
(i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to
monitor.
(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters, and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters that will establish the operating limits on
these parameters, including a discussion of the averaging periods
associated with those parameters for determining compliance.
(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
Sec. 60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The emission limits and standards apply at all times and during
periods of malfunction. The operating limits apply at all times that
sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage
sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not
less than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). For
determining compliance with the CO concentration limit using CO CEMS,
the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during periods of
startup or shutdown. Use the measured CO concentration without
correcting for oxygen concentration in averaging with other CO
concentrations (corrected to 7 percent O2) to determine the
24-hour average value.
Sec. 60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for exceedance
of an emission limit or standard during malfunction?
In response to an action to enforce the numerical emission
standards set forth in paragraph Sec. 60.5165, you may assert an
affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunction, as defined in Sec.
60.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to
meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of
this section are met.
(1) The excess emissions:
(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and (ii) Could not have
been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better
operation and maintenance practices, and (iii) Did not stem from any
activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned
for, and
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance, and
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limits were being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs, and
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions, and (4) If the excess emissions
resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the
bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage, and
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health, and
(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices, and
(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, and
(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions, and
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit experiencing an
exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a malfunction, shall notify
the Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon
as possible, but no later than 2 business days after the initial
occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner
or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also submit
a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of the initial
occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in Sec. 60.5165 to
demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has
met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The
owner or operator may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30
additional days by submitting a written request to the Administrator
before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an
extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator
is subject to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of
the initial occurrence of the exceedance.
Model Rule--Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and
standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to
demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic
[[Page 15435]]
equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium,
lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable,
and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the
performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in Sec.
60.5220(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test
required in Sec. 60.8. You must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets
the emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions
from ash handling using the performance test. The initial performance
test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging methods, and
minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in Sec. 60.5220(a).
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by your final compliance date
(see Table 1 to this subpart).
(2) You may use the results from a performance test conducted
within the 2 previous years that was conducted under the same
conditions and demonstrated compliance with the emission limits and
standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, provided no process changes
have been made since you conducted that performance test. However, you
must continue to meet the operating limits established during the most
recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission
limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance
test must have used the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart.
(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option
to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/
furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register. The
option to use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans
takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a
continuous automated sampling system is published in the Federal
Register. Collect data as specified in Sec. 60.5220(b)(6) and use the
following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or
toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial performance test
required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
in lieu of conducting the initial performance test for that pollutant
in paragraph (a) of this section. For determining compliance with the
carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the
correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during periods of startup
or shutdown. Use the measured carbon monoxide concentration without
correcting for oxygen concentration in averaging with other carbon
monoxide concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine
the 24-hour average value.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the annual
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in Table 2 or
3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and follow the
requirements specified in Sec. 60.5220(b). You must measure emissions
according to Sec. 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate
initial compliance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour
arithmetic average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation
19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in Table 2 or
3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour block averages to determine compliance with the mercury
emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week block averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan
(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit in Table 2
to this subpart.
(ii) Comply with the provisions in Sec. 60.58b(q) to develop a
monitoring plan. For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you
must use Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and
Procedure 5 of appendix F of this part.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your initial performance evaluations required under your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring systems and
continuous automated sampling systems by your final compliance date
(see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance evaluation must be
conducted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in
Sec. 60.5200(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, determine
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through
octachlorinated-isomer emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan (tetra- through
octa-chlorinated) isomer by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 5 to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated
in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section to obtain the total
concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified in Sec.
60.5235(b).
(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the performance
test specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the provisions of
this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force
majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial performance test as soon
as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the extension to the initial
performance test
[[Page 15436]]
deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of
the request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an extension
of the performance test deadline has been approved by the
Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
Sec. 60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?
(a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified
in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section or established in Sec.
60.5175, as applicable, during your initial performance tests required
in Sec. 60.5185. You must meet the requirements in Sec. 60.5210(d) to
confirm these operating limits or re-establishre-establish new
operating limits using operating data recorded during any performance
tests or performance evaluations required in Sec. 60.5205. You must
follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and data
averaging times specified in Table 4 to this subpart or as established
in Sec. 60.5175, and you must follow the testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5220 and 60.5225 or
established in Sec. 60.5175. You are not required to establish
operating limits for the operating parameters listed in Table 4 to this
subpart for a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart for the applicable pollutants, as follows:
(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of hydrogen
chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor scrubber liquid flow rate or scrubber
liquid pH if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in
Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide.
(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of particulate
matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor pressure drop across the scrubber or
scrubber liquid flow rate if you use the continuous monitoring system
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and
lead.
(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to control emissions
of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to
establish an operating limit and monitor secondary voltage of the
collection plates, secondary amperage of the collection plates, or
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in
Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for particulate matter, lead, and cadmium.
(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed to control
emissions of mercury, you are not required to establish an operating
limit and monitor sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or
carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for mercury.
(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed to control
emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not required to establish an
operating limit and monitor sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow
rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in Sec. Sec. 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for dioxins/furans
(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis).
(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber used to meet the
particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits in Table 2 or 3
to this subpart, equal to the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop
across each such wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter,
lead, and cadmium emission limits.
(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at the inlet to
each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour average liquid flow rate
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with all applicable emission limits. (d) Minimum scrubber
liquid pH for each wet scrubber used to meet the sulfur dioxide or
hydrogen chloride emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart,
equal to the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid pH measured during
the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride emission limits.
(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature (or minimum
afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 4-hour average combustion
chamber operating temperature (or afterburner temperature) measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
all applicable emission limits.
(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium
emission limits. Power input must be calculated as the product of the
secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator collection plates. Both the secondary voltage and
secondary amperage must be recorded during the performance test. (g)
Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-hour average effluent water flow
rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator measured during
the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the
particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. (h) For
activated carbon injection, establish the site-specific operating
limits specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section.
(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to the lowest 4-
hour average mercury sorbent injection rate measured during the most
recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the mercury
emission limit.
(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, equal to the
lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate measured
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission
limit.
(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure
drop, as follows:
(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the lowest 4-hour
average carrier gas flow rate measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit.
(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the lowest 4-hour
average carrier gas flow rate measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit.
Sec. 60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device inspection
according to Sec. 60.5220(c) by the final compliance date under the
approved state plan, Federal plan, or delegation, as applicable. For
air pollution control devices installed after the final compliance
date, you must conduct the air pollution control device inspection
within 60 days after installation of the control device.
[[Page 15437]]
(b) Within 10 operating days following the air pollution control
device inspection under paragraph (a) of this section, all necessary
repairs must be completed unless you obtain written approval from the
Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the
SSI unit must be completed.
Sec. 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash handling systems,
and by what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation?
You must develop and submit to the Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system
required under this subpart, according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this
section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system to comply
with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency
basis) emission limits, you must develop your monitoring plan as
specified in Sec. 60.58b(q), and you are not required to meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also
submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system, as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must submit and update
your monitoring plans as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of
this section.
(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your monitoring plan
must address the elements and requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(8) of this section. You must operate and maintain
the continuous monitoring system in continuous operation according to
the site-specific monitoring plan.
(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but is not limited to,
the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in Sec. 60.13.
(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., relative
accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part.
(C) The applicable procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration drift tests) in appendix F of this
part.
(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration of out-of-
control periods will affect the suitability of CEMS data, where out-of-
control has the meaning given in section (a)(7)(i) of this section.
(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must include, but is not limited to,
the following:
(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install 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 no greater
than 2 percent of the expected process flow rate.
(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal velocity
distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance evaluation in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than annually.
(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., particulate matter
scrubber pressure drop).
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
(4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each
performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system
continues to meet the performance requirements in your monitoring plan.
Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new pressure
sensor.
(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH monitoring
system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Install 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) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at least once each process
operating day.
(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a two-point
calibration with one of the two buffer solutions having a pH within 1
of the operating limit pH level) of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than quarterly.
(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
temperature measurement device, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install the temperature sensor and other necessary equipment in
a position that provides a representative temperature.
(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.8
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic temperature
range.
(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.8
degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger, for a cryogenic temperature
range.
(4) Conduct a temperature measurement device performance evaluation
at the time of each performance test but no less frequently than
annually.
(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a secondary
electric power monitoring system for an electrostatic precipitator, you
must meet the
[[Page 15438]]
requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(E)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric power
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
monitoring system to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt,
weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(F)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent injection rate
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f) and (g).
(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous monitoring system is
out of control, as follows:
(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control if the
conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) of this section
are met.
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of control as
specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you must take the
necessary corrective action and must repeat all necessary tests that
indicate that the system is out of control. You must take corrective
action and conduct retesting until the performance requirements are
below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period
is the hour you conduct a performance check (e.g., calibration drift)
that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements
established under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is
the hour following the completion of corrective action and successful
demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits.
(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance
evaluations of your continuous monitoring systems.
(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your monitoring plan
must include a description of the following items:
(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a position(s) that
will be representative of the relative or absolute particulate matter
loadings for each exhaust stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a
positive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.
(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established. Use a
bag leak detection system equipped with a system that will sound an
alarm when the system detects an increase in relative particulate
matter emissions over a preset level. The alarm must be located where
it is observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized easily
by plant operating personnel.
(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak detection
system, performed in accordance with your monitoring plan and
consistent with the guidance provided in Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17).
(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures.
(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the bag leak
detection system data. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a
device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. (c)
You must conduct an initial performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as applicable, in
accordance with your monitoring plan and to Sec. 60.13(c). For the
purpose of this subpart, the provisions of Sec. 60.13(c) also apply to
the bag leak detection system. You must conduct the initial performance
evaluation of each continuous monitoring system within 60 days of
installation of the monitoring system
(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the ash handling
system operating procedures that you will follow to ensure that you
meet the fugitive emissions limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart.
(e) You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval
of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the
standards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section, unless you document, using data or
information, that the longer averaging period will ensure that
emissions do not exceed levels achieved over the duration of three
performance test runs.
(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring requirement
is approved, you must continue to use the original monitoring
requirement until approval is received to use another monitoring
requirement.
(3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate
monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance
test. The application must contain the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iii) of this section:
(i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the
required approach.
(ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the
monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit,
and how the limit is to be calculated.
(iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative
monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of
the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original
request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary
information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an
alternate monitoring application unless it would provide
[[Page 15439]]
equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission
standard. Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the
Administrator will provide the following:
(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based.
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting
information before final action is taken on the application. This
notice will specify how much additional time is allowed for you to
provide additional supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information
in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the
application prior to the performance test. Neither submittal of an
application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove
the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case
basis, that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.
(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days before your initial
performance evaluation of your continuous monitoring system(s).
(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash handling
system, as required in paragraph (d) of this section, at least 60 days
before your initial compliance test date.
(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan if there are
any changes or potential changes in your monitoring procedures or if
there is a process change, as defined in Sec. 60.5250.
Model Rule--Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with
the emission limits and standards?
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and
standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you have the
option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures specified
in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic
equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium,
lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable,
and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the
performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in Sec.
60.5220(a) and (b). You may also petition the Administrator for
alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test.
Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (e) of this section,
following the date that the initial performance test for each pollutant
in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a
performance test for each such pollutant on an annual basis (between 11
and 13 calendar months following the previous performance test). The
performance test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging
methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2
or 3 to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements specified in Sec. 60.5220(a).
(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward. The Administrator may request a repeat performance test at any
time.
(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 days of a
process change, as defined in Sec. 60.5250.
(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section, you can conduct performance tests less often for a given
pollutant, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if your
performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 consecutive years
show that your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission
limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, and there are no
changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution
control equipment that could increase emissions. In this case, you do
not have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for the next
2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the third year and
no more than 37 months after the previous performance test.(ii) If your
SSI unit continues to meet the emission limit for the pollutant, you
may choose to conduct performance tests for the pollutant every third
year if your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission
limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of the affected
source or air pollution control equipment that could increase
emissions, but each such performance test must be conducted no more
than 37 months after the previous performance test.
(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent of
the emission limit for a pollutant, you must conduct annual performance
tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over 2 consecutive
years show compliance.
(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions
monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option
to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/
furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register. The
option to use a continuous automated sampling system for dioxins/furans
takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a
continuous automated sampling system is published in the Federal
Register. Collect data as specified in Sec. 60.5220(b)(6) and use the
following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits
for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/
furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use
of a continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual
performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
in lieu of conducting the annual performance test for that pollutant in
paragraph (a) of this section. For determining compliance with the
carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the
correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during periods of startup
or shutdown. Use the measured carbon monoxide concentration without
correcting for oxygen concentration in averaging with other carbon
monoxide concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine
the 24-hour average value.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling
system for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of conducting the annual
mercury or dioxin/furan performance test in paragraph (a) of this
section.
[[Page 15440]]
(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you must use the continuous emissions
monitoring system and follow the requirements specified in Sec.
60.5220(b). You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or
carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-
hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system to
demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.
60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate average emissions
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to Sec.
60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate
24-hour averages to determine compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-
week averages to determine compliance with the dioxin/furan (total mass
basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits in Table 2 to this
subpart.
(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 60.4880(e).
For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use
Performance Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5
of appendix F of this part.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
complete your periodic performance evaluations required in your
monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring systems and
continuous automated sampling systems, according to the schedule
specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously determining
compliance by conducting an annual performance test (or according to
the less frequent testing for a pollutant as provided in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section), you must complete the initial performance
evaluation required under your monitoring plan in Sec. 60.5200 for the
continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous emissions
monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or continuous automated
sampling system. Your performance evaluation must be conducted using
the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in Sec.
60.5200(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you
must determine dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through
octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 5 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/furans
emitted in terms of toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation report as specified in
Sec. 60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet each emission
limit in Table 2 to this subpart.
(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance
test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, then the
provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in Sec. 60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance test as
soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. The Administrator
will determine whether or not to grant the extension to the performance
test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval or
disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved
by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
(f) After any initial requests in Sec. 60.5200 for alternative
monitoring requirements for initial compliance, you may subsequently
petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters as
specified in Sec. Sec. 60.13(i) and 60.5200(e).
Sec. 60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my
operating limits?
You must continuously monitor your operating parameters as
specified in paragraph (a) of this section and meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, according to the monitoring and
calibration requirements in Sec. 60.5225. You must confirm and re-
establish your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(a) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section using the
continuous monitoring equipment and according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 60.5225 or established in Sec. 60.5175. To
determine compliance, you must use the data averaging period specified
in Table 4 to this subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak
detection system) unless a different averaging period is established
under Sec. 60.5175.
(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limits established according to Sec. Sec. 60.5175 and 60.5190 and
paragraph (d) of this section for each applicable operating parameter.
(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the operating
limit for bag leak detection systems as follows:
(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must calculate the alarm
time as follows:
(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time shall be
counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is counted as the
actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action.
(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period, as specified in Sec. 60.5170(c).
(b) Operation above the established maximum, below the established
minimum, or outside the allowable range of the operating limits
specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from
your operating limits established under this subpart, except during
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. You must
submit the deviation report specified in Sec. 60.5235(d) for each
instance that you did not meet one of your operating limits established
under this subpart.
(c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in Sec.
60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous compliance.
[[Page 15441]]
(d) You must confirm your operating limits according to paragraph
(d)(1) of this section or re-establish operating limits according to
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Your operating limits must be
established so as to assure ongoing compliance with the emission
limits. These requirements also apply to your operating requirements in
your fugitive emissions monitoring plan specified in Sec. 60.5170(d).
(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating data recorded
during any performance test required in Sec. 60.5205(a) or any
performance evaluation required in Sec. 60.5205(b)(4).
(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward.
Sec. 60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution
control device used to comply with the emission limits, according to
Sec. 60.5220(c), no later than 12 months following the previous annual
air pollution control device inspection.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless you
obtain written approval from the Administrator establishing a date
whereby all necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be
completed.
Model Rule--Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration
Requirements
Sec. 60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the monitoring requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control
device inspections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this
section, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(a) Performance testing requirements.
(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum of three test
runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations, as
specified in Sec. 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits
or standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are
considered deviations from the applicable emission limits or standards.
(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the
performance test is representative of the sludge burned under normal
operating conditions by:
(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned
during the performance test by continuously monitoring and recording
the average hourly rate that sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator.
(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the sewage sludge
burned during the performance test by taking grab samples of the sewage
sludge fed to the incinerator for each 8 hour period that testing is
conducted.
(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the test methods,
minimum sampling volume, observation period, and averaging method
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be used to select
the sampling location and number of traverse points.
(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used
for gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen
concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be
used simultaneously with each method.
(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 7 percent
oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.020
Where:
Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent
oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis.
(20.9 - 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen - 7 percent oxygen (defined oxygen
correction basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,
percent.
(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and procedures contained in this
subpart unless the Administrator does one of the following.
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use of a method
with minor changes in methodology.
(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method.
(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the results of
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a
specific source is in compliance.
(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests because you have
demonstrated by other means to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the affected SSI unit is in compliance with the standard.
(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or other factors. Nothing in this
paragraph is construed to abrogate the Administrator's authority to
require testing under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as specified under other
subparts, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present. If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.)
in conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify the
Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the original test
date, either by providing at least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance test, or by arranging a rescheduled
date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.
(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods applicable to the
SSI unit, as follows:
(A) Constructing the air pollution control system such that
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately
determined by applicable test methods and procedures.
(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each performance
test must consist of three separate runs using the applicable test
method. Each run must be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each
[[Page 15442]]
emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of
the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally lost or
conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued
because of forced shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable portion of the
sample train, extreme meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the
Administrator's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of
the results of the two other runs.
(11) During each test run specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, you must operate your sewage sludge incinerator at a minimum
of 85 percent of your maximum permitted capacity.
(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet the following
requirements, as applicable, when using a continuous monitoring system
to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart. The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring
system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes
effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the
Federal Register. If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring
system instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must meet
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system instead of
conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the requirements
of paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The option to use a continuous
automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a
final performance specification for such a continuous automated
sampling system is published in the Federal Register.
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system.
(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use
of the continuous emissions monitoring system, in which case you must
also conduct a performance test within prior to ceasing operation of
the system.
(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the emissions to
the atmosphere in accordance with the following:
(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(ii) The following performance specifications of appendix B of this
part, as applicable:
(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11 of
appendix B of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 15 of appendix
B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B of appendix B
of this part with spans appropriate to the applicable emission limit.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of appendix B of
this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 of appendix B
of this part.
(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, the quality
assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests) of appendix F of this part specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For
each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions monitoring
system is two times the applicable emission limit, expressed as a
concentration.
(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure
1 shall be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B
of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or out-of-control
period, you must complete repairs and resume operation of your
monitoring system as expeditiously as possible.
(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emissions monitoring system using the performance specifications in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data for each regulated
pollutant and oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of
this section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emissions monitoring systems and
the test methods specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii)
of this section. Relative accuracy testing must be at representative
operating conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used.
(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, shall be used, as specified in Tables 1 and 2 to this
subpart.
(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4, shall be used.
(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
shall be used.
(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, shall be used. Alternatively for mercury, either Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), may be used.
(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, shall be used.
(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17) must be used. For sources
that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million dry
volume, the relative accuracy criterion for the inlet of the sulfur
dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater
than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data in terms of
the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume
absolute value of the mean difference between the method and the
continuous emissions monitoring system, whichever is greater.
(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of
this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, or as
an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be used.
(5) You may request that compliance with the emission limits be
determined using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent
of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent
corrections, the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels
must be established during the initial performance test according to
the procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
[[Page 15443]]
through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be re-
established during subsequent performance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-2 must be used to determine the relationship between oxygen
and carbon dioxide at a sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR
part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(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 three runs must be performed.
(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system and collect
data with the continuous monitoring system as follows:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods specified
in Sec. 60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or
quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that
you do not collect data using the continuous monitoring system
constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring system data
in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs
associated with periods when the monitoring system is out of control,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
conducted during out-of-control periods must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such
periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction as
defined in Sec. 60.5250, constitute a deviation from the monitoring
requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system
instead of conducting annual performance testing, you must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system according to the site-specific monitoring
plan developed in Sec. 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10),
and (q).
(ii) Collect data according to Sec. 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You must conduct air
pollution control device inspections that include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in Sec. 60.5200. This requirement also applies to you if
you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring
parameters under Sec. 60.13(i). (d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass
stack at any time that sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit
is an emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in Table
2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack during a
performance test invalidates the performance test.
Sec. 60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?
(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring systems according to the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, pressure, pH,
and operating temperature measurement devices:
(i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at
all times the affected SSI unit is operating and at the intervals
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods
of monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods specified
defined in Sec. 60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that
you do not collect data using the continuous monitoring system
constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring system data
in accordance with Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods when the monitoring system
is out of control as specified in Sec. 60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be
included in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels.
Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 60.5250, constitute a deviation from
the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except
those periods specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of
this section in assessing the operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(vi) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring system
according to your monitoring plan required under Sec. 60.4880.
Additionally:
(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy, according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75
of this chapter.
(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to Sec.
60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5
percent accuracy.
(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in
continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under
Sec. 60.4880. Additionally:
(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct
all
[[Page 15444]]
compartments of cells to a common stack, a bag leak detection system
must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(3) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every
alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you must alleviate the cause of
the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective
action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not
limited to the following:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
particulate matter emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter
emissions.
(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous parameter
monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required
under Sec. 60.4880.
(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install,
calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate a
device or method for measuring the use of the bypass stack including
date, time, and duration.
Model Rule--Recordkeeping and Reporting
Sec. 60.5230 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified in paragraphs
(a) through (n) of this section for a period of at least 5 years. All
records must be available on site in either paper copy or computer-
readable format that can be printed upon request, unless an alternative
format is approved by the Administrator.
(a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final control plan and
any additional notifications, reported under Sec. 60.5235.
(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training
procedures and records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of
this section. You must make available and readily accessible at the
facility at all times for all SSI unit operators the documentation
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) Documentation of the following operator training procedures and
information:
(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart.
(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding sewage sludge.
(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction preventative
and corrective procedures.
(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply
levels.
(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and associated air
pollution control systems within the standards established under this
subpart.
(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating compliance with the
incinerator operating limits.
(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
(viii) Procedures for handling ash.
(ix) A list of the materials burned during the performance test, if
in addition to sewage sludge.
(x) For each qualified operator and other plant personnel who may
operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec. 60.5155(a), the
phone and/or pager number at which they can be reached during operating
hours.
(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of Sec.
60.5155(a), as follows:
(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators and other plant
personnel who have completed review of the information in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section as required by Sec. 60.5160(b), including the
date of the initial review and all subsequent annual reviews.
(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators who have
completed the operator training requirements under Sec. 60.5130, met
the criteria for qualification under Sec. 60.5140, and maintained or
renewed their qualification under Sec. 60.5145 or Sec. 60.5150.
Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of
their initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such
qualifications.
(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks, as required in
Sec. 60.5155(a).
(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were
accessible for 2 weeks or more along with copies of reports submitted
as required in Sec. 60.5155(b).
(d) Air pollution control device inspections. Records of the
results of initial and annual air pollution control device inspections
conducted as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including
any required maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days
of an inspection or the timeframe established by the Administrator.
(e) Performance test reports.
(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
limits and standards and/or to establish operating limits, as
applicable.
(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test report,
including calculations.
(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate measured
during performance test runs as specified in Sec. 60.5220(a)(2)(i).
(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that the performance
test was conducted under conditions representative of normal
operations, including a record of the moisture content measured as
required in Sec. 60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the
sewage sludge burned during the performance test.
(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 1-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans total mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead emissions.
(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all average
concentrations measured for mercury and dioxins/furans total mass basis
at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems:
(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the following operating
parameters, as applicable:
(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or afterburner
temperature).
(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the rule, pressure
drop across each wet scrubber system and liquid flow rate to each wet
scrubber used to comply with the emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid
flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used to comply
with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for sulfur
dioxide or hydrogen chloride.
[[Page 15445]]
(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to comply with the
rule, secondary voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection
plates and secondary amperage of the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the
wet electrostatic precipitator.
(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop, as
applicable.
(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed rate and
moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge
incinerator, monitored and calculated as specified in Sec. 60.5170(f).
(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the rule, the date,
time, and duration of each alarm and the time corrective action was
initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the
alarm and the corrective action taken. You must also record the percent
of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm sounds,
calculated as specified in Sec. 60.5210.
(iv) For other control devices for which you must establish
operating limits under Sec. 60.5175, you must maintain data collected
for all operating parameters used to determine compliance with the
operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan.
(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. You must keep
the following records, as applicable:
(1) Keep records of any notifications to the Administrator in Sec.
60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring
system for determining compliance with any emissions limit.
(2) Keep records of any requests under Sec. 60.5220(b)(5) that
compliance with the emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply with the rule,
the type of sorbent used and any changes in the type of sorbent used.
(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation reports submitted
under Sec. 60.5235(e) and (f).
(i) Equipment specifications and operation and maintenance
requirements. Equipment specifications and related operation and
maintenance requirements received from vendors for the incinerator,
emission controls, and monitoring equipment.
(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks of monitoring
devices. Records of inspections, calibration, and validation checks of
any monitoring devices as required under Sec. Sec. 60.5220 and
60.5225.
(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for continuous
monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plans required under
Sec. 60.5200, and records of performance evaluations required under
Sec. 60.5205(b)(5).(l) Less frequent testing. If, consistent with
60.5205(a)(3), you elect to conduct performance tests less frequently
than annually, you must keep annual records that document that your
emissions in the two previous consecutive years were at or below 75
percent of the applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this
subpart, and document that there were no changes in source operations
or air pollution control equipment that would cause emissions of the
relevant pollutant to increase within the past 2 years.
(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass
stack, including dates, times, and durations as required under Sec.
60.5225(d).
(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record of the
information submitted in your annual report in Sec. 60.5235(c)(16).
Sec. 60.5235 What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (a) through (i)
of this section. See Table 6 to this subpart for a summary of these
reports.
(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to achieve
compliance more than 1 year following the effective date of state plan
approval, you must submit the following reports, as applicable:
(1) A final control plan as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5085(a) and
60.5110.
(2) You must submit your notification of achievement of increments
of progress no later than 10 business days after the compliance date
for the increment as specified in Sec. Sec. 60.5095 and 60.5100.
(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a
notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days
after the date for that increment, as specified in Sec. 60.5105.
(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply with the
state plan, submit a closure notification as specified in Sec.
60.5125.
(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following
information no later than 60 days following the initial performance
test.
(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report.
(4) The complete test report for the initial performance test
results obtained by using the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart.
(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring
system was conducted, the results of that initial performance
evaluation.
(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits established
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 60.5170 and 60.5175 and the calculations and
methods, as applicable, used to establish each operating limit.
(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with the emission
limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been
installed and is being operated, calibrated, and maintained as required
by Sec. 60.5170(b).
(8) The results of the initial air pollution control device
inspection required in Sec. 60.5195, including a description of
repairs.
(9) The site-specific monitoring plan required under Sec. 60.5200,
at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation of your
continuous monitoring system.
(10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system
required under Sec. 60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance with your fugitive ash
emission limit.
(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an annual compliance
report that includes the items listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(16) of this section for the reporting period specified in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section. You must submit your first annual compliance
report no later than 12 months following the submission of the initial
compliance report in paragraph (b) of this section. You must submit
subsequent annual compliance reports no more than 12 months following
the previous annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit
these reports (or additional compliance information) more frequently by
the title V operating permit required in Sec. 60.5240.)
(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting
period, the results of that performance test.
(i) If operating limits were established during the performance
test, include the value for each operating limit and, as applicable,
the method used to establish each operating limit, including
calculations.
[[Page 15446]]
(ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test,
include the type of activated carbon used.
(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a
continuous monitoring system, the highest average value and lowest
average value recorded during the reporting period, as follows:
(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and continuous
automated sampling systems, report the highest and lowest 24-hour
average emission value.
(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, report the
following values:
(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber liquid pH, the
highest and lowest 12-hour average values.
(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-hour average
values.
(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting period from any
emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to
you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission
limits, emission standard, or operating limits.
(7) Information for bag leak detection systems recorded under Sec.
60.5230(f)(3)(iii).
(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous monitoring system
was conducted, the results of that performance evaluation. If new
operating limits were established during the performance evaluation,
include your calculations for establishing those operating limits.
(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less frequently as
allowed in Sec. 60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct a performance test
during the reporting period, you must include the dates of the last two
performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you achieved in
the last two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit
threshold specified in Sec. 60.5205(a)(3), and a statement as to
whether there have been any process changes and whether the process
change resulted in an increase in emissions.
(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified sewage sludge
incineration unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but
less than 2 weeks.
(11) Results of annual air pollution control device inspections
recorded under Sec. 60.5230(d) for the reporting period, including a
description of repairs.
(12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your
continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction.
(13) If there were no periods during the reporting period when a
continuous monitoring system was out of control, a statement that there
were no periods during which your continuous monitoring systems were
out of control.
(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a statement
that there were no such deviations during the reporting period.
(15) If you did not make revisions to your site-specific monitoring
plan during the reporting period, a statement that you did not make any
revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan during the reporting
period. If you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan.
(16) 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.
(d) Deviation reports.
(1) You must submit a deviation report if:
(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on the averaging
time specified in Table 4 to this subpart, is above the maximum
operating limit or below the minimum operating limit established under
this subpart.
(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5
percent of the operating time for the 6-month reporting period.
(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions level is above
the emission limit, if a continuous monitoring system is used to comply
with an emission limit.
(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash
conveying system for more than 5 percent of the hourly observation
period.
(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any
emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of control.
(vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system
malfunction) that caused or may have caused any applicable emission
limit to be exceeded.
(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 1 of that year
for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January
1 to June 30), and by February 1 of the following year for data you
collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to
December 31).
(3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring
system to comply with an associated emission limit or operating limit,
report the items described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii)
of this section.
(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of
the report.
(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents.
(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each
deviation and any test report that documents the emission levels.
(viii) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system malfunctioned or was out of control, you must include the
following information for each deviation from an emission limit or
operating limit:
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out of control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction, during
a period when the system as out of control, or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting
[[Page 15447]]
period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process
problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the SSI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the SSI unit.
(I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(4) For each deviation where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system to comply with the associated emission limit or
operating limit, report the following items:.
(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's
name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of
the report.
(iii) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits requirements.
(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates.
(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
(vii) A copy of any performance test report that showed a deviation
from the emission limits or standards.
(viii) A brief description of any malfunction reported in paragraph
(d)(1)(vii) of this section, including a description of actions taken
during the malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction.
(e) Qualified operator deviation.
(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 days that
includes the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) through
(e)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) A statement of what caused the deviation.
(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
available.
(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks that
includes the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) through
(e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified
operator is accessible.
(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be
accessible.
(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to continue
operation of the SSI unit.
(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, under the
provisions of Sec. 60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an
accessible qualified operator, you must notify the Administrator within
five days of meeting Sec. 60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming
operation.
(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force majeure is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred for which you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure:
(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence, should have known that the event may cause or caused a delay
in conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but
the notification must occur before the performance test deadline unless
the initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays
the notice, and in such cases, the notification must occur as soon as
practicable.
(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale for attributing the delay in
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure; describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct the
performance test.
(g) Other notifications and reports required. You must submit other
notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7 and as follows:
(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before starting or
stopping use of a continuous monitoring system for determining
compliance with any emission limit.
(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 days prior to any
performance test conducted to comply with the provisions of this
subpart, to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an
observer present.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.5220(a)(8), you must notify the
Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled
performance test for which notification was previously made in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(h) Report submission form.
(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec. 63.2, conducted
to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit relative
accuracy test audit (i.e., reference method) data and performance test
(i.e., compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically to
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/) or
other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
(i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator agrees, you may
change the semiannual or annual reporting dates. See Sec. 60.19(c) for
procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date.
Model Rule--Title V Operating Permits
Sec. 60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V
operating permit for my existing SSI unit?
Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved and effective
CAA section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan or an applicable and
effective Federal plan, you are required to apply for and obtain a
Title V operating permit for your existing SSI unit unless you meet the
relevant requirements for an exemption specified in Sec. 60.5065.
Sec. 60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application for my
existing SSI unit?
(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, a complete title V permit application must be
submitted on or before the earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c),
503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40
CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)).
(1) 12 months after the effective date of any applicable EPA-
approved Clean
[[Page 15448]]
Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan.
(2) 12 months after the effective date of any applicable Federal
plan.
(3) March 21, 2014.
(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the
promulgation of this subpart applies regardless of whether or when any
applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable
Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is approved by
EPA and becomes effective.
(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a result of some
triggering requirement(s) other than those specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section (for example, a unit may be a major source or
part of a major source), then your unit may be required to apply for a
title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b). If more than one requirement triggers a source's obligation to
apply for a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V
permit application is triggered by the requirement which first causes
the source to be subject to title V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR
71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(d) A ``complete'' title V permit application is one that has been
determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority
under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40
CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the
relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in
compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)
Model Rule-Definitions
Sec. 60.5250 What definitions must I know?
Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean
Air Act and Sec. 60.2.
Administrator means:
(1) For units covered by the Federal plan, the Administrator of the
EPA or his/her authorized representative.
(2) For units covered by an approved state plan, the director of
the state air pollution control agency or his/her authorized
representative.
Affected source means a sewage sludge incineration unit as defined
in Sec. 60.5250.
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, fuel
oil, or diesel fuel.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or
other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on January 1 and
ending on December 31.
Continuous automated sampling system means the total equipment and
procedures for automated sample collection and sample recovery/analysis
to determine a pollutant concentration or emission rate by collecting a
single integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of the
pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on- or off-site analysis;
integrated sample(s) collected are representative of the emissions for
the sample time as specified by the applicable requirement.
Continuous emissions monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording the emissions of a pollutant
from an affected facility.
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous automated sampling system, continuous
parameter monitoring system or other manual or automatic monitoring
that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation
on a continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term refers to
the total equipment used to sample and condition (if applicable), to
analyze, and to provide a permanent record of emissions or process
parameters.
Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system
for continuously measuring and recording operating conditions
associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g., operating
temperature, pressure, and power).
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, operating
limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic precipitator means
an air pollution control device that uses both electrical forces and,
if applicable, water to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage
sludge incinerator stack.
Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a sewage sludge
incineration unit the construction of which is commenced on or before
October 14, 2010.
Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter
media, also known as a baghouse.
Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in which organic
matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge are combusted in a bed of
particles suspended in the combustion chamber gas.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit later than
September 21, 2011 and that meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit
exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the
SSI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of SSI
unit.
(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of
operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted for
which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established
standards.
Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an existing SSI unit
that
[[Page 15449]]
undergoes a modification, as defined in this section.
Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel furnace that
contains a number of solid refractory hearths and a central rotating
shaft; rabble arms that are designed to slowly rake the sludge on the
hearth are attached to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at
the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to
hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of sewage sludge is
combusted at any time in the SSI unit.
Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter emitted from
SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or
Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8.
Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of
the test-run average secondary voltage and the test-run average
secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
Process change means a significant permit revision, but only with
respect to those pollutant-specific emission units for which the
proposed permit revision is applicable, including but not limited to:
(1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment
facility associated with the affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of
tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for
disposing of process solids and processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply
with the emission limits for the affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated
during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage
sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or
solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment
processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incineration unit or grit and screenings generated during
preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage sludge is
fed into the incinerator unit.
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an incineration unit
combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the
sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge
incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A
SSI unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed
system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system,
waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI
unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash
handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the
truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to
final disposal. The SSI unit does not include air pollution control
equipment or the stack.
Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage sludge has been
combusted in the primary chamber.
Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid,
semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
commercial, mining, agricultural operations, and from community
activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return
flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2014).
Standard conditions, when referring to units of measure, means a
temperature of 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere
(101.3 kilopascals).
Startup means the period of time between the activation, including
the firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or distillate oil), of the
system and the first feed to the unit.
Toxic equivalency means the product of the concentration of an
individual dioxin isomer in an environmental mixture and the
corresponding estimate of the compound-specific toxicity relative to
tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency
factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists the toxic
equivalency factors.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that
utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquid to collect particulate
matter (including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to
absorb and neutralize acid gases.
You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI unit.
Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of Progress
and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comply with these increments of progress By these dates \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment 1--Submit final control plan.... (Dates to be specified in
state plan)
Increment 2--Final compliance............. (Dates to be specified in
state plan) \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the state.
\b\ The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of
state plan approval or March 21, 2016 for SSI units that commenced
construction on or before October 14, 2010.
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or compliance using this
durations method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter........... 18 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 5 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters appendix A-3; Method 26A
sample per run). or Method 29 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride............ 0.51 parts per million by 3-run average (Collect a Performance test (Method
dry volume. minimum volume of 1 dry 26A at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-8).
run).
[[Page 15450]]
Carbon monoxide.............. 64 parts per million by 3-run average (collect Performance test (Method
dry volume. sample for a minimum 10, 10A, or 10B at 40
duration of one hour per CFR part 60, appendix A-
run). 4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass 1.2 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
basis); or standard cubic meter minimum volume of 1 dry 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
Dioxins/furans (toxic (total mass basis); or standard cubic meters per appendix A-7).
equivalency basis) \b\. 0.10 nanograms per dry run).
standard cubic meter
(toxic equivalency basis).
Mercury...................... 0.037 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. 29 and ASTM D6784-02 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
(Reapproved 2008) \c\, appendix A-8; Method 30B
collect a minimum volume at 40 CFR part 60,
of 1 dry standard cubic appendix A-8; or ASTM
meters per run. For D6784-02 (Reapproved
Method 30B, collect a 2008).\c\
minimum sample as
specified in Method 30B
at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Oxides of nitrogen........... 150 parts per million by 3-run average (Collect Performance test (Method
dry volume. sample for a minimum 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part
duration of one hour per 60, appendix A-4).
run).
Sulfur dioxide............... 15 parts per million by 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
dry volume. 6, collect a minimum 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part
volume of 60 liters per 40, appendix A-4; or
run. For Method 6C, ANSI/ASME PTC-19.10-
collect sample for a 1981.\c\
minimum duration of one
hour per run).
Cadmium...................... 0.0016 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-8). Use GFAAS
run). or ICP/MS for the
analytical finish.
Lead......................... 0.0074 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters appendix A-8. Use GFAAS
sample per run). or ICP/MS for the
analytical finish.
Fugitive emissions from ash Visible emissions of Three 1-hour observation Visible emission test
handling. combustion ash from an periods. (Method 22 of appendix A-
ash conveying system 7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for no
more than 5 percent of
the hourly observation
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
\b\ You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the
dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic equivalency basis.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using these averaging
You must meet this methods and minimum And determining
For the air pollutant emission limit \a\ sampling volumes or compliance using this
durations method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter........... 80 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 0.75 5 at 40 CFR part 60,
dry standard cubic meters appendix A-3; Method 26A
per run). or Method 29 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8).
Hydrogen chloride............ 1.2 parts per million by 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
dry volume. 26, collect a minimum 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part
volume of 200 liters per 60, appendix A-8).
run. For Method 26A,
collect a minimum volume
of 1 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Carbon monoxide.............. 3,800 parts per million by 3-run average (collect Performance test (Method
dry volume. sample for a minimum 10, 10A, or 10B at 40
duration of one hour per CFR part 60, appendix A-
run). 4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass 5.0 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
basis). standard cubic meter; or minimum volume of 1 dry 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-7).
run).
Dioxins/furans (toxic 0.32 nanograms per dry
equivalency basis) \b\. standard cubic meter.
[[Page 15451]]
Mercury...................... 0.28 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. 29 and ASTM D6784-02 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
(Reapproved 2008),\c\ appendix A-8; Method 30B
collect a minimum volume at 40 CFR part 60,
of 1 dry standard cubic appendix A-8; or ASTM
meters per run. For D6784-02 (Reapproved
Method 30B, collect a 2008)).\c\
minimum sample as
specified in Method 30B
at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8).
Oxides of nitrogen........... 220 parts per million by 3-run average (Collect Performance test (Method
dry volume. sample for a minimum 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part
duration of one hour per 60, appendix A-4).
run).
Sulfur dioxide............... 26 parts per million by 3-run average (For Method Performance test (Method
dry volume. 6, collect a minimum 6 or 6C at 40 CFR part
volume of 200 liters per 40, appendix A-4; or
run. For Method 6C, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
collect sample for a 1981).\c\
minimum duration of one
hour per run).
Cadmium...................... 0.095 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-8).
run).
Lead......................... 0.30 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect a Performance test (Method
standard cubic meter. minimum volume of 1 dry 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
standard cubic meters per appendix A-8).
run).
Fugitive emissions from ash Visible emissions of Three 1-hour observation Visible emission test
handling. combustion ash from an periods. (Method 22 of appendix A-
ash conveying system 7 of this part).
(including conveyor
transfer points) for no
more than 5 percent of
the hourly observation
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
\b\ You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the
dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic equivalency basis.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Operating Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
You must establish these -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these operating parameters operating limits Data averaging period for
Data measurement Data recording \b\ compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All sewage sludge incineration units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combustion chamber operating Minimum combustion Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
temperature (not required if chamber operating
afterburner temperature is temperature or
monitored). afterburner temperature.
Fugitive emissions from ash Site-specific operating Not applicable............... No applicable................ Not applicable.
handling. requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure drop across each wet Minimum pressure drop.... Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
scrubber.
Scrubber liquid flow rate........ Minimum flow rate........ Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
Scrubber liquid pH............... Minimum pH............... Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 3-hour block.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm time of the bag leak Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in Sec. 60.4850 and is
detection system alarm. not established on a site-specific basis)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrostatic precipitator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary voltage of the Minimum power input to Continuous................... Hourly....................... 12-hour block.
electrostatic precipitator the electrostatic
collection plates. precipitator collection
plates.
Secondary amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator
collection plates.
[[Page 15452]]
Effluent water flow rate at the Minimum effluent water Hourly....................... Hourly....................... 12-hour block.
outlet of the electrostatic flow rate at the outlet
precipitator. of the electrostatic
precipitator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activated carbon injection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury sorbent injection rate... Minimum mercury sorbent Hourly....................... Hourly....................... 12-hour block.
injection rate.
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection Minimum dioxin/furan
rate. sorbent injection rate.
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier Minimum carrier gas flow Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
gas pressure drop. rate or minimum carrier
gas pressure drop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterburner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature of the afterburner Minimum temperature of Continuous................... Every 15 minutes............. 12-hour block.
combustion chamber. the afterburner
combustion chamber.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As specified in Sec. 60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing
certain operating limits.
\b\ This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data
recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-
hour block average specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency
Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic
Dioxin/furan isomer equivalency
factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin................. 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin............... 1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.............. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin........... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.......................... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran..................... 0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.3
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran................... 0.03
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran.................. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............... 0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran............... 0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran.............................. 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60--Model Rule--Summary of Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increments of progress report.... No later than 10 1. Final control plan including Sec. 60.5235(a).
business days air pollution control device
after the descriptions, process changes,
compliance date type of waste to be burned, and
for the increment. the maximum design sewage sludge
burning capacity.
2. Notification of any failure to
meet an increment of progress..
3. Notification of any closure....
Initial compliance report........ No later than 60 1. Company name and address....... Sec. 60.5235(b).
days following the 2. Statement by a responsible
initial official, with that official's
performance test. name, title, and signature,
certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
3. Date of report.................
4. Complete test report for the
initial performance test.
5. Results of CMS \b\ performance
evaluation.
[[Page 15453]]
6. The values for the site-
specific operating limits and the
calculations and methods used to
establish each operating limit.
7. Documentation of installation
of bag leak detection system for
fabric filter.
8. Results of initial air
pollution control device
inspection, including a
description of repairs.
9. The site-specific monitoring
plan required under Sec.
60.5200.
10. The site-specific monitoring
plan for your ash handling system
required under Sec. 60.5200.
Annual compliance report......... No later than 12 1. Company name and address....... Sec. 60.5235(c).
months following 2. Statement and signature by
the submission of responsible official..
the initial 3. Date and beginning and ending
compliance report; dates of report..
subsequent reports 4. If a performance test was
are to be conducted during the reporting
submitted no more period, the results of the test,
than 12 months including any new operating
following the limits and associated
previous report. calculations and the type of
activated carbon used, if
applicable..
5. For each pollutant and
operating parameter recorded
using a CMS, the highest recorded
3-hour average and the lowest
recorded 3-hour average, as
applicable.
6. If no deviations from emission
limits, emission standards, or
operating limits occurred, a
statement that no deviations
occurred.
7. If a fabric filter is used, the
date, time, and duration of
alarms.
8. If a performance evaluation of
a CMS was conducted, the results,
including any new operating
limits and their associated
calculations.
9. If you met the requirements of
Sec. 60.5205(a)(3) and did not
conduct a performance test,
include the dates of the last
three performance tests, a
comparison to the 50 percent
emission limit threshold of the
emission level achieved in the
last three performance tests, and
a statement as to whether there
have been any process changes.
10. Documentation of periods when
all qualified SSI unit operators
were unavailable for more than 8
hours but less than 2 weeks.
11. Results of annual pollutions
control device inspections,
including description of repairs.
12. If there were no periods
during which your CMSs had
malfunctions, a statement that
there were no periods during
which your CMSs had malfunctions.
13. If there were no periods
during which your CMSs were out
of control, a statement that
there were no periods during
which your CMSs were out of
control.
14. If there were no operator
training deviations, a statement
that there were no such
deviations.
15. Information on monitoring plan
revisions, including a copy of
any revised monitoring plan.
Deviation report (deviations from By August 1 of a If using a CMS:................... Sec. 60.5235(d).
emission limits, emission calendar year for 1. Company name and address.......
standards, or operating limits, data collected 2. Statement by a responsible
as specified in Sec. during the first official..
60.5235(e)(1)). half of the 3. The calendar dates and times
calendar year; by your unit deviated from the
February 1 of a emission limits or operating
calendar year for limits..
data collected 4. The averaged and recorded data
during the second for those dates..
half of the 5. Duration and cause of each
calendar year. deviation..
6. Dates, times, and causes for
monitor downtime incidents.
7. A copy of the operating
parameter monitoring data during
each deviation and any test
report that documents the
emission levels.
8. For periods of CMS malfunction
or when a CMS was out of control,
you must include the information
specified in Sec.
60.5235(d)(3)(viii).
If not using a CMS:...............
1. Company name and address.......
2. Statement by a responsible
official.
3. The total operating time of
each affected SSI.
4. The calendar dates and times
your unit deviated from the
emission limits, emission
standard, or operating limits.
5. The averaged and recorded data
for those dates.
[[Page 15454]]
6. Duration and cause of each
deviation.
7. A copy of any performance test
report that showed a deviation
from the emission limits or
standards.
8. A brief description of any
malfunction, a description of
actions taken during the
malfunction to minimize
emissions, and corrective action
taken.
Notification of qualified Within 10 days of 1. Statement of cause of deviation Sec. 60.5235(e).
operator deviation (if all deviation. 2. Description of actions taken to
qualified operators are not ensure that a qualified operator
accessible for 2 weeks or more). will be available..
3. The date when a qualified
operator will be accessible..
Notification of status of Every 4 weeks 1. Description of actions taken to Sec. 60.5235(e).
qualified operator deviation. following ensure that a qualified operator
notification of is accessible.
deviation. 2. The date when you anticipate
that a qualified operator will be
accessible..
3. Request for approval to
continue operation..
Notification of resumed operation Within five days of 1. Notification that you have Sec. 60.5235(e).
following shutdown (due to obtaining a obtained a qualified operator and
qualified operator deviation and qualified operator are resuming operation.
as specified in Sec. and resuming
60.5155(b)(2)(i). operation.
Notification of a force majeure.. As soon as 1. Description of the force Sec. 60.5235(f).
practicable majeure event.
following the date 2. Rationale for attributing the
you first knew, or delay in conducting the
through due performance test beyond the
diligence should regulatory deadline to the force
have known that majeure.
the event may 3. Description of the measures
cause or caused a taken or to be taken to minimize
delay in the delay..
conducting a 4. Identification of the date by
performance test which you propose to conduct the
beyond the performance test..
regulatory
deadline; 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.
Notification of intent to start 1 month before 1. Intent to start or stop use of Sec. 60.5235(g).
or stop use of a CMS. starting or a CMS.
stopping use of a
CMS.
Notification of intent to conduct At least 30 days 1. Intent to conduct a performance
a performance test. prior to the test to comply with this subpart.
performance test.
Notification of intent to conduct At least 7 days 1. Intent to conduct a rescheduled
a rescheduled performance test. prior to the date performance test to comply with
of a rescheduled this subpart.
performance test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
\b\ CMS means continuous monitoring system.
[FR Doc. 2011-4491 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P