[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15704-15790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4495]
[[Page 15703]]
Vol. 76
Monday,
No. 54
March 21, 2011
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15704]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119; FRL-9273-4]
RIN 2060-AO12
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA's final response to the 2001
voluntary remand of the December 1, 2000, new source performance
standards and emission guidelines for commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration units and the vacatur and remand of several
definitions by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in
2007. In addition, this action includes the 5-year technology review of
the new source performance standards and emission guidelines required
under section 129 of the Clean Air Act. This action also promulgates
other amendments that EPA believes are necessary to address air
emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units.
DATES: The final rule is effective on May 20, 2011. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the final rule are
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0119 for this action. 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. Toni Jones, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0316; facsimile number: (919) 541-
3470; e-mail address: [email protected], or Ms. Charlene Spells,
Natural Resources and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5255; facsimile
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 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
16-PAH 16 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
ACI Activated Carbon Injection
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAT Best Available Technology
CAA Clean Air Act
Cd Cadmium
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Catalyst Carbon Monoxide Oxidation Catalyst
The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CSA Canadian Standards Association
CWA Clean Water Act
D/F Dioxin/Furan
DIFF Dry Sorbent Injection Fabric Filter
dscf Dry Standard Cubic Foot
dscm Dry Standard Cubic Meter
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
EMPC Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration
EOM Extractable Organic Matter
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ERU Energy Recovery Unit
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FF Fabric Filters
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMI Hospital, Medical and Infectious
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration
HWC Hazardous Waste Combustor
ICR Information Collection Request
ISO International Standards Organization
LBMS Linkageless Burner Management System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MDL Method Detection Level
mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
mmBtu/hr Million British Thermal Units per Hour
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Megawatts
MWC Municipal Waste Combustor
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
ND Nondetect
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OP Office of Policy
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
Pb Lead
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins
PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
PM Particulate Matter
POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
ppm Parts Per Million
ppmv Parts Per Million by Volume
ppmvd Parts Per Million by Dry Volume
PRA Paper Reduction Act
PS Performance Specification
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SARU Sulfuric Acid Regeneration Unit
SNCR Selective Noncatalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TBtu Tera British Thermal Unit
TEF Total Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
TMB Total Mass Basis
tpy Tons Per Year
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TTN Technology Transfer Network
ug/dscm Micrograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UL Upper Limit
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
UTL Upper Tolerance Limit
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
WWW Worldwide Web
Organization of this document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
[[Page 15705]]
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority for this final rule?
B. What is the history of the CISWI standards?
C. How is the solid waste definition addressed in this final
rule?
D. What is the relationship between the final rule and other
combustion rules?
E. What is EPA's approach for conducting a 5-year review under
CAA section 129(a)(5)?
F. What is the relationship of this final action to section
112(c)(6) of the CAA?
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Which units are affected by this final rule?
B. What are the emission limits in the final rule?
C. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?
D. What are the requirements during periods of SSM?
E. How do the rule amendments affect the applicability of the
2000 NSPS and EG?
F. What is the compliance schedule?
G. What is the state plan implementation schedule?
H. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test
results to EPA?
I. What are the costs and benefits of this final rule?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
V. Public Comments
A. Legal and Applicability Issues, Compliance Schedule, and
Certification Procedures
B. MACT Floor Analysis
C. Control Technology Assumptions for the Floor and Beyond-the-
Floor
D. Rationale for Subcategories
E. Emission Limits
F. New Data/Corrections to Existing Data
G. Testing and Monitoring
H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
I. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
J. Air Curtain Incinerators
K. Role of States
L. Biased Data Collection From Phase II ICR Testing
VI. Impacts of the Action
A. What are the primary air impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
F. What are the benefits?
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by the final action
are those that operate CISWI units. The NSPS and EG, hereinafter
referred to as ``standards,'' for CISWI affect the following categories
of sources:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industrial or commercial 211, 212, 486........... Mining, oil and gas exploration operations; pipeline operators.
facility using a solid waste
incinerator.
221..................... Utility providers.
321, 322, 337........... Manufacturers of wood products; manufacturers of pulp, paper and paperboard;
manufacturers of furniture and related products.
325, 326................ Manufacturers of chemicals and allied products; manufacturers of plastics and rubber
products.
327..................... Manufacturers of cement; nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing.
333, 336................ Manufacturers of machinery; manufacturers of transportation equipment.
423, 44................. Merchant wholesalers, durable goods; retail trade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final
action. 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 a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for us to
convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds
for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is
of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking
to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 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.
[[Page 15706]]
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority 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'' generally and, in particular, for ``solid waste
incineration units combusting commercial or industrial waste'' (CAA
section 129(a)(1)(D)). Section 129 of the CAA defines ``solid waste
incineration unit'' as ``a distinct operating unit of any facility
which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public'' (section 129(g)(1)). Section 129
of the CAA also provides that ``solid waste'' shall have the meaning
established by EPA pursuant to its authority under the RCRA (section
129(g)(6)).
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (DC Cir.
2007), the Court vacated the CISWI Definitions Rule (70 FR 55568,
September 22, 2005), which EPA issued pursuant to CAA section
129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA defined the term ``commercial or
industrial solid waste incineration unit'' to mean a combustion unit
that combusts ``commercial or industrial waste.'' The rule defined
``commercial or industrial waste'' to mean waste combusted at a unit
that does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a useful
purpose. Under these definitions, only those units that combusted
commercial or industrial waste and were not designed to, or did not
operate to, recover thermal energy from the combustion, were subject to
CAA section 129 standards. In vacating the rule, the Court found that
the definitions in the amendments to the CISWI regulations were
inconsistent with the CAA. Specifically, the Court held that the term
``solid waste incineration unit'' in CAA section 129(g)(1)
``unambiguously include[s] among the incineration units subject to its
standards any facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid
waste material at all--subject to the four statutory exceptions
identified [in CAA section 129(g)(1)]'' NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1257-
58.
In response to the Court's vacatur of the CISWI Definitions Rule,
EPA initiated a rulemaking to define which non-hazardous secondary
materials is ``solid waste'' for purposes of subtitle D (non-hazardous
waste) of RCRA when burned in a combustion unit. See 74 FR 41 (January
2, 2009) soliciting comment on whether certain non-hazardous secondary
materials used as alternative fuels or ingredients are solid wastes
within the meaning of subtitle D of the RCRA. That definition, once
established, will determine the applicability of CAA section 129(a) to
commercial and industrial combustion units.
On the same day EPA proposed standards for CISWI units, EPA issued
a proposed definition of non-hazardous secondary materials that are
solid waste pursuant to subtitle D of RCRA (75 FR 31844, June 4, 2010).
In a parallel action to today's final CISWI rule, EPA is promulgating a
final definition of solid waste that identifies whether non-hazardous
secondary materials burned as fuels in combustion units are solid
waste. That action, hereinafter referred to as the ``Non-hazardous
Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking,'' is relevant to this proceeding
because some ERUs and waste-burning kilns combust secondary materials
in their combustion units which are defined as solid waste under the
new definition. Units that combust solid waste (as defined under the
new non-hazardous solid waste definition) will be subject to standards
in the final CAA section 129 CISWI rules rather than to the standards
under CAA section 112 applicable to boilers, process heaters, and
cement kilns.
At proposal, we acknowledged that we had incomplete information on
the exact nature of the non-hazardous secondary materials that ERUs and
waste-burning kilns combust. For example, we indicated that we lacked
complete information concerning the provider(s) of the non-hazardous
secondary materials, how much processing the non-hazardous secondary
materials may have undergone, if any, and other issues potentially
relevant in a determination as to whether non-hazardous secondary
materials are solid waste, all information relevant not only in this
rulemaking but also in developing a definition in the concurrent Non-
hazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking.
In developing standards for this final rule, we used best efforts
to estimate which units would have been classified as CISWI (i.e.,
units combusting solid waste) had the final definition of non-hazardous
solid waste been in place at the time of the performance testing. The
standards (and, necessarily, the pool of best performers establishing
the floors for each standard) are based on the performance of this
universe of sources.\1\ In evaluating which sources would have been
classified as CISWI had the new definition of solid waste been
effective, EPA used the information currently available on which non-
hazardous secondary materials the sources combust, as supplemented by
information obtained from public comment and further information
gathered by EPA after the public comment period of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 112(D) MACT standards are based on the performance
of sources at a moment in time (or over some demarcated timeframe),
and EPA therefore bases those standards on performance of sources
classified as part of the source category at the time their
performance is evaluated (i.e., the time of performance testing).
However, EPA could not use this approach here. Sources combusting
non-hazardous secondary materials, the best example being
alternative fuels, were not classified as CISWI absent a regulatory
definition of solid waste classifying such secondary materials. In
order to issue the CISWI standards by the mandated promulgation
deadline, EPA thus deviated from its usual practice and based the
standards on the performance of devices which would have been
classified as CISWI had the final waste definition been in place at
the time of the performance testing even though these sources were
not CISWI at the time. There was no approach that would be based on
the sources' actual status that would have allowed EPA to complete
this CISWI rule by the time of the mandated deadline for
promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy recovery units (i.e., boilers and process heaters) and
waste-burning kilns (i.e., cement kilns) that are burning solid waste
(as defined in new section 241) will be subject to today's standards.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new
CISWI units (i.e., NSPS) and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) address
emissions from existing CISWI units (i.e., EG). The NSPS are directly
enforceable federal regulations and under CAA section 129(f)(1) become
effective 6 months after promulgation. Under CAA section 129(f)(2), the
EG become effective and enforceable no later than 3 years after EPA
approves a state plan implementing the EG or 5 years after the date
they are promulgated, whichever is earlier.
The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating emissions
from solid waste incinerator units. The statute also provides EPA with
substantial discretion to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes
of 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
[[Page 15707]]
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. See, e.g., NRDC and LEAN v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (D.C. Cir. 2008) addressing the similarly
required two-stage approach under CAA sections 112(d) and (f) and
upholding EPA's implementation of same.
In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to establish the
first-stage technology-based standards for the NSPS and EG, CAA section
129(a)(2) provides that standards ``applicable to solid waste
incineration units promulgated under section 111 and this section shall
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [certain listed
air pollutants] that the Administrator, taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such 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, or on state regulatory requirements that may
enable EPA to estimate the actual performance of the regulated units.
For each source category, the assessment involves a review of actual
emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be used, if the
methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the actual
emissions performance of a source or sources. Where there is more than
one method or technology to control emissions, the analysis may result
in a series of potential regulations (called regulatory options), one
of which is selected as MACT.
Each regulatory option EPA considers must be at least as stringent
as the CAA's minimum stringency ``floor'' requirements. EPA must
examine, but is not necessarily required to adopt, more stringent
``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the
floor minimum stringency requirements, EPA must consider various
impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining whether
MACT standards are to reflect ``beyond-the-floor'' requirements. If EPA
concludes that the more stringent regulatory options have unreasonable
impacts, EPA selects the ``floor-based'' regulatory option as MACT.
However, if EPA concludes that impacts associated with ``beyond-the-
floor'' levels of control are reasonable in light of additional
emissions reductions achieved, EPA selects those levels as MACT.
The CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no less stringent
than the emissions control achieved in practice by the best-controlled
similar unit. Under CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA determines the best
control currently in use for a given pollutant and establishes one
potential regulatory option at the emission level achieved by that
control with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. More
stringent potential beyond-the-floor regulatory options might reflect
controls used on other sources that could be applied to the source
category in question.
For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no less
stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine
some measure of the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory option.
More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options reflect other or
additional controls capable of achieving better performance.
B. What is the history of the CISWI standards?
On December 1, 2000, EPA published a notice of final rulemaking
establishing the NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 FR 75338), hereinafter
referred to as the 2000 CISWI rule. On August 17, 2001, EPA granted a
Request for Reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) of
the CAA, submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and
the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, related to the definition
of ``commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit'' and
``commercial or industrial waste'' in EPA's CISWI rulemaking. In
granting the Petition for Reconsideration, EPA agreed to undertake
further notice and comment proceedings related to these definitions. On
January 30, 2001, Sierra Club filed a petition for review in the Court
challenging EPA's final CISWI rule. On September 6, 2001, the Court
entered an order granting EPA's motion for a voluntary remand of the
CISWI rule, without vacatur. EPA's request for a voluntary remand of
the final CISWI rule was taken to allow the EPA to address concerns
related to EPA's procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI
units in light of the Court's decision in Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001)(Cement Kiln). Neither
EPA's granting of the Petition for Reconsideration, nor the Court's
order granting a voluntary remand, stayed, vacated, or otherwise
influenced the effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. Specifically, CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that ``reconsideration shall not postpone
the effectiveness of the rule,'' except that ``[t]he effectiveness of
the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration * * * by the
Administrator or the Court for a period not to exceed three months.''
Neither EPA nor the Court stayed the effectiveness of the final CISWI
regulations in connection with the reconsideration petition. In
addition, the Court granted EPA's motion for a remand without vacatur;
therefore, the remand order had no impact on the implementation of the
2000 CISWI rule.
On February 17, 2004, EPA published a proposed rule soliciting
comments on the definitions of ``solid waste,'' ``commercial and
industrial waste,'' and ``commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration unit.'' On September 22, 2005, EPA published in the
Federal Register the final rule reflecting our decisions with respect
to the CISWI Definitions Rule. The rule was challenged and, on June 8,
2007, the Court vacated and remanded the CISWI
[[Page 15708]]
Definitions Rule. In vacating the rule, the Court found that CAA
section 129 unambiguously includes among the incineration units subject
to its standards, any facility that combusts any solid waste material,
subject to four statutory exceptions. While the Court vacated the CISWI
Definitions Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remains in effect.
On June 4, 2010, EPA proposed revised NSPS and EG for CISWI units
(75 FR 31938). Today's final action constitutes EPA's response to the
voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI rule and to the 2007 vacatur and
remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule. In addition, these amendments
address the 5-year technology review that is required under CAA section
129(a)(5).
C. How is the solid waste definition addressed in this final rule?
The RCRA definition of solid waste is integral in defining the
CISWI source category. EPA defines the non-hazardous secondary
materials that are solid waste under RCRA in the final Non-hazardous
Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking. At proposal, the Non-hazardous Solid
Waste Definition Rulemaking proposed a definition of solid waste and
identified an ``alternative approach'' for consideration and comment.
However, the final solid waste definition does not incorporate the
``alternative approach,'' and more closely reflects the proposed
definition of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste.
D. What is the relationship between the final rule and other combustion
rules?
These amendments address the combustion of solid waste materials
(as defined by the Administrator under RCRA in the concurrent Non-
hazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking) in combustion units at
commercial and industrial facilities. If an owner or operator of a
CISWI unit permanently ceases combusting solid waste, the affected unit
would no longer be subject to this regulation under CAA section 129.
Section 112 rules of the CAA, applicable to boilers and process heaters
at major sources and boilers at area sources, are being promulgated in
parallel actions that are relevant to this action because those
standards would apply to subject boilers and process heaters that do
not combust solid waste. Boilers and process heaters that combust solid
waste are subject to CISWI as ERUs. EPA has also finalized revised CAA
section 112 NESHAP from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (75
FR 21136, September 9, 2010). Cement kilns combusting solid waste are
waste-burning kilns subject to this final rule, not the otherwise
applicable NESHAP.
E. What is EPA's approach for conducting a 5-year review under CAA
section 129(a)(5)?
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a review of
the section 129 standards at 5-year intervals and, in accordance with
CAA sections 129 and 111, revise the standards. We do not interpret CAA
section 129(a)(5), together with CAA section 111, as requiring EPA to
recalculate MACT floors in connection with this periodic review. (71 FR
27324, 27327-28, May 10, 2006; NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077,
1083-84 (DC Cir. 2008) (upholding EPA's interpretation that the
periodic review requirement in CAA section 112(d)(6) does not impose an
obligation to recalculate MACT floors). Rather, in conducting such
periodic reviews, EPA attempts to assess the performance of and
variability associated with control measures affecting emissions
performance at sources in the subject source category (including the
installed emissions control equipment), along with recent developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies, and determines
whether it is appropriate to revise the standards. This is the same
general approach taken by EPA in periodically reviewing CAA section 111
standards, because CAA section 111 contains a similar review and revise
provision.
Our obligation to conduct a 5-year review based on implementation
of the 2000 CISWI rule is fulfilled with the finalization of these
CISWI standards. This action responds to the vacatur and remand of the
CISWI Definition Rule and the voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI NSPS
and EG, and, in this response, EPA is requiring new standards based on
a MACT methodology that is consistent with the CAA and District of
Columbia Circuit Court precedent. The MACT levels required herein
reflect MACT floor levels determined by current emissions data from
CISWI units, and, therefore, reflect the current performance of the
best-performing unit or units subject to the CISWI standards.
Consequently, we believe that our obligation to conduct a 5-year review
based on implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule is fulfilled.
Our conclusion is supported by the fact that the revised MACT
standards included in this final remand response are based on the
available performance data for the currently operating CISWI units,
including those units that are subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and those
units that will be subject to the CISWI standards for the first time
based on the final Non-hazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking
under RCRA. In establishing MACT floors based on currently available
emissions information, we address the technology review's goals of
assessing the performance efficiency of the installed equipment and
ensuring that the emission limits reflect the performance of the
technologies required by the MACT standards. In addition, in
establishing these final standards, we considered whether new
technologies, processes, and improvements in practices have been
demonstrated at sources subject to the 2000 CISWI rule and at sources
that will be subject to these proposed standards for the first time
based on the proposed definition of solid waste. Accordingly, the
remand response in this final action fulfills EPA's obligations
regarding the 5-year review of the CISWI standards. Further discussion
of the EPA's response to the CAA section 129(a)(5) 5-year review is
found in section III.B of the proposal preamble (75 FR 31946).
F. What is the relationship of this final action to section 112(c)(6)
of the CAA?
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of
sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources accounting
for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such
pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or
112(d)(4). EPA has identified certain CISWI units as sources necessary
to meet the 90 percent requirement under section 112(c)(6). In the
Federal Register notice ``Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2)
Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) Requirements'', 63 FR 17838,
17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA identified source categories that must be
``subject to regulation'' for purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6).
Included in that list are cement kilns and combustion units (e.g.,
major source boilers and process heaters). Cement kilns, boilers, and
process heaters that combust solid waste are subject to the CAA section
129 standards for CISWI as either waste-burning kilns or ERUs. These
CISWI units emit five of the seven CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants:
POM, dioxins, furans, Hg and PCBs. The POM emitted by CISWI is composed
of 7-PAH and 16-PAH.
For purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6), EPA has determined that
standards promulgated under CAA section 129 are substantively
equivalent to those promulgated under CAA section 112(d). (63 FR 17845;
62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997)). As discussed in more detail in response to
comments on
[[Page 15709]]
this issue, the CAA section 129 standards effectively control emissions
of the five identified CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since
CAA section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from regulating CISWI units under
CAA section 112(d), EPA cannot further regulate the emissions of
112(c)(6) pollutants from CISWI units under CAA section 112(d). As a
result, EPA considers emissions of these five pollutants from waste-
burning kilns and ERUs ``subject to standards'' for purposes of CAA
section 112(c)(6). The remaining CISWI subcategories will be subject to
MACT standards either in this action or in a future action, but
regulation of the remaining subcategories is not required for EPA to
complete its 112(c)(6) obligations.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Which units are affected by this final rule?
This final rule defines a CISWI unit as any combustion unit at a
commercial or industrial facility that is used to combust solid waste
(as defined under RCRA). (40 CFR 60.2265 (NSPS) and 60.2875 (EG)).
Therefore, in this final rule, CISWI units subject to standards in this
final rule include incinerators designed to burn discarded waste
materials; units designed for heat recovery that combust solid waste
materials (i.e., ERUs that would be boilers or process heaters if they
did not burn solid waste); and waste burning kilns (i.e., units that
would be cement kilns if they did not burn solid waste); we also define
other CISWI units that are not subject to standards in this final
action. The final rule contains definitions of the four subcategories
of CISWI units that are subject to standards under these amendments:
incinerators, small remote incinerators, ERUs, and waste burning kilns.
At proposal, we also defined and proposed standards for burn-off ovens.
Based on information obtained during proposal, and because we do not
need such units to comply with our section 112(c)(6) obligations, we
are not finalizing standards for burn-off ovens as explained further
below in response to comments on this issue.
We are revising the definition of CISWI unit to reflect the Court's
decision that all units burning solid waste as defined under RCRA are
to be covered by regulation under CAA section 129. To ensure
consistency with the definition of CISWI unit, we are also adding a
definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' and removing the
definition of ``commercial and industrial waste.''
The 2000 CISWI rule, through the definition of ``commercial and
industrial waste,'' excluded from regulation combustion units at
commercial or industrial facilities that recovered energy for a useful
purpose. We are eliminating those exemptions that were vacated by the
Court.
Qualifying small power producers, qualifying cogeneration units,
and materials recovery units continue to be expressly exempt from
coverage pursuant to CAA exclusions from the definition of ``solid
waste incineration unit'' set forth in CAA section 129(g)(1). Units
that are required to have a permit under section 3005 of the SWDA
(i.e., hazardous waste combustion units) are also exempt from section
129 rules per CAA section 129(g)(1). Air curtain incinerators at
commercial or industrial facilities combusting ``clean wood'' waste are
also excluded from the definition of solid waste incineration unit set
forth in CAA section 129(g)(1), but that section provides that such
units must comply with opacity limits to maintain that exemption.
Solid waste incineration units that are included within the scope
of other CAA section 129 categories include MWC units; institutional,
pathological waste incineration units (EPA intends to regulate these
units under OSWI standards); SSI units (EPA is issuing final standards
for these units in a concurrent action), and HMIWI units. These solid
waste incineration units will remain exempt from the CISWI standards.
As stated above, we created subcategories for waste-burning kilns and
ERUs, and they are subject to this final rule in light of the CISWI
Definitions Rule vacatur. We note that other CAA section 129 standards
may contain an exemption for cement kilns. Those exemptions do not
excuse waste burning kilns from compliance with these final standards.
As those other CAA section 129 rules are amended, we will clarify that
cement kilns that meet the definition of waste-burning kiln and other
CISWI units, that may be expressly exempt from those standards, are
subject to CISWI standards if they are located at a commercial or
industrial facility and they combust solid waste.
B. What are the emission limits in the final rule?
The final MACT floor emission limits for new and existing sources
are presented in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble. These emission limits
are based on subcategories established considering sources that we
believe are CISWI units under the final definition of non-hazardous
secondary materials, as discussed in the concurrent Non-hazardous Solid
Waste Definition Rulemaking. The final MACT floor emission limits for
existing sources in each subcategory are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
Table 1--Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Final MACT Floor Limits (Based on the Definition of Solid Waste in
the Final Non-hazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final CISWI subcategories
Incinerators (2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \a\ CISWI limit) ERUs-- liquid/ Waste-burning Small, remote
Incinerators ERUs--solids gas kilns incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)......................... 62..................... 29 0.45...................... 14 \b\ 25 \b\ 220
CO (ppmv).......................... 157.................... 36 \b\ 490 (biomass units)/59 36 110 20
(coal units).
Pb (mg/dscm)....................... 0.04................... 0.0036 0.0036 \b\................ 0.096 0.0026 2.7
Cd (mg/dscm)....................... 0.004.................. 0.0026 0.00051 \b\............... 0.023 0.00048 0.61
Hg (mg/dscm)....................... 0.47................... 0.0054 0.00033................... 0.0013 \b\ 0.0079 \b\ 0.0057
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)........... 70..................... 34 250....................... 110 6.2 230
Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm).... (no limit)............. 4.6 0.35...................... 2.9\b\ 0.20 1,200
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)...... 0.41................... 0.13 0.059..................... 0.32\b\ 0.0070 57
NOX (ppmv)......................... 388.................... 53 290 (biomass units)/340 76 540 240
(coal units).
[[Page 15710]]
SO2 (ppmv)......................... 20..................... 11 6.2 (biomass units)/650 720 38 420
(coal units).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are expressed as concentrations corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
\b\ See the memorandum ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details on this calculation.
The new source MACT floor emission limits for each CISWI
subcategory are shown in Table 2 of this preamble.
Table 2--Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Final MACT Floor Limits (Based on the Primary Definition of Solid Waste
in the Solid Waste Definition Rule)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final CISWI subcategories
Incinerators (2000 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \a\ limit) Waste-burning Small, remote
Incinerators ERUs--solids ERUs-- liquid/gas kilns incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)....................... 62................... 0.091 0.45 \c\................ 14b................. 3.0 \b\ 200
CO (ppmv)........................ 157.................. 12 160 (biomass units)/ 46 36.................. 90 12
(coal units).
Pb (mg/dscm)..................... 0.04................. 0.0019 \b\ 0.0031.................. 0.096............... 0.0026 0.26
Cd (mg/dscm)..................... 0.004................ 0.0023 0.00051 \c\............. 0.023............... 0.00048 \c\ 0.61 \c\
Hg (mg/dscm)..................... 0.47................. 0.00016 0.00033 \c\............. 0.00025 \d\......... 0.0062 \e\ 0.0035 \b\
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)......... 70................... 18 250 \c\................. 110................. 2.5 230 \c\
Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm).. (no limit)........... 0.052 \b\ 0.068................... (no limit).......... 0.090 1,200 \c\
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm).... 0.41................. 0.13 \c\ 0.011................... 0.002 \d\........... 0.0030 31
NOX (ppmv)....................... 388.................. 23 290\c\ (biomass units)/ 76.................. 200 78
340 (coal units).
SO2 (ppmv)....................... 20................... 11 \c\ 6.2 \c\ (biomass units)/ 720................. 38 1.2
650 (coal units).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
\b\ See the memorandum ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details on this calculation.
\c\ The NSPS limit equals the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\d\ Dioxin/furan TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs--liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major source boilers. See ``CISWI Emission
Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details.
\e\ Hg limit was developed using material input data from CISWI kilns identified within the Portland Cement NESHAP database. See the memorandum ``CISWI
Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details on this calculation.
C. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?
This final rule requires all CISWI units to demonstrate initial
compliance with the revised emission limits. For existing CISWI units,
these amendments require annual inspections of scrubbers, FF, and other
air pollution control devices that are used to meet the emission
limits. In addition, a Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) visible
emissions test of the ash handling operations is required during the
annual compliance test for all subcategories except waste-burning
kilns, which do not have ash handling systems. Furthermore, for any
existing CISWI unit that operates a FF air pollution control device, we
are requiring that a bag leak detection system be installed to monitor
the device. These amendments continue to require parametric monitoring
of all other add-on air pollution control devices, such as wet
scrubbers and ACI. Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units that install SNCR technology to reduce NOX emissions
are required to monitor the reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection
rate and secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to the CISWI
unit).
This final rule also requires subcategory-specific monitoring
requirements in addition to the aforementioned inspection, bag leak
detection, and parametric monitoring requirements that are applicable
to all CISWI units. Existing incinerators, small, remote incinerators,
and ERUs would have annual emissions testing for all nine pollutants:
PM, SO2, HCl, NOX, CO, lead, Cd, Hg, and dioxins
and furans. Existing kilns are required to monitor Hg, PM, and HCl (if
no wet scrubber) emissions using a CEMS and perform annual testing for
the remaining pollutants. These amendments provide reduced annual
testing requirements for all nine pollutants when testing results are
shown to be well below the limits. If the ERU has a design capacity
less than or equal to 250 mmBtu/hr and is not equipped with a wet
scrubber control device, then a continuous opacity monitor is required
or, as an alternative, a PM CEMS could be employed (see below). If the
ERU has a design capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr, then PM emissions
must be monitored using a PM CEMS.
For new CISWI units, the final rule requires the same monitoring
[[Page 15711]]
requirements as for existing units, but also requires CO CEMS for all
subcategories. Additionally, SO2 and NOX CEMS are
required for all new kilns.
For all subcategories of existing CISWI units, use of CO CEMS is an
approved alternative and specific language with requirements for CO
CEMS is included in these amendments. For new and existing CISWI units,
use of PM, NOX, SO2, HCl, multi-metals and Hg
CEMS and integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring and dioxin monitoring
(continuous sampling with periodic sample analysis) also are approved
alternatives, and specific language for those alternatives is included
in these amendments.
D. What are the requirements during periods of SSM?
The 2000 CISWI standards did not apply during periods of SSM. This
final rule revises the 2000 CISWI rule such that the standards apply at
all times, including during SSM periods. As further explained in
section V.H of this preamble, the revision is being made in light of
the Court decision that vacated portions of regulations related to SSM
in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. EPA is including in this
final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. The full rationale for
these decisions is presented in section V.H of this preamble.
E. How do the rule amendments affect the applicability of the 2000 NSPS
and EG?
Incinerators subject to the 2000 CISWI standards are treated
differently under the amended standards than they were under the 2000
CISWI rule in terms of whether they are ``existing'' or ``new''
sources.\2\ Consistent with the CAA section 129 definition of ``new''
sources, there are new dates defining what units are ``new'' sources.
Incinerators that are currently subject to the NSPS will become
``existing'' sources under the final amended standards and are required
to meet the revised EG by the applicable compliance date for the
revised guidelines. Those units will continue to be NSPS units subject
to the 2000 CISWI rule until they become ``existing'' sources under the
amended standards. Incinerators and small remote incinerators that are
existing sources under the 2000 EG must continue to comply with those
standards until the applicable compliance date for the revised EG, at
which time those sources must be in compliance with the applicable EG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We believe that all the units in the small remote
incinerator subcategory as defined in this final rule qualified for
the exemption for MWC in the 2000 CISWI standards. See 40 CFR
60.2020(c)(2) and 60.2555(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units in the
four subcategories for which we are issuing final standards in this
rule that commenced construction after June 4, 2010, or for which a
modification is commenced on or after 6 months after promulgation of
these final standards, are ``new'' units subject to more stringent NSPS
emission limits. Units for which construction or modification is
commenced prior to those dates would be existing units subject to the
EG, except that units in the incinerators and small remote incinerators
subcategories remain subject to the 2000 CISWI rule until the
compliance date of the CISWI EG as discussed below. Commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration units in the subcategories other
than the incinerator subcategory and small remote incinerator
subcategory (if a unit was not exempt) will not in any case be subject
to the standards in the 2000 CISWI rule.
Under this final rule, incinerators that commenced construction
after November 30, 1999, and on or before June 4, 2010, or that were
reconstructed or modified prior to the date 6 months after promulgation
of any revised final standards, are subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS
until the applicable compliance date for the revised EG, at which time
those units would become ``existing'' sources. Similarly, units in the
incinerator or small remote incinerator subcategories that are subject
to the EG under the 2000 CISWI rule must meet the revised EG by the
applicable compliance date for the revised guidelines. Commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration units that commence construction
after June 4, 2010, or that are reconstructed or modified 6 months or
more after the date of promulgation of the revised standards, must meet
the revised NSPS emission limits in the NSPS within 6 months after the
promulgation date of the amendments or upon startup, whichever is
later.
F. What is the compliance schedule?
New CISWI units must demonstrate compliance with the applicable
emission limit within 60 days after the CISWI unit reaches the charge
rate at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after its
initial startup.
Existing CISWI units must demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits 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 these revised
standards, whichever is earlier.
G. What is the state plan implementation schedule?
Under the final amendments to the EG, and consistent with CAA
section 129, revised state plans containing the revised existing source
emission limits and other requirements in the final amendments are due
within 1 year after promulgation of the amendments. States must submit
revised state plans to EPA March 21, 2012.
These amendments to the EG allow existing CISWI to demonstrate
compliance with the amended standards as expeditiously as practicable
after approval of a state plan, but no later than 3 years from the date
of approval of a state plan or 5 years after promulgation of the
revised standards, whichever is earlier. Because we believe that many
CISWI units will find it necessary to retrofit existing emission
control equipment and/or install additional emission control equipment
in order to meet the final revised limits, EPA anticipates that states
may choose to provide the 3-year compliance period allowed by CAA
section 129(f)(2).
In revising the standards in a state plan, a state has two options.
First, it may include both the 2000 CISWI standards and the new
standards in its revised state plan, which allows a phased approach in
applying the new limits. The state plan must make clear that the
standards in the 2000 CISWI rule remain in force for subject units and
apply until the date the revised existing source standards are
effective (as defined in the state plan).\3\ States where existing
CISWI incinerators do not need to improve their performance to meet the
revised standards, may want to consider a second approach as follows.
The state may replace the 2000 CISWI rule standards with the standards
in this final rule; follow the procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B;
and submit a revised state plan to EPA for approval. If the revised
state plan contains only the revised standards (i.e., the 2000 CISWI
rule standards are not retained), then the revised standards must
become effective immediately for those units that are subject to the
2000 CISWI rule, since the 2000 CISWI rule
[[Page 15712]]
standards would be removed from the state plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ All sources currently subject to the 2000 CISWI EG or NSPS
will become existing sources in the incinerator or small remote
incinerator subcategories once the final revised CISWI standards are
in place. See section III.F of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA will revise the existing federal plan to incorporate any
changes to existing source emission limits and other requirements that
EPA has promulgated. The federal plan applies to CISWI units in any
state without an approved state plan. The proposed amendments to the EG
would allow existing CISWI units subject to the federal plan up to 5
years after promulgation of the revised standards to demonstrate
compliance with the amended standards, as required by CAA section
129(b)(3).
H. What are the requirements for submission of emissions test results
to EPA?
EPA must have performance test data and other compliance data to
conduct effective reviews of CAA section 112 and 129 standards, as well
as for many other purposes including compliance determinations,
emissions factor development, and annual emissions rate determinations.
In conducting these required reviews, 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 steps to improve data
accessibility. Owners and operators of CISWI units are required to
submit to EPA an electronic copy of reports of certain performance
tests required under the CISWI EG and NSPS. Sources must submit data
through the ERT. The ERT was developed with input from stack testing
companies who generally collect and compile performance test data
electronically and offices within state and local agencies which
perform field test assessments. The ERT is currently available, and
access to direct data submittal to EPA's electronic emissions database
(WebFIRE) is scheduled to become available by December 31, 2011.
The requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA
will not require any additional performance testing and will apply to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported
by ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for most
of the commonly used EPA reference methods. The Web site listed below
contains a listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by ERT.
In addition, when a facility submits performance test data to WebFIRE,
there would be no additional requirements for emissions test data
compilation. Moreover, EPA believes industry will benefit from
development of improved emissions factors, fewer follow-up information
requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. The
information to be reported is already required for the existing test
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
One major advantage of collecting source test data through the ERT
is that it provides a standardized method to compile and store much of
the documentation required to be reported by this final rule while
clearly stating what testing information EPA requires. Another
important benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the
source test is conducted is that it substantially reduces the effort
involved in data collection activities in the future. Specifically,
because EPA would already have adequate source category data to conduct
residual risk assessments or technology reviews, there would likely be
fewer or less substantial data collection requests (e.g., CAA section
114 letters). This results in a reduced burden on both affected
facilities (in terms of reduced labor to respond to data collection
requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data
collection requests).
State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that their review
may be more streamlined and accurate because the states 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 would improve greatly the overall
quality of the existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the
pool of emissions test data upon which the emissions factor is based
and by ensuring that data are more representative of current industry
operational procedures. A common complaint EPA receives 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 would ensure that
emissions factors, when updated, represent accurately the most current
operational practices. In summary, receiving test data already
collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions factors
development program would save industry, state/local/tribal agencies,
and EPA, time and money and work to improve the quality of emissions
inventories and related regulatory decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that would be used is
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a database accessible through EPA's TTN (see
http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/). The WebFIRE database was constructed to
store emissions test and other data for use in developing emissions
factors. A description of the WebFIRE database can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
Source owners and operators will be able to transmit data collected
via the ERT 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.
Source owners and operators must register with the CDX system to
obtain a user name and password before being able to submit data to the
CDX. The CDX registration page can be found at https://cdx.epa.gov/SSL/CDX/regwarning.asp?Referer=registration. If they have a current CDX
account (e.g., they submit reports for the EPA's TRI Program to the
CDX), then the existing user name and password can be used to log in to
the CDX.
I. What are the costs and benefits of this final rule?
EPA estimated the costs and benefits associated with the final
rule, and the results are shown in the following table. For more
information on the costs and benefits for this rule, see the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) in the EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
[[Page 15713]]
Table 3--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits for the CISWI NSPS and Emissions
Guidelines in 2015
[Millions of 2008$] a d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: MACT Floor:
Total Monetized Benefits \b\........ $340 to $830................... $310 to $750.
Total Social Costs \c\;............. $280........................... $280.
Net Benefits........................ $60 to $550.................... $30 to $470.
Non-monetized Benefits.............. 25,000 tons of CO.
470 tons of HCl.
260 pounds of Hg.
0.95 tons of Cd.
4.1 tons of lead.
92 grams of dioxins/furans.
Health effects from NO2 and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
Option 2: Beyond-the-Floor:
Total Monetized Benefits \b\........ $430 to $1,100................. $390 to $960.
Total Social Costs \c\.............. $300........................... $300.
Net Benefits........................ $130 to $770................... $90 to $660.
Non-monetized Benefits.............. 25,000 tons of CO.
470 tons of HCl.
260 pounds of Hg.
0.95 tons of Cd.
4.1 tons of lead.
92 grams of dioxins/furans.
Health effects from NO2 and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. These
results include units anticipated to come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption.
\b\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5
through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note
that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits
are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine
particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by
particle type. These estimates include energy disbenefits valued at $3.8 million.
\c\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes
results in the same social costs for both discount rates.
\d\ The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to
incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs
by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here.
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
EPA received over 3,500 public comments on the proposed rulemaking.
Furthermore, we conducted three public hearings to allow the public to
comment on the proposed rulemaking and the inter-related Boiler and
RCRA rules. Following are the major changes to the rule since the
proposal. The rationale for these and any other significant changes can
be found in section V of this preamble or in the document titled
``Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Rule:
EPA's Response to Public Comments'' available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Clarified and revised the applicability and compliance
requirements for CISWI units that cease or begin combusting solid
waste.
Determined that this final action will not subject burn-
off ovens, soil treatment units, cyclonic burn barrels, laboratory
analysis units, and space heaters to this standard.
Further subcategorized ERUs with separate limits for
NOX, CO, and SO2 for coal and biomass units.
Revised the definition of small, remote incinerators.
Incorporated new data submitted by facilities since
December 15, 2010.
Revised the emission limit methodology to use the UPL for
ERUs and waste-burning kilns.
Revised the statistical analysis to use the log normal
distribution of data in cases where a normal data distribution is not
indicated conclusively by normality tests for the data.
Revised the nondetect methodology to calculate emission
limits using three times the reported nondetect values where the value
equal to three times the representative MDL was greater than the
calculated MACT floor emission limit.
Revised the requirements for opacity.
Revised the monitoring requirements for continuous
compliance via testing and parametric monitoring and to allow CEMS use
to demonstrate compliance over a 30-day rolling average as an
alternative.
Revised the CO CEMS monitoring requirement from mandatory
to voluntary for existing ERUs.
Incorporated hourly CEMS data into emissions limit
calculations and 24-hour CEMS data into costing and impacts analyses.
Revised the calculation methodology of D/F TEQ and
clarified that sources must comply with either the TMB or TEQ basis
limit.
Added tire certification procedures for all CISWI units to
allow them to certify that the tires are from a program that enables
them to be considered non-waste materials.
Added recordkeeping and reporting requirements for units
that burn materials other than traditional fuels.
[[Page 15714]]
Revised the annual performance testing requirements to
clarify the schedule for completion of subsequent performance tests.
Revised the reduced testing provision to state testing for
a given pollutant may be performed every 3 years, instead of annually,
if measured emissions during two consecutive annual performance tests
are less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit.
Revised the test methods for cement kilns to require EPA
Method 321 for HCl testing of these units.
Removed the allowance for sources to use the results of
previously conducted tests to demonstrate compliance.
Revised monitoring requirements for the waste-burning
kilns subcategory.
Provided an affirmative defense to civil penalties for
exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions.
V. Public Comments
A. Legal and Applicability Issues, Compliance Schedule, and
Certification Procedures
1. Section 129 vs. Section 112--Applicability for Waste Firing Boilers
and Kilns That Opt To Stop Burning Waste
Comment: Many commenters stated that ERUs and waste-burning kilns
should be able to move between CAA sections 129 and 112 standards based
on the materials being burned. Commenters argued that EPA should
provide flexibility for operators of units burning co-fired waste to
consider the stringency of all applicable standards and opt into the
appropriate rule. Many commenters contended that requiring operators
who stop burning solid waste to remain regulated under CISWI would
penalize them with no benefit gained. One commenter stated that no law
or regulation prevents EPA from allowing a unit to opt out of CISWI and
that the concern that facilities would ``backslide'' from MACT control
levels is not applicable. Further, commenters argued that the once-in-
always-in policy should not apply to CISWI and requested clarification
on how the policy applies to sources subject to CAA section 129
standards that either continue or begin combusting solid waste. One
commenter requested that EPA clarify whether the CISWI rule would apply
to any kiln that is actually using solid waste or to any kiln
authorized to do so.
Response: This rule addresses the combustion of solid waste
materials (as defined by the Administrator under RCRA) in combustion
units at commercial and industrial facilities. If an owner or operator
of a CISWI unit permanently ceases combusting solid waste, the affected
unit is no longer subject to this regulation under CAA section 129, and
the unit would become subject to any applicable regulations under CAA
section 112. Likewise, if an owner or operator of any commercial or
industrial unit starts combusting solid waste in that unit, it becomes
subject to CISWI, and is no longer subject to any previously applicable
regulations under section 112. Consistent with CAA section 129(h)(2),
no solid waste incineration unit subject to performance standards under
section 129 and section 111 shall be subject to standards under section
112(d) of the Act.
CISWI units that cease burning solid waste in the ERU and waste-
burning kiln subcategories may be subject to one of three rulemaking
actions under CAA section 112. EPA is finalizing in a parallel action
two NESHAP applicable to boilers, one for area source boilers and one
for major source boilers that also regulates process heaters at major
sources. EPA also recently finalized revised NESHAP for cement kilns
(74 FR 54970, September 9, 2010). Energy recovery units and waste-
burning kilns subject to CISWI that cease burning solid waste, and thus
cease being subject to this final rule, will be subject to the NESHAP
for area source boilers, major source boilers and process heaters, or
cement kilns, as appropriate.
Today's final rule includes provisions to address the situation
where CISWI units cease burning solid waste, and where existing
commercial and industrial facilities start burning solid waste. Units
that cease burning solid waste remain subject to CISWI for at least 6
months after solid waste is no longer present in the combustion
chamber. After 6 months, sources must either comply with any applicable
section 112 standards or, if they intend to combust solid waste in the
unit in the future, opt to remain subject to CISWI. Sources switching
out of CISWI due to cessation of solid waste combustion must submit
advance notification of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch
consistent with new procedures in this rule. Units that begin
combusting solid waste are considered existing sources under CISWI and
must comply with the emissions guidelines set forth in the CISWI final
rule at the time they begin burning solid waste.
EPA acknowledges that sources may stop and start burning solid
waste in their combustion units, and that regulatory procedures are
necessary to guide sources through the changes in applicability that
may result due to a switch in combustion materials. New provisions in
the final rule account for the fact that facilities may start and stop
burning solid waste and ensure that any resulting changes in
applicability between section 129 and section 112 rules do not occur
with so much frequency that sources are unable to demonstrate
continuing compliance with the applicable standards.
To ensure that frequent switching does not impede our ability to
determine continuous compliance and create undue permitting and testing
burdens, sources remain subject to CISWI for a minimum of 6 months. The
definition of CISWI unit has been revised to clarify that a CISWI unit
includes a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts any solid waste in a 12-month period. This
change accounts for sources that periodically burn solid waste
throughout a given 12-month period, but that also has long periods in
which no solid waste is combusted at all. We believe this change will
reduce administrative and compliance costs to both the source and the
regulatory agencies. For example, sources will not have to re-establish
initial compliance with CISWI or revise their operating permit to
reflect a switch out of and back into the CISWI regulations. Instead,
facilities that combust solid waste would continue to be subject to the
CISWI regulations at least 6 months after waste is no longer combusted.
The regulations also allow facilities to remain subject to CISWI beyond
6 months after cessation of solid waste combustion, at their own
discretion, if the source determined that continued compliance with
CISWI is appropriate because the source intends to combust solid waste
in the future. Source owners or operators may, alternatively, choose a
date at least 6 months after ceasing solid waste combustion on which
they would no longer be subject to CISWI, and would instead be subject
to any applicable section 112 standards. This date is called the
effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch.
Specifically, the new provisions direct a source owner or operator
to select an effective date for the waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste
switch, and that date becomes the date on which all of the newly
applicable requirements apply. When a source begins combusting solid
waste, the effective date of the fuel-to-waste switch must be the same
as the actual date the unit begins combusting solid waste because by
statute any source that combusts any solid waste is a solid waste
incineration unit subject to standards under CAA section 129. See
section 129(g)(1)
[[Page 15715]]
(defining ``solid waste incineration unit''). For sources that cease
burning solid waste, they may pick an effective date for the waste-to-
fuel switch that is at least 6 months after the last date on which
solid waste is combusted. This allows sources that cease combusting
solid waste to comply with an applicable NESHAP or opt to remain
subject to CISWI at the discretion of the owner or operator. We allow
the owner or operator of a CISWI unit the option of remaining subject
to CISWI to account for sources that may want to retain the ability to
burn waste intermittently without having to periodically switch between
the section 112 and section 129 regulatory programs. If a source wishes
to end applicability of CISWI to its unit, the source must submit an
advance notification of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch.
The source must be in compliance with any NESHAP that applies as a
result of ceasing the combustion of solid waste on the effective date
of the waste-to-fuel switch. The source must remain in continuous
compliance with the CISWI regulations until that date.
As stated above, boiler and process heaters that commence
combustion of any solid waste and become solid waste incineration units
as defined in section 129(g)(1) are subject to CISWI standards
applicable to ERUs as of the date they commence combusting solid waste.
Likewise, cement kilns that begin combusting solid waste and become
solid waste incineration units must comply with the CISWI standards
applicable to waste-burning kilns at the time they begin combusting
solid waste.
The new waste-to-fuel switch provisions in the final rule include
requirements to conduct performance testing that will assure compliance
with all applicable standards. Specifically, performance tests must be
conducted within 60 days of the date on which the unit begins
combusting solid waste. In addition, the owner or operator must collect
and report any PM CEMS and/or PM parametric monitoring data for those
monitors that are operated at the same time as the performance test to
determine whether the existing calibrations and/or correlations are
still applicable. After the testing is completed, and it is
demonstrated that the source is operating in compliance with the
applicable standards, the owner or operator should adjust any PM CEMS
calibration and any correlation for PM to correspond to the performance
test results and data.
The new provisions also require advance notification of the
effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The notification includes
basic information that will enable the reviewing authority to determine
the date on which CISWI will no longer apply to the facility and the
date on which any newly applicable section 112 regulations may apply.
Notification must be submitted to both the EPA Regional Office and the
delegated state or local agency.
To ensure that frequent switching does not impede our ability to
determine continuous compliance, sources may not switch between
applicable section 129 and section 112 standards without completing the
initial performance test. Therefore, sources that wish to start burning
solid waste before they have demonstrated compliance with their
existing section 112 standard must complete the performance test for
the 112 rule before switching to solid waste combustion.
If a source switches back to a fuel or non-waste material for which
a performance test was conducted within the 6 months preceding the
effective date of the fuel-to-waste or waste-to-fuel switch, and if
there are no changed conditions that would affect emissions, the source
need not retest that source until 6 months from the effective date of
the switch.
If a source is subject to any emissions limits for which compliance
is determined on an annual average or other averaging period that is
for a period of time less than the period in which the source will be
combusting the fuel or non-waste material, the source must comply with
the emission limit in the shorter time period in which the fuel or
material is combusted. For example, if a source chooses to demonstrate
compliance with the Hg limits of the major source Boiler NESHAP through
fuel analysis, which has a 12-month rolling average limit, and opts to
start burning solid waste and become subject to CISWI after combusting
the fuel under the Boiler NESHAP for only 9 months, the source must
demonstrate compliance with the Hg limit based on a 9-month average
instead of the annual average. The EPA believes this is necessary to
assure that switching to solid waste combustion does not compromise our
ability to determine compliance with standards under section 112.
The rules do not allow for compliance extensions associated with
changes to the fuels or materials that are combusted. After the first
substantive compliance date (e.g., the effective date of the state
program or 5 years after publication of the final CISWI rule for
incineration units), sources must be in compliance with the standard
that is applicable to the source based on the type of unit and the
fuels or materials that are combusted. Sources that change fuels or
materials are considered existing sources and, as such, they must be in
compliance on the date they begin combusting the new fuel or material.
For example, a waste-burning cement kiln that ceases burning solid
waste becomes subject to and must comply with the Portland Cement
NESHAP as of the date that it is no longer subject to CISWI. For all
sources that commence combustion of solid waste, the CISWI requirements
become applicable on the date that the fuel switch occurs.
2. Homogeneous Waste
Comment: Many commenters requested that EPA reaffirm the exemption
of qualifying small power production and cogeneration facilities as
promulgated in the 2000 CISWI regulations. Several commenters requested
that EPA clarify the term ``homogeneous waste.'' Some commenters
requested that certain mixtures or blends of fuels fall under the
definition of homogeneous waste.
Response: Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in formulation,
have known fuel properties, have a defined origin, have predictable
chemical and physical attributes, and result in consistent combustion
characteristics and have a consistent emissions profile. Qualifying
small power production and cogeneration facilities requesting an
exemption from CISWI on the basis that they burn homogeneous waste may
be asked to demonstrate, using defined test methods acceptable to EPA,
that the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste are
consistent throughout such that the emission profile of any sample of
waste combusted is similar or identical to any other sample. Mixtures
of different types of wastes are generally not homogeneous, unless the
mixtures are from materials that are each individually determined to be
homogeneous, are from known origin, are mixed in constant proportion,
and are conditioned or processed, such as would occur in the
gasification of the wastes. Gasification processes that incorporate
clean up technologies in the production of synthesis gas would
generally result in a homogeneous product, however a consistent waste
input would still be necessary to ensure a consistent emissions profile
of the synthesis gas. Whether a waste is homogeneous is a case-by-case
determination. As such, EPA has added provisions to the CISWI rule that
require source owners or operators seeking the exemption to submit a
request for a homogeneous fuel determination to EPA, and that they
support their request
[[Page 15716]]
with information describing the materials to be combusted and why they
believe the waste is homogeneous. The determination of what constitutes
a homogeneous waste is not delegable to the state or local agencies.
3. Lab Analysis Units
Comment: Commenters stated that they do not believe CAA section 129
is intended to regulate laboratory analysis units that involve
combustion to generate analytical results. Commenters contend that
samples are not solid waste and have definite purpose separate from
disposal of sample material. They stated that it is physically
impossible for many, if not all, of these uses to comply with CISWI
requirements and therefore operations would likely cease. Several
commenters indicated that it is unclear as to whether the material
referenced in the existing definition of laboratory units in 40 CFR
60.2020(o) (subpart CCCC) and 40 CFR 60.2555(o) (subpart DDDD) is a
solid waste. Several commenters stated that other CISWI requirements
including operator certification, performance tests, and SSM
requirements are not appropriate for laboratory units. If regulated,
commenters requested that EPA clarify whether the rule is applicable to
all laboratory units or limited to those at commercial and industrial
facilities. Many argued that EPA underestimated the number of
laboratory units affected by this regulation because the Phase I ICR
was not clear that these units were included in the scope of the
survey. Commenters also stated that EPA did not provide cost or impact
analysis for these units.
Response: EPA agrees that samples used in laboratory analysis units
have a purpose separate from the disposal of material, and we believe
based on the information available at this time, that the material that
is combusted is likely not a solid waste as that term is defined in the
Solid Waste Definition Rule. We have no information that refutes our
conclusions, and we have no data from laboratory analysis units on
which to establish section 129 standards in any case. We have
determined that this final action will not subject laboratory analysis
units to this standard.
4. Asphalt Recycling
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA provide a clarification
as to whether asphalt plants utilizing recycled asphalt would be
subject to the CISWI rule.
Response: EPA did not receive any information to indicate that
recycled asphalt is a solid waste, or that the recycled asphalt or
solid waste is being combusted in asphalt plants. Absent that
information, we are not establishing separate standards regulating
asphalt plants at this time. However, any combustion unit that combusts
solid waste and meets the definition of a CISWI unit may be subject to
the CISWI rule, including combustion units at asphalt plants. If the
combustion unit is recovering useful heat (e.g., process heaters and
boilers), the unit may be subject to standards applicable to ERUs and
sources should contact EPA or their state for a specific determination.
5. Chemical Recovery (SARUs)
Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA provide a clear
definition of a chemical recovery unit in the final rule. They
requested that EPA specifically define chemical recovery units burning
pulping liquors and kilns burning lime as not CISWI units.
Commenters suggested that EPA include language that explicitly
states SARUs are not subject to CISWI citing the CAA exemption for
analogous processes. Some commenters argued that materials burned in
SARUs are not ``solid wastes'' because they are not burned for the
purpose of being disposed of or discarded. Instead, commenters asserted
that the primary purpose of SARUs is to combust materials to recover
sulfur in order to produce virgin sulfuric acid. A few commenters also
stated that SARUs are already regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
H, Standards of Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants.
Response: The Solid Waste Definition Rule exempts materials
pursuant to subtitle C of RCRA. Any SARU, chemical recovery unit,
recovery furnace, or lime kiln that is exempt pursuant to subtitle C of
RCRA is not a CISWI unit subject to this final rule unless the unit
combusts material that is solid waste and is not specifically exempt
from the definition pursuant to subtitle C of RCRA. We are currently
not aware of any subtitle C exempt facilities burning such materials.
We are also not aware of any lime kilns that are combusting solid waste
as that term is defined in the Solid Waste Definition Rule. To the
extent there are lime kilns or chemical recovery units combusting solid
waste, those units may be subject to the final CISWI standards as
incinerators, ERUs, or waste-burning kilns, as appropriate. Units
discussed in this comment that are combusting solid waste should
consult EPA or their state concerning applicability of this final rule
to their combustion unit.
6. Exemptions--Hazardous Waste Combustion Units
Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to retain the exemption for
hazardous waste combustion units or clarify that these units are not
subject to the proposed rule and do not need an exemption. Commenters
suggested that the removal of this exemption could shift certain RCRA
provisions from a RCRA permit to a Title V permit.
Response: Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to
have a permit under section 3005 of the SWDA are exempt from CAA
section 129 rules per CAA section 129(g)(1). Thus, these hazardous
waste combustion units would not be subject to the CISWI requirements.
7. CISWI Promulgation Schedule and 112(c)(6) Obligations
Comment: Many commenters requested that EPA delay issuing the CISWI
standard until the Solid Waste Definition Rule is finalized. They
argued that the court-ordered deadline does not apply to CISWI and that
the lack of certainty in the outcome of the Non-Hazardous Solid Waste
Definition Rule affects all aspects of the CISWI proposal including the
number of facilities affected, the MACT floors, and the total
anticipated compliance costs. Some commenters believe that this
violates EPA's duty to provide a full and fair opportunity to develop
and submit comments on the proposal. They contend that this problem can
only be addressed by promulgating the waste rule and then re-proposing
CISWI standards based on the known population of units.
One commenter suggests that EPA's proposal to treat the proposed
CAA section 129 standards as satisfying CAA section 112(c)(6)
requirements is unlawful. They argue that EPA's statement that its
proposed CAA section 129 standards ``effectively control'' emissions of
POM and PCBs, identified in CAA section 112(c)(6) as pollutants for
which EPA must regulate 90 percent of aggregate emissions under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), is illegal. The commenter asserts that
the CAA requires EPA to subject 90 percent of the emissions of the
pollutants identified in CAA section 112(c)(6), including POM and PCBs,
to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards. The commenter argues that
assuming EPA could meet CAA section 112(c)(6) requirements by taking
credit for standards established under CAA section 129, EPA would have
to set specific CAA section 129 standards for POM and PCBs. They
suggest that although CAA section 129(a)(4) gives
[[Page 15717]]
EPA authority to do just that, EPA has not proposed CAA section 129
standards for POM or PCBs. The commenter believes that the proposed
CISWI standards would not satisfy CAA section 112(c)(6) even if CAA
section 129 standards could do so. The commenter states that EPA cannot
meet its obligations to regulate PCBs and POM under CAA section
112(c)(6) with the proposed CAA section 129 standards for other
pollutants. Another commenter claims that they cannot find
documentation in the proposed rulemaking package to explain how and why
coverage of CISWI sources is necessary to meet the 90 percent
requirement.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters who suggest the Court-
ordered deadline does not apply to certain CISWI units. The EPA
maintains that we are under a Court-ordered deadline to complete our
CAA section 112(c)(6) obligations by January 16, 2011. Because we need
certain CISWI units to comply with our 112(c)(6) obligations, the
Court-ordered deadline requires EPA to promulgate the CISWI standards
for certain subcategories by January 16, 2010. The EPA may therefore
not postpone issuance of the final CISWI rules until after the Solid
Waste Definition Rule is promulgated.
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to regulate sources
accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of
each pollutant listed in CAA section 112(c)(6). EPA has historically
interpreted CAA section 112(c)(6) as allowing EPA to count CAA section
129 emission standards, such as CISWI, for the purpose of meeting its
90 percent obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) (62 FR 33625, 33632,
June 20, 1997). For example, both municipal waste combustion units and
medical waste incinerators are listed CAA section 112(c)(6) source
categories, and they are regulated under CAA section 129.
As EPA stated in 1998, we need to issue emissions standards for all
Portland Cement kilns that combust non-hazardous waste (both major and
area sources) to meet our obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) (63 FR
17838, 17849, April 10, 1998). In addition, EPA must issue standards
for commercial and institutional combustion units (e.g., boilers and
process heaters) to comply with the section 112(c)(6) obligation (63 FR
32006, June 4, 2010). We must set standards for all CAA section
112(c)(6) categories by the Court-ordered deadline, and that includes
setting emission standards pursuant to CAA section 129 for those
Portland Cement kilns and commercial and institutional boilers and
process heaters that combust non-hazardous solid waste and are thus
subject to CISWI as waste-burning kilns and ERUs, respectively.
As we stated in section VI of the proposed rule, section 112(c)(6)
of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven
specified pollutants to assure that sources accounting for not less
than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are
subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). EPA has
identified certain CISWI units as sources necessary to meet the 90
percent requirement under section 112(c)(6). In the Federal Register
notice ``Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) Requirements,'' 63 FR 17838, 17849, Table
2 (1998), EPA identified source categories that must be ``subject to
regulation'' for purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6). Included in that
list are cement kilns and combustion units (e.g., major source boilers
and process heaters). Cement kilns, boilers, and process heaters that
combust solid waste are subject to the CAA section 129 standards for
CISWI as either waste-burning kilns or ERUs. These CISWI units emit
five of the seven CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants: POM, dioxins,
furans, Hg and PCBs. The POM emitted by CISWI is composed of 7-PAH, 16-
PAH, and EOM.
For purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6), EPA has determined that
standards promulgated under CAA section 129 are substantively
equivalent to those promulgated under CAA section 112(d). (63 FR 17845;
62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997)). As discussed in more detail in response to
comments on this issue, the CAA section 129 standards effectively
control emissions of the five identified CAA section 112(c)(6)
pollutants. Further, since CAA section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from
regulating CISWI units under CAA section 112(d), EPA cannot further
regulate the emissions of 112(c)(6) pollutants from CISWI units under
CAA section 112(d). As a result, EPA considers emissions of these five
pollutants from waste-burning kilns and ERUs ``subject to standards''
for purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6). The remaining CISWI
subcategories will be subject to MACT standards either in this action
or in a future action, but regulation of the remaining subcategories is
not required for EPA to complete its 112(c)(6) obligations.
As required by the statute, the CAA section 129 CISWI standards
include numeric emission limitations for the nine pollutants specified
in CAA section 129(a)(4). The combination of waste segregation, good
combustion practices, and add-on air pollution control equipment
(sorbent injection, FF, wet scrubbers, or combinations thereof)
effectively reduces emissions of the pollutants for which emission
limits are required under CAA section 129: Hg, dioxins, furans, Cd, Pb,
PM, SO2, HCl, CO, and NOX. Thus, the standards
specifically require reduction in emissions of three of the CAA section
112(c)(6) pollutants: dioxins, furans, and Hg. As explained below, the
air pollution controls necessary to comply with the requirements of the
CISWI standards also effectively reduce emissions of the following CAA
section 112(c)(6) pollutants that are emitted from waste-burning kilns
and ERUs: POM and PCBs. Although the CAA section 129 CISWI standards do
not have separate, specific emissions standards for POM and PCBs,
emissions of these two CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively
controlled by the same control measures used to comply with the
numerical emissions limits for the pollutants enumerated in CAA section
129(a)(4). Specifically, as by-products of combustion, the formation of
POM and PCBs is effectively reduced by the combustion and post-
combustion practices required to comply with the CAA section 129
standards, primarily the standards for CO and D/F. In fact, EPA has
used CO as a surrogate for organic HAP such as POM, and the controls
for PCBs are the same controls that reduce emissions of dioxin and
furans. Polycyclic Organic Matter and PCBs that do form during
combustion are further controlled by the various post-combustion CISWI
controls. The add-on PM control systems (either FF or wet scrubber) and
ACI further reduce emissions of these organic pollutants and also
reduce Hg emissions, as is evidenced by performance data for MWCs and
another similar source category, HMIWI. Specifically, the post-MACT
compliance tests at currently operating HMIWI that were also
operational at the time of promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI MACT
standards show that, for those units, the regulations reduced Hg
emissions by about 60 percent and reduced dioxin and furans emissions
by about 80 percent from pre-MACT levels. Dioxin and furans have
similar chemical composition and structure as PCBs and POM; moreover,
similar controls have been demonstrated to reduce emissions of D/F,
POM, and PCBs from MWCs. It is reasonable to conclude that POM and PCB
emissions would be effectively controlled to a MACT level at all CISWI
[[Page 15718]]
units meeting the emission limits for the section 129 pollutants. Thus,
while the rule does not identify specific numerical limits for POM and
PCB, emissions of those pollutants are, for the reasons noted above,
nonetheless ``subject to regulation'' for purposes of CAA section
112(c)(6).
Finally, we disagree with comments that EPA should not finalize the
CISWI standards until after the Solid Waste Definition Rule is final
because EPA does not know the population of sources that will be
subject to the CISWI standards. As stated above, we must finalize the
CISWI standards for certain subcategories to comply with the Court-
ordered deadline; but, in any case, we would not postpone the standards
absent the deadline based on the commenters' issue. EPA must establish
standards for all rules based on the best information available at the
time of issuance. In this case, we have included those units that we
believe combust solid waste as that term is defined in the final Solid
Waste Definition Rule. We have no information at this time that allows
us to determine that the units we have included are not combusting
solid waste. Furthermore, sources in the waste-burning kilns and ERUs
subcategories and their CAA section 112 counterparts may start or stop
combusting solid waste at any time and thus move between CAA sections
112 and 129. Sources in any of the subcategories could also cease
operation all together. For these reasons, we conclude it is not
appropriate to postpone regulation in this case because we could never
be certain that the list of units we identify is perfect. We maintain
that the approach we have taken is reasonable because it is based on
the best information available to EPA at the time of promulgation.
8. CISWI Implementation Schedule
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the date for compliance
should be set at 5 or 6 years, not 3 years. Several commenters raised
concern that many facilities may not have sufficient time to engineer
and design the emissions control systems, raise the amount of capital
to purchase the equipment, and install the required equipment. In
addition, there could be hardware backlogs, insufficient skilled labor,
and gridlock in state permitting processes which could delay
compliance. Further commenters stated that they need time to plan a
shutdown of a unit when everything is properly staged to ensure minimal
disruption of the facility's operation.
Response: The terms of CAA section 129(b)(2), where state plan
implementation schedules are specified, outline the maximum time
available for implementation and enforcement of EG for solid waste
incineration units. As CAA section 129(b)(2) states, the state plan ``*
* * shall provide that each unit subject to the guidelines shall be in
compliance with all requirements of this section not later than 3 years
after the state plan is approved by the Administrator but not later
than 5 years after the guidelines were promulgated.'' This allows 2
years for state plans to be updated, modified, and approved by the
Administrator, followed by a period of compliance not to exceed 3 years
after the state plan has been approved.
B. MACT Floor Analysis
1. Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach and Alternative Approaches
Comment: Many commenters objected to setting MACT floors on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. They argue that setting MACT floors on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis is unlawful and results in MACT floors
that bear no relation to emission limits that are being achieved at the
best-performing existing sources pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2). The
commenters suggested that EPA has misinterpreted many court cases
involving CAA section 112(d) over the years and that the proposed MACT
standards are inconsistent with the legal principles established under
previous court decisions because emission standards must be ``achieved
in practice'' before finalizing the regulation. Commenters continued by
explaining that EPA applies the ``achieved in practice'' standard on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis, which results in a final standard that
they assert has never been achieved by any subject facility or best
performer. Some commenters contended that this method violates the
plain language and intent of the MACT process, and the result is a MACT
floor that reflects a standard that no one plant in existence currently
achieves. The commenters declared that the plain language of MACT
process requires EPA to set a MACT floor for existing sources that is
not less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by
the best-performing 12 percent of units in the category.'' The
commenters asserted that CAA sections 129(a)(2) and 112(d) use of the
terms ``best-performing'' and ``existing'' clearly means that sources
in a category or subcategory that are used to set the MACT floor are to
be real, not theoretical or hypothetical sources. Some commenters
maintained that CAA section 129(a)(2) instructs that the MACT floor
``shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source'' and the
phrase ``achieved in practice'' can only mean that Congress intended
actual sources, performing under real-life conditions, to be the
benchmark for determining the MACT floors. The commenters stated that
in the CISWI rulemaking, EPA has chosen to establish the MACT floor by
assessing the best-performing sources on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis, rather than by identifying the overall best-performing sources
taking into account all pollutants.
Some commenters insisted that if Congress wanted EPA to establish
separate MACT floor levels for different pollutants, it would have
worded CAA section 129(a)(2) to allow this result by referring to the
best-performing sources ``for each pollutant'' or ``for each group of
pollutants.'' Further, they argued that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant
methodology is at odds with the legislative history underlying the MACT
setting process. The commenters cited the Senate report on the 1990
Amendments where Congress required ``the selection of emissions
limitations which have been achieved in practice (rather than those
which are merely theoretical) by sources of a similar type or
character. An emissions limitation achieved in practice is one based on
control technology that works reasonably well (doesn't require frequent
and extensive modification or repair) under realistic operating
conditions.'' See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169 (1989).
The commenters suggested that the focus on overall performance is not
surprising because in the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress abandoned the
previous focus on individual pollutant standards, and adopted the
technology-based multi-pollutant approach to regulating emissions in
use under the CWA. A few commenters suggested that if one source can
achieve a firm degree of control for one pollutant but not for another,
there may be no justification for including it in the set of sources
from which the floor is calculated.
Several commenters recommended that EPA develop overall rankings
for each unit in each subcategory based on their emissions of all nine
pollutants and develop floors based on a common set of top performers.
The commenters asserted that this approach would identify the overall
best-performing sources taking into account all pollutants. The
commenters argued that the statute unambiguously directs EPA to set
standards based on the overall performance of ``units.'' They
[[Page 15719]]
maintained that CAA section 129(a)(2) specifies that emissions
standards must be established based on the performance of ``units'' in
the category or subcategory, and that EPA's discretion in setting
standards for such units is limited to distinguishing among classes,
types, and sizes of units. By setting floors based on the average of
the top performing 12 percent of units in a subcategory and also using
a confidence limit to attempt to account for variability, one would
assume that at least 6 percent of all units in each subcategory would
be able to comply with the emission limits with no further controls.
Several commenters argued that while an individual MACT floor for
one pollutant might not appear cost-prohibitive, the total cost
implications when combined with all of the other MACT floors for other
pollutants, could become especially onerous, potentially forcing some
regulated parties out of business, and barring the market entry for
other potential entities. The commenters contended that this result is
compounded when the proposed emission limits cannot be met even after
the installation and proper operation of MACT hardware such as
scrubbers and baghouses. The commenters stated that some facilities
cannot operate certain types of control devices due to local
operational constraints and feed material composition. The commenters
declared that such a result violates the court's declaration in
National Lime Association 627 F.2d 416, 443 (DC Cir. 1980), that under
the CAA ``EPA has a statutory duty to promulgate achievable
standards.'' A few commenters insisted that while the CAA was authored
with the intent of reducing air pollution, Congress did not intend to
disrupt the ``productive capacity'' of the United States through the
promulgation of economically unachievable standards. 42 U.S.C.
7401(b)(1). The commenters maintained that by setting MACT floors
individually and ignoring the collective cost implications of the
entire rule, EPA would effectively disregard the CAA requirement that
air pollution control be advanced while promoting the nation's
``productive capacity.'' The commenters stated that emissions standards
are to be established by taking costs into consideration. 42 U.S.C.
7429(a)(2).
One commenter discussed that EPA previously used a pollutant-by-
pollutant methodology to set MACT floors in the context of the Proposed
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (69 FR
21198, April 20, 2004), hereinafter referred to as the HWC NESHAP. The
commenter stated that several parties submitted public comments
questioning EPA's approach and pointed to the fact that EPA had failed
to cite a single existing source which met the various MACT floor
standards. They stated that EPA attempted to defend its practice of
establishing pollutant-by-pollutant MACT standards by citing the
Chemical Manufacturer Association v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 239 1989),
clarified 885 F.2d 253, 264 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S.
910, (1990), a Fifth Circuit case where the court held that, under the
CWA, ``best available technology'' referred to the single best-
performing plant on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The commenter
asserts that EPA's reliance on Chemical Manufacturer Association v. EPA
is misplaced as the CAA's procedure regarding the selection of MACT
technologies differs on a textual basis from the CWA's procedure for
identifying BAT. The commenter argued that under the CWA, BAT standards
are to be set based on ``the best practicable control technology
currently available.'' The commenter suggested that the Court in
Chemical Manufacturer Association v. EPA read this provision to allow
for pollutant-by-pollutant determinations finding no statutory
requirement that all of the BATs actually be achieved by an existing
plant, just that each technology be demonstrated available. 885 F.2d at
264. The commenter continued that the CAA, on the other hand, more
narrowly limits the basis for MACT designation to what has been
achieved at existing sources, not what could be hypothetically
achievable on a per-pollutant basis.
A few commenters also cited the HWC NESHAP as an example where EPA
attempted to support its use of the pollutant-by-pollutant methodology
by stating that ``EPA believes that because all our standards are not
technically interdependent (i.e., implementation of one emission
control technology does not prevent the source from implementing
another control technology), the fact that sources are not achieving
all the standards simultaneously does not indicate a flaw in the
methodology.'' The commenters argued that EPA's conclusion in the HWC
NESHAP is inapplicable to the proposed CISWI rule. They provided an
example problem that they claimed has been observed in the MSW industry
using ACI (an EPA-identified technology to reduce Hg emissions) and
could also occur in the cement industry could be the formation of
additional solid-phase dioxins/furans, thus increasing the emissions of
D/F (which are regulated under the MACT standards). The commenters
suggested that these findings call into question EPA's legal
justification that control requirements for one pollutant do not impact
another. Several commenters suggested that there is an inverse
relationship between CO and NOX where improving combustion
to control CO may affect NOX. Finally, many commenters
requested that EPA require work practice standards in lieu of emission
limits for certain ERUs.
Response: We disagree with the commenters who object to setting
MACT floors on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Contrary to the
commenters' suggestion, CAA section 129(a)(2) does not mandate a total
facility approach. 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).
Commenters' primary argument is premised on a reading of two
clauses in CAA section 129(a)(2). Specifically, commenters cite the
provision of CAA section 129 that, for new sources, states that MACT
floors ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar unit'' and, for
existing sources, states that MACT floors must be based on ``the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent
of units in the category.'' Commenters make the assumption that
``achieved in practice'' as applied to the best controlled ``similar
unit'' and ``best-performing 12 percent of units in the category'' must
be interpreted to mean the best-performing unit or units with respect
to the entire suite of pollutants.
EPA makes no such assumption, primarily because to do so would lead
to the illogical result of basing emissions limitations on units that
may not be the best-performing source for any single covered pollutant.
Instead, EPA interprets the provision 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
[[Page 15720]]
statute and appropriate given the problems associated with implementing
the commenters' approach.
Commenters' interpretation also ignores the rest of the CAA section
129. That provision 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) 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 or existing units in each category'' (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: particulate matter (total and fine), opacity (as
appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and furans.''
Thus, the statute requires EPA to set individual numeric (a)
Performance standards; (b) based on the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions actually achieved; (c) 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 emissions levels achieved for each pollutant.
Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in 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 CAA section 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 acknowledged that EPA 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 (Sept. 20, 1994)
(MWC). Commenters fail to cite to a single case even questioning EPA's
pollutant-by-pollutant approach. In addition, such an approach has been
upheld in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Manufacturers Association
v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing CWA
BAT standards on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis was a rational
interpretation of EPA's obligations under that similar statute).
Commenters maintain that the CWA BAT analogy is not apt due to
differences in the statute. We disagree and 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 proffered by commenters
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 (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 PCDD/PCDF 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. The idea is to set limits that, as
an initial matter, require all sources in a category to at least clean
up their emissions to the level that their best performing peers have
shown can be achieved. Sierra Club v. EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d
976, 979-80 (DC Cir. 2004).
Commenters' argument that Congress could have mandated a pollutant-
by-pollutant result by using the phrase ``for each pollutant'' at
appropriate points in CAA section 129(a)(2) misses the point. While
doing so would have removed ambiguity from CAA section 129(a)(2), the
fact that the statute does not contain the phrase 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 limitations in the floors in this rule of course reflect sources'
actual performance and were 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).
The legislative history can sometimes be so clear as to give clear
meaning to what is otherwise ambiguous statutory text, but that is not
the case with the legislative history cited by the commenters: ``The
selection of emissions limitations which have been achieved in practice
(rather than those which are merely theoretical) by sources of a
similar type or character. An emissions limitation achieved in practice
is one based on control technology that works reasonably well (doesn't
require frequent and extensive modification or repair) under realistic
operating conditions.'' See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 169
(1989). In fact, that language quoted equally supports EPA's approach
of establishing the standards based on actual emission data from
existing sources, which we consider realistic operating conditions. We
further consider whether all the MACT standards can be achieved
simultaneously under realistic operating conditions by evaluating the
compatibility of different control technologies for the various 129
pollutants, as discussed below.
Commenters also make much of the fact that no single facility is
presently achieving all of the nine pollutant limits proposed. But this
fact is irrelevant, and only shows that plants will need to reduce
their emissions of certain
[[Page 15721]]
pollutants to meet standards reflecting the average of best industry
performers for that pollutant. 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 the
cost under a unit-based methodology. For example, the pollutant-by-
pollutant approach for the CISWI regulation results in a stringent MACT
floor for HCl based on control using a wet scrubber, and stringent MACT
floors for PM and metals based on control using a FF. We interpret CAA
section 129 to support determining the MACT floor 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 CISWI facility to determine whether combustion conditions can be
adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install add-on
NOX controls as necessary, e.g., SNCR systems.
All available data for cement kilns indicate that there is no
technical problem achieving the floor levels for each pollutant
simultaneously, using the MACT floor technology. For most kilns,
compliance with the Hg limits will be accomplished using ACI followed
by a second PM control consisting of a FF. There is no technical
impediment to using this same system for control of PCDD/PCDF. We note
that the ACI system would have to be installed downstream of the
existing PM control, therefore, there would be no effect on the cement
kiln dust collected in the existing PM control. One industry commenter
claimed ACI increases dioxin emissions. Considering the fact that ACI
can actually be used to remove dioxins from kiln exhaust gas, we see no
basis for that statement. Regarding the commenter's claim that ACI
increases D/F in MWC, our experience with the MWC source category has
shown that this technology has been demonstrated to be effective at
reducing D/F emissions from these sources and is being used extensively
by MWC units. Furthermore, we have not been provided information from
either the commenter or the MWC industry that substantiates the
commenter's claim that ACI increases D/F emissions from these sources.
After the ACI system, a wet scrubber can be used for HCl and
SO2 control. We would expect the wet scrubber to be the
downstream control because it creates a moisture laden exhaust that
would require reheating to then apply ACI. Again, there is no technical
impediment to adding a wet scrubber after the ACI system, and the two
control devices should not interfere with each other's performance. If
the facility required an RTO to meet the CO limit, the RTO would be
installed downstream of the wet scrubber in order to protect the RTO
from any acid gases in the kiln exhaust. The wet scrubber/RTO
combination has been demonstrated in cement kiln applications.
In order to meet the PM and metals standards a facility could
choose to modify their existing PM control to meet the revised limits,
or design a new baghouse downstream of the ACI injection point to meet
the PM and metals limits.
Though we have described some fairly complicated control scenarios,
there are simpler applications of control technology that would likely
be used successfully. One example would be simultaneous injection of
alkaline materials (lime or sodium compounds) and activated carbon
downstream of the existing PM control device followed by collection
with a FF. This type of injection scheme would potentially control acid
gases (HCl and SO2), PCDD/PCDF, Hg, and PM.
Regarding the comment that EPA should consider work practice
standards in lieu of emission limits for certain types of ERUs, we
again point out that CAA section 129(a)(4) says that the standards
promulgated under CAA section 129 shall specify numerical emissions
limitations for each pollutant enumerated in that provision. Section
129(a)(4) requires MACT standards for, at a minimum, PM,
SO2, HCl, NOX, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, and PCDD/PCDF.
Section 129 does not contain a work practice standard provision similar
to that contained in CAA section 112(h) and applicable to NESHAP.
Finally, several commenters suggested that EPA must consider costs
when establishing MACT standards. EPA is prohibited from considering
costs when determining the minimum standards for each pollutant--the
``MACT floor;'' however, EPA is required to consider costs, among other
things, when evaluating whether the MACT standards should be more
stringent than the MACT floor, so called ``beyond-the-floor''
standards. See section 129(a)(2). EPA did consider costs in its beyond-
the-floor analysis consistent with the statute.
2. MACT-on-MACT
Comment: Several commenters argued that EPA's recalculation of the
2000 MACT floors using post-MACT compliance data results in so-called
``MACT-on-MACT'' standards. They suggest that the limits are being set
using a very small amount of data from a very small number of sources.
The commenters argue that for the incinerator subcategory, the presumed
reason a small number of units are being used to set the limits is that
the existing standard caused many units to shut down. The commenters
suggest that the remaining units likely installed or improved controls
in order to comply with the original CISWI standards, effectively
resulting in the new limits being set based on the top performers among
the already top performers. One commenter asserted that these floors
cannot be achieved and are contrary to the CAA and the intent of
Congress. The commenter urged EPA to use the population of pre-2000
CISWI incinerators and their emissions data to establish the revised
MACT floors. The commenter declares that the CAA never intended to
impose technology every 5 years with no consideration of costs and
risk, and that it is not reasonable to assume that Congress intended
for existing sources subject to CAA section 129 to have their standards
tightened up to levels comparable to those for new sources over time
where their circumstances have not changed.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertions that we are
employing a MACT-on-MACT approach to set limits that are not achievable
by CISWI. The purpose of this action is not to force units who have
complied with a lawfully adopted MACT standard to have to subsequently
comply with another round of updated MACT standards, but to respond to
the voluntary remand granted by the Court. As stated at proposal, we
requested a voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI standards after Sierra
Club filed a petition for review of the final CISWI standards, and the
Court issued its Cement Kilns decision which called into question EPA's
procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units. Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001). Specifically,
EPA established the 2000 CISWI MACT floors by identifying the MACT
floor control technology and calculating the MACT floor using emissions
information from all units, not only best-performing units, that used
the MACT floor technology. EPA
[[Page 15722]]
recognized that the Court rejected this methodology in the Cement Kilns
case in which the Court rejected EPA's MACT floor approach under CAA
section 112 and concluded that EPA may account for variability by
setting the floor at a level that reasonably estimates the performance
of the best controlled sources under the worst foreseeable conditions
but not the worst foreseeable conditions faced by any unit in the
source category. Id. at 865. The MACT processes under CAA sections 112
and 129 are essentially the same, thus the decision identified a flaw
in EPA's 2000 CISWI standards.
CAA section 129 requires EPA to set the MACT floor based on
emissions limitations actually achieved by the best-performing solid
waste incineration units. In addition, the Court has made it abundantly
clear that in issuing revised MACT standards pursuant to remand, EPA
may not ignore this Court's intervening holdings:
If the Environmental Protection Agency disagrees with the Clean
Air Act's requirements for setting emissions standards, it should
take its concerns to Congress. If EPA disagrees with this court's
interpretation of the Clean Air Act, it should seek rehearing en
banc or file a petition for a writ of certiorari. In the meantime,
it must obey the Clean Air Act as written by Congress and
interpreted by this court.
Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick), 479 F.3d 875, 884 (DC Cir. 2007).
The best way to ascertain the actual emissions limitations achieved
by the best-performing units, and thus comply with the Court's
dictates, is to use data reflecting the actual emissions of operating
units. For that reason, EPA collected data from solid waste
incineration units, including the existing units in the incinerator
subcategory, pursuant to a CAA section 114 ICR. In establishing the
revised CISWI standards, we used the emissions information from the
existing sources in each subcategory to set the MACT limits. For the
incinerator subcategory, we determined that the information available
from the 2000 rulemaking was insufficient and limited, and that it did
not represent the current emissions limitations achieved by the sources
in that subcategory since many of the units in that data set have since
shut down.
Notwithstanding that clear statutory mandate to establish the MACT
floors based on the emission limitations actually achieved by the best-
performing sources, commenters assert that EPA's promulgation of the
CISWI standards for the incinerators subcategory conflicts with the
intent of the statute. Commenters use the term ``MACT-on-MACT'' to give
the false impression that EPA's resetting of the MACT floors pursuant
to CAA section 129(a)(2) somehow requires sources to constantly upgrade
their control technologies. Commenters' MACT-on-MACT label is based on
the faulty premise that the original MACT floors accurately reflected
what the statute required. Although the units in the incinerators'
subcategory had to comply with the 2000 MACT floors, the standards were
not established based on the performance of the best-performing units
as the statute requires and, therefore, the limitations are likely
considerably higher than the limits being achieved by the then existing
best controlled incinerator units. Accordingly, a more accurate label
for the MACT standards as EPA re-proposed them in 2009 might be:
``MACT-on-Unsupportable-Standards-Erroneously-Labeled-as-MACT.''
We also disagree with commenters' assertion that we should not use
the new emissions information from units in the incinerator
subcategory, and instead base the MACT standards for the incinerator
subcategory on the population of pre-2000 CISWI incinerators and their
emissions data to establish the revised MACT floors. The first problem
with this approach is that, as commenters note, many of the then
existing incinerator units are no longer in operation. Section
129(a)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to establish standards for new units
based on the ``best controlled similar unit'' and, for existing units,
based on ``the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in the category.'' We fail to see how
the statute would allow us to consider emissions limitations from
sources no longer in existence or ignore the emissions information on
which we based the revised standards, and instead rely on information
that does not reflect what sources are actually achieving today.
Furthermore, even if we believed we had the authority to ignore the new
data and establish the standards based on the inventory of units in
existence before the 2000 CISWI standards, we do not have sufficient
data from those units on which to base MACT standards based on that
pre-2000 universe of sources. Specifically, EPA has data on only 17
units out of an estimated 112 units then in existence, and we have a
complete data set for only 12 units. Because we do not have a complete
data set, EPA cannot determine whether the then existing units for
which we have data from that time period were best-performing units at
that time, such that we could develop MACT standards consistent with
the statute, and there is no mechanism by which EPA could reconstruct
the category at this time.
Finally, we disagree with commenters' assertion that the units in
the incinerator subcategory are unable to meet the revised CISWI
standards. As stated above, the emissions data upon which the revised
standards rely comes directly from CISWI units that have achieved the
resulting levels, and we accounted for variability in establishing the
standards to account for the performance of sources over a period time
and different operating conditions. We believe that together this
demonstrates that the incinerator units can achieve the individual
standards, though admittedly units may have to take additional steps to
comply with the validly established MACT standards.
3. Methodology (UL or UPL)
Comment: At proposal, EPA requested comment on whether an
alternate statistical interval should be used, the 99 percent UPL. Some
commenters supported the use of the 99 percent UPL, citing cases where
this statistical interval had been used in other rulemakings for
boilers and cement kilns. Several commenters stated that the
statistical method used by EPA in setting the CISWI MACT floors is
flawed due to the use of data sets that are not statistically
significant. Commenters asserted that the 99 percent UL floor is
calculated from data which 99 percent of units in MACT floor data
population would fall below, which they argue sets up an automatic 1
percent failure rate for the top 12 percent sources. Commenters request
that this be addressed by using a statistical approach which increases
the allowance for variability of the data set.
One commenter stated that since EPA is using a limited data set
that in some cases contains predominantly nondetect values to set
floors that units must meet at all times, consideration of variability,
and use of the appropriate statistical approach is crucial to ensuring
units can achieve the emission limits. The commenter argues that in
cases of severely limited or censored data sets, EPA should use either
the 99.9 percent UL or use the UTL, which is meant for use in
situations where the amount of data available does not represent the
entire population. The commenter maintains that EPA is inappropriately
using the 99 percent UL statistic to calculate the proposed CISWI
emission limits because this does not capture enough variability in
emissions to ensure the limits will be met by the top performers 100
percent of the time. They argue that the approach is flawed,
[[Page 15723]]
given that the number of units the limits are based on is very small,
and the limits are being developed on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis in
a way that does not account for variability of the fuels and wastes
being burned. The commenter asserts that EPA does not justify the
appropriateness of the use of the 99 percent UL over the use of other
statistical procedures typically used for censored or limited data.
Further, the commenter argues that although this calculation
methodology was used in the HMIWI standard, it is not consistent with
statistical procedures used to develop other emission standards. For
example, the commenters explain that EPA used a complicated statistical
approach in the development of the HWC NESHAP standard to account for
intra-unit variability as well as inter-unit variability among the
units in the MACT floor.
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 (DC 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 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 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 are then assessing variability
of the best performers by using a statistical formula designed to
estimate a MACT floor level that can be met by the average of the best-
performing sources based on the expected distribution of future
compliance tests (or calculated inputs in the case of Hg for waste-
burning kilns). Specifically, for ERUs and waste-burning kilns, the
MACT floor limit is an UPL, and for incinerators and small remote
incinerators, the UL calculated with the student's t-test using the
TINV function in Microsoft Excel[supreg]. The student's t-test has also
been used in other EPA rulemakings (e.g., NSPS for HMIWI, NESHAP for
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters)
in accounting for variability.
As we discussed at proposal, the UL computation assumes that the
data available represents the entire population of data from the best-
performing CISWI units used to establish the standards. We have
concluded that this statement applies to the incinerator and small
remote incinerator subcategories, since we believe our inventory of
these units is more certain than is our inventory of ERUs and waste-
burning kilns for several reasons. In the 2000 CISWI rule, EPA only
regulated solid waste incineration units that operated for the sole
purpose of disposing of waste. Many incinerators subject to the 2000
CISWI rule ceased operation before the compliance date for those
standards. Once the revised CISWI standards are finalized, these types
of solid waste incineration units (i.e., incinerators and small remote
incinerators) will either comply with the revised CISWI standards or
cease operation, much as they did in response to the 2000 standards.
The same is not necessarily correct for units in the ERUs and waste-
burning kilns subcategories. For those sources, once the CISWI
standards are promulgated, they will likely either comply with the
CISWI standards or cease burning solid waste and comply with the
applicable NESHAP. We think units in those subcategories will generally
not cease operation. Furthermore, because incinerator and small remote
incinerator unit's sole purpose is waste disposal, the only practical
manner in which additional sources will be added to the inventory is
through new construction. Again, this is different than for ERUs and
waste-burning kilns because, for those subcategories, additional units
may be added if existing boilers (and process heaters) and cement kilns
begin combusting solid waste and thereby become ERUs and waste-burning
kilns, respectively. For these reasons, we believe we have a complete
inventory of units in the incinerators and small remote incinerators
subcategories.
We sent Phase II testing requests to all incinerator and small
remote incinerator units that are in our inventory. We required testing
for all incinerator and small remote incinerator units, making
allowances for identical units from a facility to only test one unit,
and not each identical unit. Therefore, our data represent the entire
population of data for these two subcategories. For this reason, we
believe the UL is the appropriate statistical approach for the
incinerators and small remote incinerators subcategories. The 99
percent UL represents a value that 99 percent of the data in the MACT
floor population would fall below, and therefore accounts for the run-
to-run and test-to-test variability observed in the MACT floor data
set.
For ERUs and waste-burning kilns, however, we recognize that our
data may not represent the entire population of units. As stated above,
there is greater uncertainty involved in determining the universe of
sources in these two source categories because we cannot be certain
that we have identified all the units that would be considered to be
burning solid waste, had the newly-adopted definition for solid waste
been promulgated and effective at the time of testing. We also do not
know whether the units we have identified will continue to burn waste
after the final CISWI standards are issued. Unlike incinerators and
small remote incinerators, the primary purpose of waste-burning kilns
and ERUs is the production of a product or generation of energy, not
the disposal of waste. Therefore, operators will decide whether it is
economically feasible to continue or start combusting solid waste to
support their industrial process and, if they decide that it is not,
they will use traditional fuels or non-waste inputs instead of solid
waste. For example, an ERU that is combusting solid waste that has
little or no cost may decide that compliance with CISWI is an
economically viable option compared to purchasing traditional fuels at
market rates; but, if the costs of compliance with CISWI exceed the
costs of traditional fuel, the source will likely cease burning solid
waste. Conversely, a boiler that currently combusts only traditional
fuels may be presented with a solid waste fuel option that makes it to
their economic advantage to begin combusting solid waste. For these
reasons, the population of units in the ERU and waste-burning kiln
subcategories is inherently uncertain. We have for these reasons
concluded that a prediction interval (e.g., UPL) is more appropriate
for these two subcategories, and this approach is also consistent with
the NESHAP statistical approach being used for the non-waste-burning
counterparts of these units (i.e.,
[[Page 15724]]
boilers/process heaters and cement kilns).
A prediction interval 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 the upper bound
of future values will be, based upon present or past background samples
taken. The UPL consequently represents the value which we can expect
the mean of future observations (3-run average) to fall below within a
specified level of confidence, based upon the results of an independent
sample from the same population. In other words, if we were to select
at random a future test condition from any of the top 12 percent (MACT
floor pool) of sources (average of 3 runs), we can be 99 percent
confident that the reported level will fall at or below the UPL value.
Use of the UPL is appropriate in this rulemaking for these two
subcategories because it sets a limit any single or future source can
meet based on the performance of members of the MACT floor pool.
The UPL is calculated as shown in Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.013
Where:
x = Mean of the sample data set
n = Number of test runs
m = Number of test runs in the compliance average
s\2\ = Observed variance
t = Student t distribution statistic
This calculation was performed using the following spreadsheet
functions:
Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL = AVERAGE (Test Runs in Top 12
percent) + [STDEV (Test Runs in Top 12 percent) x TINV (2 x
probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) * SQRT ((1/n) + (1/m))], for a
one-tailed t-value, probability of 0.01, and sample size of n. The
value of ``m'' denotes the number of future observations, and it is
used to calculate an estimate of the variance of the average of m-
future observations.
This formula uses a pooled variance (in the s2 term)
that encompasses all the data-point to data-point variability of the
best-performing sources comprising the MACT floor pool for each
pollutant. Where variability was calculated using the UPL statistical
approach, we used the average (or sample mean) and sample standard
deviation, which are two statistical measures calculated from the data
distributions for each pollutant. The average is a central value of a
data set, and the standard deviation is the common measure of the
dispersion of the data set around the average. We note here that the
methodology accounts for both short-term and long-term variability and
encompasses run-to-run and test-to-test variability. The formula also
applies differently depending on how the underlying data set is
distributed. To this end, EPA carefully evaluated the data sets for
each HAP to ascertain whether the data were normally distributed, or
distributed in some other manner (i.e., lognormal). After applying
standard and rigorous statistical tests (involving the degree of
``skewness'' of the data), we determined the distributions for each
pollutant, which in turn determined the final form of the UPL equation.
See ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources''
in the docket.
The results are floors that reasonably estimate the performance
over time of the best-performing sources, as do the standards based on
those floors. It is true that many sources will need to install
controls to meet these standards, and that these controls have
significant costs (although EPA estimates that the rule's costs are
substantially outweighed by its benefits). See section VI of this
preamble. This is part of the expected MACT process where, by
definition, the averaged performance of the very best performers sets
the minimum level of the standard. The EPA believes that it has
followed the statute and applicable case law in developing its MACT
floors. The summary of results of UL and UPL calculations and the MACT
floor emission limits for each subcategory for existing and new sources
are presented in Tables 4 through 9 of this preamble.
Table 4--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--PM, Hg, Cd and Pb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (mg/ Hg (mg/ Cd (mg/ Pb (mg/
Subcategory Parameter dscm) dscm) dscm) dscm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators..................... No. of sources in 26 26 26 26
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =...... 4 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%........... 4.571 0.0006 0.0004 0.0013
99% UL of top% (test 33.6004 0.00533 0.00256 0.00352
runs) =.
Limit =.................. 34 0.0054 0.0026 0.0036
ERUs--Solids..................... No. of sources in 30 30 30 30
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =...... 4 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%........... 2.85061 0.0000520 0.0001713 0.0012704
99% UPL of top% (test 246.9158 0.0003 0.0003(a) 0.0035(a)
runs) =.
Limit =.................. 250 0.00033 0.00051(a) 0.0036(a)
ERUs--Liquid/Gas................. No. of sources in 6 6 6 6
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =...... 1 1 1 1
Avg of top 12%........... 18.588 0.001 0.001 0.005
99% UPL of top% (test 101.7548 1.313 0.023 0.096
runs) =.
Limit =.................. 110 0.0013 0.023 0.096
Waste-burning kilns.............. No. of sources in 12 12 12 12
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =...... 2 2 2 2
Avg of top 12%........... 2.8378 N/A 0.0002 0.0012
99% UPL of top% (test 6.1115 0.0079(b) 0.0005 0.0026
runs) =.
Limit =.................. 6.2 0.0079(b) 0.00048 0.0026
Small, remote incinerators....... No. of sources in 14 14 14 14
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =...... 2 2 2 2
[[Page 15725]]
Avg of top 12%........... 84.052 0.0012 0.027 0.238
99% UL of top% (test 220.826 0.006 0.603 2.657
runs) =.
Limit =.................. 230 0.0057 0.61 2.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission
limit. For further explanation, see section V. of the preamble.
\b\ For details on this calculation, see the memorandum ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New
Sources'' in the Docket for this rulemaking.
Table 5--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--CO, NOX and SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SO2
Subcategory Parameter CO (ppmvd) (ppmvd) (ppmvd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators............................ No. of sources in subcategory = 26 26 26
No. in MACT floor =............ 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%................. 16.800 14.7 0.733
99% UL of top% (test runs) =... 32.378 52.419 10.418
Limit =........................ 36 53 11
ERUs--Liquid/Gas........................ No. of sources in subcategory = 6 6 6
No. in MACT floor =............ 1 1 1
Avg of top 12%................. 36.00 58.733 641.352
99% UPL of top% (test runs) =.. 36.00 75.6305 712.3156
Limit =........................ 36 76 720
ERUs--Biomass........................... No. of sources in subcategory = 21 21 21
No. in MACT floor =............ 3 3 3
Avg of top 12%................. 247.3333 86.7595 1.4039
99% UPL of top% (test runs) =.. 485.3681 287.9536 6.1751
Limit =........................ 490 290 6.2
ERUs--Coal.............................. No. of sources in subcategory = 9 9 9
No. in MACT floor =............ 2 2 2
Avg of top 12%................. 40.3031 307.2352 624.0054
99% UPL of top% (test runs) =.. 58.0304 330.7464 641.9307
Limit =........................ 59 340 650
Waste-burning kilns..................... No. of sources in subcategory = 12 12 12
No. in MACT floor =............ 2 2 2
Avg of top 12%................. 70.4280 437.7682 15.6660
99% UPL of top% (test runs) =.. 105.0945 536.4268 37.9704
Limit =........................ 110 540 38
Small, remote incinerators.............. No. of sources in subcategory = 14 14 14
No. in MACT floor =............ 2 2 2
Avg of top 12%................. 12.756 67.212 1.403
99% UL of top% (test runs) =... 19.104 237.326 410.006
Limit =........................ 20 240 420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission
limit.
Table 6--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Existing Units--HCl and D/F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F (total TEQ
Subcategory Parameter HCl (ppmvd) D/F (TMB) basis) (ng/dscm)
(ng/dscm) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators......................... No. of sources in 26 26 26
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =......... 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%.............. 0.181 0.238 0.004302537
99% UL of top% (test runs) = 28.045 4.504 0.1286
Limit =..................... 29 4.6 0.13
ERUs--Solids......................... No. of sources in 30 30 30
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =......... 4 4 4
Avg of top 12%.............. 0.16719 0.093487 .0088932
99% UPL of top% (test runs) 0.4456 0.3443 0.0586
=.
Limit =..................... 0.45 0.35 0.059
ERUs--Liquid/Gas..................... No. of sources in 6 6 6
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =......... 1 1 1
Avg of top 12%.............. 4.440 1.110 0.0463
99% UPL of top% (test runs) 4.927 13869.523 30.0133
=.
Limit =..................... \(a)\14 14,000 31
Waste-burning kilns.................. No. of sources in 12 12 12
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =......... 2 2 2
Avg of top 12%.............. 3.5665 0.0752 0.0005
99% UPL of top% (test runs) 24.8634 0.1909 0.0070
=.
[[Page 15726]]
Limit =..................... 25 0.2 0.007
Small, remote incinerators........... No. of sources in 14 14 14
subcategory =.
No. in MACT floor =......... 2 2 2
Avg of top 12%.............. 35.289 333.080 7.288
99% UL of top% (test runs) = 214.233 1183.196 56.933
Limit =..................... 220 1,200 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission
limit.
Table 7--Summary of MACT Floor Results for PM and Metals for New Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (mg/ Hg (mg/ Cd (mg/ Pb (mg/
Subcategory Parameter dscm) dscm) dscm) dscm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators..................... Avg of top performer..... 3.0608 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007
99% UL of top (test runs) 17.7867 0.000151 0.0023 \(a)\0.0015
=.
Limit =.................. 18 0.00016 0.0023 \(a)\0.0019
ERUs--Solids..................... Avg of top performer..... 2.640916 0.00003192 0.00013696 0.00045367
99% UPL of top (test 1094.5327 0.0028 2.8369 0.0030
runs) =.
Limit =.................. \(b)\250 \(b)\0.0003 \(b)\0.0005 0.0031
3 1
ERUs--Liquid/Gas................. Avg of top performer..... 18.588 0.001 0.001 0.005
99% UPL of top (test 101.7548 1.313 0.023 0.096
runs) =.
Limit =.................. 110 \(d)\0.0002 0.023 0.096
5
Waste-burning kilns.............. Avg of top performer..... 1.2173 N/A 0.0001 0.0011
99% UPL of top (test 2.3591 \(c)\0.0062 0.0006 0.045852
runs) =.
Limit =.................. \(a)\2.5 \(c)\0.0062 \(b)\0.0004 \(b)\0.0026
8
Small, remote incinerators....... Avg of top performer..... 83.534 0.001 0.011 0.086
99% UL of top (test runs) 733.5002 0.0013 0.6692 0.2589
=.
Limit =.................. \(b)\230 \(a)\0.0035 \(b)\0.61 0.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission
limit.
\b\ The NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\c\ Hg limit was developed using material input data from CISWI kilns identified within the Portland Cement
NESHAP database. See the memorandum ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for
details on this calculation.
\d\ Dioxin/furan TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs--liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major
source boilers. See ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details.
Table 8--Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units--CO, NOX, SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Parameter CO (ppmvd) NOX (ppmvd) SO2 (ppmvd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators............................ Avg of top performer........... 12.000 9.0333 0.2233
99% UL of top (test runs) =.... 12.000 22.3685 39.5108
Limit =........................ 12 23 \(a)\11
ERUs--Liquid/Gas........................ Avg of top performer........... 36.000 58.733 641.352
99% UPL of top (test runs) =... 36.000 75.6305 712.3156
Limit =........................ 36 76 720
ERUs--Biomass........................... Avg of top performer........... 153.0000 62.3233 1.0492
99% UPL of top (test runs) =... 153.0000 344.7699 20.8889
Limit =........................ 160 \(a)\290 \(a)\6.2
ERUs--Coal.............................. Avg of top performer........... 35.4778 307.2352 624.0054
99% UPL of top (test runs) =... 45.0280 330.7464 641.9307
Limit =........................ 46 340 650
Waste-burning kilns..................... Avg of top performer........... 58.57 1.4742 7.2187
99% UPL of top (test runs) =... 89.7816 195.2522 124.3390
Limit =........................ 90 200 \(a)\38
Small, remote incinerators.............. Avg of top performer........... 12.000 60.769 0.131
99% UL of top (test runs) =.... 12.000 77.283 1.164
Limit =........................ 12 78 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
Table 9--Summary of MACT Floor Results for New Units--HCl and Dioxins/Furans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F (Total TEQ
Subcategory Parameter HCl (ppmvd) D/F (TMB) (ng/ basis) (ng/
dscm) dscm) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incinerators...................... Avg of top performer..... 0.0413 0.0176 0.001266667
99% UL of top (test runs) 0.0901 0.0228 2.1464
=.
[[Page 15727]]
Limit =.................. 0.091 \(a)\0.052 \(b)\0.13
ERUs--Solids...................... Avg of top performer..... 0.068133 0.0161 0.000501333
99% UPL of top (test 0.5435 0.0674 0.0103
runs) =.
Limit =.................. \(b)\0.45 0.068 0.011
ERUs--Liquid/Gas.................. Avg of top performer..... 4.440 1.110 0.046335368
99% UPL of top (test \(a)\13.2107 13869.5228 30.0133
runs) =.
Limit =.................. \(a)\14 (no limit) \(c)\0.002
Waste-burning kilns............... Avg of top performer..... 0.3994 0.0562 0.000105
99% UPL of top (test 0.3994 0.0895 0.0029
runs) =.
Limit =.................. \(a)\3 0.09 0.003
Small, remote incinerators........ Avg of top performer..... 27.678 299.827 4.868700057
99% UL of top (test runs) 196.6311 1700.6082 30.0810
=.
Limit =.................. 200 \(d)\1,200 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A calculated limit equal to three times the MDL was used in place of the calculated MACT floor emission
limit.
\b\ The NSPS limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\c\ Dioxin/furan TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs--liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major
source boilers. See ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details.
The measurements for HCl from waste-burning kilns are very close to
the detection limit for analytic Method 321 actually calculated in the
field for HCl. As discussed elsewhere, we have implemented a procedure
for adjusting limits to account for measurement variability using data
at the detection limit. This results in a floor of 3 ppmvd for the new
waste-burning kilns for HCl, adjusted to a dry basis at 7 percent
oxygen. This represents the lowest level that can be reliably measured
using this test method, and we therefore believe that it is the lowest
level we can set as the MACT limit taking the appropriate measurement
variability into account.
The Hg standard for waste-burning kilns reflects 30 days of data
for all Hg inputs, reasonable estimates of control device performance
(for the few controlled sources), plus a reasonable statistical
methodology to account for variability (including variability of Hg
content of kiln inputs). EPA also used a pooled variability factor
(pooling variability for all kilns in the MACT floor pool), which
increased variability estimates. This analysis is based upon data
collected for development of the final Portland Cement NESHAP, but
screened such that the CISWI analysis used only the data from kilns
that would have been identified as CISWI units had the newly-adopted
solid waste definition been promulgated and effective at the time of
performance testing, and converted to a concentration basis for
consistency with the CISWI standards. See ``CISWI Emission Limits
Calculations for Existing and New Sources.''
4. Statistical Analysis (Lognormal vs. Normal Distribution)
Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA's data distribution
designations are flawed and that EPA must default to non-normal
distributions unless sufficient data are available to conduct robust
analyses which unambiguously show the distribution can only be
described by normal statistics. One commenter suggests that the non-
normal distribution is consistent with both conventional wisdom and
EPA's own guidance in ``Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical
Methods for Data Analysis'', EPA/600/R-96/084, July 2000, which holds
that it is more likely that environmental data are distributed log-
normally. Commenters state that where there is any uncertainty
according to EPA's criteria using Excel skewness and kurtosis, EPA
biases its findings on distributions in favor of normality, the
opposite of EPA's own guidance. The commenter states that EPA's
Guidance for Data Assessment provides that the lognormal distribution
is ``a commonly met distribution in environmental work,'' also stating
``Environmental data commonly exhibit frequency distributions that are
non-negative and skewed with heavy or long right tails,'' and ``The
lognormal distribution is a commonly used distribution for modeling
environmental contaminant data.''
Response: EPA has revised the methodology to use the lognormal
distribution when the normal distribution is not clearly indicated
based on the skewness and kurtosis tests to be more consistent with
EPA's guidance in ``Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical
Methods for Data Analysis'' EPA/600/R-96/084, July 2000.
5. Treatment of Detection Levels
Comment: Many commenters argued that EPA should not use data below
detection limits to set standards. They contend that EPA's use of data
below MDLs to set standards invalidates EPA`s analysis, creates
emissions limits that are biased low, and sets emission standards that
would not allow facilities to demonstrate compliance without taking
undue risk of facing non-compliance. They suggested that no numerical
emission standard for a pollutant should be set below the measurement
ability of the reference test method. Some commenters stated that EPA
does not appear to have systematically screened the emissions data for
cases where a detection limit should be applied, and has erroneously
recorded zero values for emissions where those are reported in the
original test reports. The commenters further assert that in addition
to failing to promulgate a method for measuring detection limits for
air emission test methods, EPA has ignored the issue of errors
associated with quantifying source emissions when they are low.
At proposal, EPA requested comment on calculating a three times
method detection limit in cases where the floor emissions limit did not
adequately account for variability. While one commenter supports this
method, another argues that this approach is unlawful and inconsistent
with the CAA's directive to set the MACT floor at the emissions level
achieved by the best-performing sources because it allows for
facilities to emit at far higher levels than the best-performing
sources.
[[Page 15728]]
Response: Although we disagree with commenters on the use of
nondetect values, we do agree that at very low emission levels where
emissions tests result in nondetect values, the inherent imprecision in
the pollutant measurement method has a large influence on the
reliability of the data underlying the MACT floor emission limit.
Because of sample and emission matrix effects, laboratory techniques,
sample size, and other factors, MDLs normally vary from test to test
for any specific test method and pollutant measurement. The confidence
level that a value measured at the detection level is greater than zero
is about 99 percent. The expected measurement imprecision for an
emissions value occurring at or near the MDL is about 40 to 50 percent.
Pollutant measurement imprecision decreases to a consistent level of 10
to 15 percent for values measured at a level about three times the MDL.
The approach EPA has used to account for measurement variability begins
by defining a MDL that is representative of the data used in the data
pool. The first step in the approach is to identify the highest test
specific MDL reported in a data set that is also equal to or less than
the average emission calculated for the data set. This approach has the
advantage of relying on the data collected to develop the MACT floor
emission limit, while to some degree, minimizing the effect of a
test(s) with an inordinately high MDL (e.g., the sample volume was too
small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive or the
procedure for determining the detection level was other than that
specified). The second step is to determine the value equal to three
times the representative MDL and compare it to the calculated MACT
floor emission limit. If three times the representative MDL were less
than the calculated MACT floor emission limit, we concluded that
measurement variability is adequately addressed, and we did not adjust
the calculated MACT floor emission limit. If, on the other hand, the
value equal to three times the representative MDL was greater than the
calculated MACT floor emission limit, we concluded that the calculated
MACT floor emission limit does not account entirely for measurement
variability. We therefore used the value equal to three times the MDL
in place of the calculated MACT floor emission limit to ensure that the
MACT floor emission limit accounts for measurement variability and
imprecision.
6. Use of CEMS Data
Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA did not include CO,
SO2, or NOX data from CEMS that was provided by
companies and resides in EPA's databases. Commenters claimed that after
discussions with EPA rule writers in which affected sources were
encouraged to gather CEMS data as an alternative to stack test data,
facilities purposefully submitted such data and these data should be
used. Some commenters suggested that it is important that the MACT
floor data represent the real-world variability of emissions and that
CEMS data is clearly superior to stack test data in this regard.
Commenters suggested that EPA may believe it is not feasible to
incorporate CEMS data along with stack test data in its MACT floor
analyses due to the method it chose to rank and statistically analyze
the data. The commenters recommended using the UPL in the statistical
analysis to allow CEMS data to be used along with stack test to set
standards. Further, one commenter suggested that EPA obtain hourly
average CEMS data over a suitable period of time (several months or as
much data as can be readily obtained) from each source it can identify
that either has a permanent CEMS installed on the unit or provided data
in its response to the ICR survey or testing program.
Response: In response to the ICR survey, most facilities that
reported CEMS data provided it as 24-hour block averages. We used these
data to determine baseline emissions and to calculate costs and impacts
of the final rule. EPA did not propose to use 24-hour block averages in
setting emissions standards for NOX, SO2, and CO.
We determined that to do so for these pollutants would be inconsistent
with the sampling time for the stack test data and the test methods
used to determine compliance with the final standards. For example,
typical instrument stack test method test runs would be around 1 hour
or less for NOX, CO, or SO2 stack tests
representing essentially 3-hour average of emissions. A 3-hour average
is not comparable to data obtained over a 24-hour sampling with a CEMS.
In response to comments, EPA has incorporated into the database hourly
CEMS data that were voluntarily submitted by some units that are best
performers within their subcategory, and where no stack test data are
available, and used these data in conjunction with stack test data from
other best performers to calculate the MACT floor emission limits.
For a response to the comment on using the UPL in the statistical
analysis to calculate emissions, see section V.B of this preamble.
C. Control Technology Assumptions for the Floor and Beyond-the-Floor
1. Control Technologies and Cost Assumptions
Comment: Many commenters argued that EPA underestimated the total
cost of controls and monitoring equipment required to comply with the
emissions standards. Several commenters stated that PM concentrations
will increase with the addition of SNCR and ACI systems and will
require facilities to invest in baghouse systems. Some commenters
asserted that there is no documentation to support that LBMS can
control CO emissions from boilers to achieve the emission levels.
Commenters also argued that biomass-to-energy facilities required to
install an oxidation catalyst to meet the CO emission limits may have
space limitations or other engineering constraints and may not be able
to achieve the emission limits. One commenter argued that packed bed
scrubbers to control HCl and SO2 from boilers is impractical
on units with high flow rates, high PM loading, and high inlet
pollutant concentration. Some commenters suggested that EPA does not
have an adequate understanding of how to reduce or control D/F
emissions from cement kilns. Some commenters asserted that the cost
memorandum assumes that for units requiring less than 10 percent
improvement in NOX, ``minor adjustments were considered
sufficient.'' They stated that EPA further assumes that these
adjustments (such as air handling and distribution adjustments in the
firebox) could be made at no additional cost. The commenters contended
however, that EPA provides no evidence in the record to support either
of these assumptions and that there are no boiler adjustments of this
type that are done at no cost.
Response: EPA first notes that the rule does not specify particular
controls that sources must install and operate. Sources may evaluate
the emissions from their source and the emission limits that apply, and
then judge for themselves which controls may be best suited for their
particular unit to meet the emission limits. The control technology
assumptions and cost estimates are assumptions of controls which may be
required and an estimate of costs to retrofit and operate these
controls.
EPA has, however, revised the costing assumptions and methodology
since proposal to address issues presented by commenters. For example,
in cases where ACI is being required, we have assumed that FF will need
to be installed to capture the spent carbon or,
[[Page 15729]]
if FF is already present, improvements will be required to the FF to
ensure capture of the sorbent. For larger ERUs that require acid gas
control, we have assumed that dry sorbent injection followed by DIFF
will be the preferred technology rather than wet scrubbers. For
NOX control, we acknowledge that small adjustments at no
cost may not be feasible for all affected units to meet the limits and
that sources may want to have some operational flexibility so that they
have suitable margin of compliance with the emission limits. Therefore,
we have used SNCR as the control technology if even small
NOX reductions are required to meet the limit. We have not
quantified PM increases due to SNCR addition. PM increases are a
function of flue gas characteristics of each unit, and we do not have
data for our units that would allow us to determine whether secondary
particulate formation would occur in certain units that an additional
PM control device would be required for the unit. We note, however,
that the units that require an SNCR to meet the limits are also
anticipated to need a PM control device to meet the limits for other
pollutants. Therefore, we expect that affected sources would account
for potential secondary PM formation in designing their overall air
pollution control system.
2. Technology-Based Beyond-the-Floor Comments
Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA's decision to consider
beyond-the-floor limits equal to the new source floors was arbitrary
and unlawful. The commenters recommended that instead EPA should
examine multiple control technologies to determine what level of
emissions reductions are ``achievable'' based on cost and other
factors. The commenters asserted that beyond-the-floor technologies
should be evaluated for all pollutants in each subcategory of the CISWI
rule.
Response: We have revised our beyond-the-floor analysis from that
set forth in the proposed rule to consider the performance of available
technology. For existing units, rather than considering as the only
beyond-the-floor option the potential of existing sources to meet the
new source limits, we have considered the technologies available to
control the various HAP and the reasonable control efficiencies of
those technologies. As discussed at proposal, EPA may adopt emissions
limitations and requirements that are more stringent than the MACT
floor (i.e., beyond-the-floor). Unlike the MACT floor methodology,
however, EPA must consider costs, nonair-quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements when considering beyond-
the-floor alternatives.
In developing this final rule, EPA first analyzed the controls
available and being used for each subcategory and compared this to the
controls necessary for units to meet the MACT floor limits. We then
evaluated the different combinations of available emission control
technologies and practices, add-on controls different from those
required to meet the MACT floor limits, that existing units would have
to employ were we to require additional emissions reductions beyond-
the-floor levels set forth above. If we determined that any of these
additional control options were technically feasible for the units in a
subcategory, we then analyzed the costs, nonair quality environmental
impacts and benefits associated with adopting the identified control
option to determine whether the beyond-the-floor control was
reasonable. The following discussions detail this analysis for each
subcategory.
Incinerators. Existing units in this subcategory are equipped with
afterburners, FFs, and wet scrubbers. We estimate that to comply with
the existing source MACT floor limits units in this subcategory may
require the addition of or improvement of an existing FF for the
control of PM, Cd and Pb; wet scrubbers for the control of HCl and
SO2 for many of the units that currently do not have wet
scrubbers; ACI system with a FF for the control of D/F and Hg; and in
several cases, afterburner retrofits for the control of CO; and SNCR
for NOX in certain instances. These controls are effective
and demonstrated on this subcategory of units for the pollutants they
are intended to control (see ``Revised CISWI Control Costs Memorandum''
in the docket). We estimate that some incinerator units in this
category will require retrofits of existing control or installation of
additional control technologies as set forth above to comply with the
MACT floor limits.
Furthermore, as part of our costing and impacts analysis (discussed
in section VI of this preamble), we evaluated whether existing
facilities would choose to cease burning solid waste in incineration
units after promulgation of the final CISWI standards if alternative
disposal options, primarily diverting waste to a landfill, were less
costly. Based on the analysis, we expect that all but three facilities
with units in the incinerators subcategory will choose to cease
operations once the proposed MACT floor limits are promulgated. The
three units that we estimate to remain open will likely add ACI system/
FF and one will add SNCR for NOX control to meet the MACT
floor limits. There is no better control beyond the ACI system/FF for
D/F, Hg, PM, Cd, and Pb control. The reductions these units will
require for meeting the metals emissions will typically need to be
greater than 95 percent, therefore necessitating very efficient FF
systems. One unit that is not currently meeting the NOX MACT
floor limit must install SNCR to comply with the NOX floor
limit. To achieve further reductions for NOX, the unit would
require another control device, such as SCR, to comply with a beyond-
the-floor limit, and would require the other remaining units to also
install either SNCR or SCR. The cost of installing and operating the
SCR is typically four to five times higher than a comparable SNCR (see
``Revised CISWI Control Cost Memorandum''), and would force this unit
to close. In addition to cost considerations, SCR is typically used in
combustion units such as industrial boilers and process heaters, gas
turbines, and reciprocating internal combustion engines (Air Pollution
Control Technology Fact Sheet, SCR, EPA-452/F-03-032), and we are not
currently aware of any successful application of SCR technology to a
waste-combustion unit. We therefore question whether SCR could be
successfully applied to incineration units in any case. For acid gas
performance, all three units are well below the MACT floor with their
existing controls, and addition of wet scrubbers would only offer small
incremental improvements in emissions. From a cost perspective, the
likely result of requiring wet scrubbers on these units would be
closure of these units and diversion of waste to a landfill.
Considering these factors, we concluded that beyond-the-floor limits
are unreasonable for the incinerator subcategory.
Small remote incinerators. Existing units in this subcategory are
typically equipped with an afterburner as the control device, with the
facility sometimes employing waste segregation practices to a certain
degree, usually to screen out recyclable materials and hazardous waste
materials. We received several comments stating that this subcategory
has unique climactic, geographic, and wildlife considerations that
influence the applicable controls that are available, and commenters
also stated that these small remote incinerators are the only viable
waste disposal option in certain regions of Alaska. See section V of
this preamble for more discussion from commenters
[[Page 15730]]
on these units. Of primary concern from a technical standpoint are
controls that require water to operate or those that have a large space
footprint. Water-based controls such as wet scrubbers, SNCR, and even
the evaporative cooling section of dry sorbent injection followed by
DIFF may pose ice fogging and equipment freezing concerns that could
prevent the use of the incinerator.
To achieve the MACT floor limits, more than half of the units in
this subcategory will require afterburner upgrades, about two-thirds of
the units will require ACI system/FF or FF alone, and most will require
a more robust materials segregation plan that removes chlorinated and
non-ferrous metal components from the waste stream at these facilities.
These controls are the best demonstrated technologies that are
technologically feasible at these facilities, and they are sufficient
to meet the MACT floor limits. One technology that is beyond-the-floor
that is technically feasible would be higher efficiency FF or perhaps
the addition of a second FF. However, considering the small amount of
emissions that would remain after meeting the MACT floor, we expect the
incremental cost effectiveness for a second FF or higher efficiency FF
could be extraordinarily high, approaching $500,000/ton.
We have also considered the costs of alternative disposal, and,
based on new information obtained during the comment period, we have
adjusted our estimates of those costs to be much higher than those we
estimated at proposal. Based on the adjusted cost estimates, we have
determined that the alternative disposal options exceed the costs of
controls necessary to meet the MACT floor limits. In addition, there is
still some uncertainty whether alternative disposal is an available
option during severe climate events. Our assessment indicates that a
beyond-the-floor limit would not be achievable to some facilities due
to aforementioned technical issues associated with available controls
and would significantly increase costs for others. In either case, we
conclude that establishing beyond-the-floor standards would likely
result in forced closure of some of the units in this subcategory, but
we also believe that some units that would otherwise close due to cost
related issues would be forced to operate at a loss because closure may
not be an option due to other nonair quality environmental regulations
aimed at protecting human health and wildlife. For both the
technological and cost related issue discussed above, and because of
nonair quality environmental issues, we conclude that there are no
reasonable beyond-the-floor alternatives for the small remote
incinerator subcategory.
Waste-burning kilns. Existing kilns are currently equipped with
various combinations of ESPs, FF, SNCR and DIFF controls. We estimate
that kilns may need to add new controls or improve existing controls to
meet the MACT floor limits. These include improved FFs to meet the
reductions necessary to meet the Cd and Pb limits, activated carbon for
D/F and Hg control, and some kilns may need to add RTO to meet the CO
limits.
As previously discussed, ACI system/FF are the best technologies
available for control of D/F, Hg, PM, Cd and Pb. To meet the floor, the
FF will need to be high efficiency, 99 percent in some cases, to meet
the MACT floor limit for Cd and Pb. The only further control available
would be a second FF, which would result in less than an additional 1
percent reduction of these pollutants. We estimate the cost
effectiveness for this to be in the $500,000 per ton range at a
minimum. Therefore, there are no further controls to consider as
beyond-the-floor options for these pollutants.
For waste-burning kilns, a significant amount of CO emissions can
result from the presence of organic compounds in the raw materials (and
not only from incomplete combustion). Therefore, good combustion
controls and practices are not as effective for waste-burning kilns as
for other types of combustion units, and may not be enough for units to
meet the MACT floor CO limits. Oxidation catalysts have not been
installed on waste-burning kilns, and we believe they may not be as
effective on waste-burning kilns as they are on other sources due to
plugging problems. Specifically, the catalyst bed can become plugged or
blinded with dust, thereby covering up catalyst reactive sites
necessary to oxidize CO, which reduces the effectiveness of the unit.
To maintain the effectiveness of the catalyst, the unit may require
shutting down more frequently to replace the catalyst, which reduces
productivity of the unit and increases catalyst costs. To make an
oxidation catalyst feasible, it may be necessary to also use multiple
FF in series upstream of the catalyst which, as described above, is a
very costly measure. The only effective CO control for significant CO
reductions we could identify for waste-burning kilns is a RTO, and we
expect over half of the units will need to install a RTO to meet the
MACT floor limits. As a beyond-the-floor option, setting a CO limit at
a level that most of the remaining waste-burning kilns would also
require RTO could be considered, although we doubt that some of the
units requiring RTO to meet the MACT floor emission limit for CO would
be able to further reduce their emissions to that same extent.
Furthermore, the cost and energy consumption for these additional RTO
make this an impractical choice. Therefore, as there are no other
controls which could be applied to further reduce CO emissions from
these units and additional RTOs would be ineffective from a cost and
energy impacts perspective, we could not identify a beyond-the-floor
option for CO.
We expect that waste-burning kilns will install scrubbers to meet
the MACT floor emission limits for HCl and SO2. The floor
limits for HCl are at the levels of quantification of the test method
used to determine compliance. Therefore, there are no additional
measures that could be employed to quantify any further reductions in
HCl emissions beyond that of the MACT floor limit. The only other
option for further HCl and SO2 control would be addition of
a dry sorbent injection system in series with the wet scrubber.
However, this would approximately double the costs for acid gas
control, with only about a 30 percent incremental reduction in
SO2 emissions and no measurable reduction in HCl emissions.
As a result, no beyond-the-floor options for acid gases from waste-
burning kilns exist because we cannot quantify further HCl reductions,
and the beyond-the-floor options for SO2 reductions are
unreasonable due to the cost of the additional controls in conjunction
with the limited benefits of such controls.
The demonstrated control technology for NOX control on
waste-burning kilns is SNCR. In fact, several of the kilns are already
equipped with this technology and are able to comply with the
NOX MACT floor limit. We estimate that other kilns may
require the addition of SNCR to meet the MACT floor limits for
NOX. One kiln will require an SNCR that is optimized to the
capabilities of the technology to meet the MACT floor limits for
NOX. For this unit to be able to achieve an even lower
NOX limit would likely require another technology. As
discussed above, SCR is another technology that is used by some
combustion sources to reduce NOX emissions; however, SCR is
a catalyst technology that has not been demonstrated to work
effectively on cement kilns (or waste-burning kilns) in the United
States. We believe that SCR is not effective on waste-burning kilns due
to difficulties operating SCR in applications where there is
significant PM or sulfur loading in the gas stream. These two gas
stream constituents can
[[Page 15731]]
reduce catalyst activity, and lower the resulting effectiveness of the
SCR, through catalyst poisoning and blinding/plugging of active sites
by ammonia sulfur salts (formed from sulfur in the flue gas with the
ammonia reagent) and PM (Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet,
SCR, EPA-452/F-03-032). We could not identify any other controls beyond
SCR and SNCR, alone or in tandem, to reduce NOX emissions
from waste-burning kilns. We believe that SCR is not technically
demonstrated on kilns currently and may not be technically feasible.
For these reasons, we are not selecting a limit for NOX that
is beyond-the-floor for the waste-burning kiln subcategory.
Liquid waste ERUs. Existing units in this subcategory are equipped
with flue gas recirculation in a couple cases, and some settling
chambers for particulate control in a couple other units. We anticipate
units within this subcategory may need to install FF, CO catalyst, and
SNCR to meet the MACT floor limits. As discussed earlier, FFs are the
best control available for PM, Cd, and Pb control. The only further
control available would be a second FF or a very high efficiency FF.
The metals emissions from these units are very low to begin with, so
the only incremental reductions would be in PM. This would result in
perhaps an additional 10 percent reduction in emissions at almost
double the cost of current particulate controls. As mentioned before,
we anticipate cost effectiveness for this to be in the $500,000 per ton
range at a minimum. Likewise, SNCR is the best demonstrated technology
being applied to waste combustion units for NOX control. As
discussed earlier, SCR has been used in some boiler applications, but
SCR costs are approximately four to five times those of SNCR, for only
an additional 30 percent reduction from the baseline. Furthermore, we
observe that SCR has not been demonstrated to work effectively on waste
combustion units in the United States. Carbon monoxide control for
liquid waste ERUs could also be achieved by using a RTO, but at a far
greater energy requirement, notably in natural gas consumption, with
comparable control efficiency as the CO catalysts that we expect some
units will need to install to meet the MACT floor CO limits. Therefore,
we conclude that additional beyond-the-floor CO control would be
unreasonable for this subcategory.
Additional D/F and Hg control could be achieved using ACI with
another FF. However, the baseline emissions for these pollutants are
already very small, with only marginal additional emissions reductions
available if additional controls were being used. Therefore, beyond-
the-floor limits for these pollutants will not be reasonable from a
cost effectiveness perspective.
We also considered whether it is reasonable to go beyond-the-floor
with respect to SO2 for this subcategory. In this case, the
DIFF control technology could be applied to these units to reduce
SO2 emissions by about 70 percent with co-control of HCl (90
percent) as well as PM, Cd, and Pb. Most of these units will already
require the addition of a FF to meet the MACT floor limits, so the cost
of going beyond-the-floor for these units would entail the dry sorbent
injection components of the control device. For the units that do not
require FF to meet the floor, the additional costs would involve the
entire DIFF control device. The total cost for applying the relevant
controls to all the units is approximately $4.8 million per year in
annualized capital and operating costs for SO2 control
beyond-the-floor. The reduction in emissions of SO2 is
approximately 2,300 tpy, based on the baseline emissions estimate and a
70 percent reduction and accounting for SO2 emissions from
electricity generation needed to power the controls. It is worth noting
that the baseline estimates and MACT floor calculations for this
subcategory are based on data from the only unit for which we have
SO2 data in this subcategory. This unit has a baseline
SO2 concentration of 641 ppm, which has been applied to the
other five liquid ERUs as an estimated baseline concentration. The HCl
concentration for this unit is about 4 ppm, so co-benefit emission
reductions are significantly less than the SO2 emission
reductions. Because we are basing these analyses off of data from a
single unit within the subcategory, we realize that there is a large
margin of uncertainty on the control requirements within this source
category and the potential for SO2 emissions reductions at
the beyond-the-floor level.
To get a better idea of the potential cost effectiveness for a
beyond-the-floor limit for SO2, we also looked at the costs
and emissions reductions solely for the unit which we have data for to
determine the cost effectiveness of control for this unit. In this
case, the additional cost of the dry injection system (the unit already
requires a FF to meet the MACT floor limits) is about $567,000 per
year, with an estimated emissions reduction of 103 tpy of
SO2 (and minor HCl reduction) adjusted for SO2
emissions from electricity generated to power the controls. This
results in an incremental cost effectiveness of $5,500 per ton of
SO2 control beyond-the-floor. While this number is generally
within the cost effective range we find reasonable, we are not adopting
a beyond-the-floor limit for SO2 given the uncertainty
associated with this number, the fact that we cannot adequately
estimate the costs for other units in the subcategory, and because the
controls required for HCl may actually reduce SO2 more than
is required based on the SO2 standard alone such that the
actual cost effectiveness of the beyond-the-floor option is not in line
with the estimate.
Regarding co-control for PM, the fact that four of the six liquid
waste ERUs will likely require FF to meet MACT floor limits for Cd and
Pb means that going beyond-the-floor using DIFF controls would only net
additional PM control on the two remaining units. The FF portion of the
control costs for these two units is approximately $1.1 million per
year with an estimated PM reduction of fewer than five tpy, which
translates into an incremental cost-effectiveness of about $230,000 per
ton for additional PM control. Based on our analysis and realizing the
high degree of uncertainty regarding costs, emissions reductions and
resulting cost-effectiveness for this particular CISWI subcategory, we
have concluded that requiring beyond-the-floor controls on these units
is unreasonable.
Solid waste ERUs. Existing units in this subcategory are equipped
with various combinations of ESPs, FF, scrubbers, SNCR spray towers,
and DIFF. We anticipate units within this subcategory may need to
install or improve different combinations of ACI system/FF, DIFF, FF,
LBMS, CO catalysts, and wet scrubber control technologies to meet the
MACT floor limits. As discussed earlier, a FF is the best control
available for PM, Cd, and Pb control. The Cd and Pb reductions
necessary are greater than 90 percent in many cases, indicating that
units will likely require highly efficient FF to meet the limits for
these pollutants and PM. Therefore, beyond-the-floor limits for PM, Cd,
and Pb would likely necessitate a second FF, essentially doubling the
cost for little additional reduction in emissions. Furthermore, the ACI
system is the BAT for reducing D/F and Hg emissions. The D/F reduction
necessary for some of these units approaches 99 percent, indicating
that beyond-the-floor limits that are more stringent than the MACT
floor limits may not be achievable by the control technology.
In certain cases, units may require DIFF and wet scrubbers in
series to meet acid gas limits. There are no additional controls that
could be implemented in these cases to further reduce acid gas
[[Page 15732]]
emissions. Carbon monoxide control for solid waste ERUs could also be
achieved by using a RTO, but likely at a far greater energy requirement
(specifically natural gas) with comparable control efficiency as the CO
catalysts that we expect some units will need to install to meet the
MACT floor CO limits. Therefore, we conclude that additional beyond-
the-floor CO control would be unreasonable for this subcategory due to
additional cost and energy impacts.
The demonstrated control technology for NOX control on
ERUs is SNCR. In fact, some of the ERUs are already equipped with this
technology. A couple of the units appear to comply with the
NOX MACT limit because they already have a SNCR in place. As
mentioned earlier, SCR is another technology that is used by some
combustion sources to reduce NOX emissions. However, SCR
costs can be about four to five times more costly than SNCR.
Furthermore, we observe that SCR has not been demonstrated to work
effectively on waste combustion units in the United States. We realize
that the industrial sectors that use units within this CISWI
subcategory are typically wood and forest product industries, sectors
that have suffered particular economic hardship. We are attempting to
make sure that the regulatory requirements are being satisfied, while
minimizing adverse economic impact wherever possible. Since there
remain some questions about a demonstrated control beyond the control
used to meet the MACT floor limits, and some units are already
utilizing SNCR to meet the MACT limit, coupled with the fact that the
potential beyond-the-floor technology is significantly more expensive,
we are not selecting a limit for NOX that is beyond-the-
floor for the solid waste ERU subcategory.
New Units. As discussed elsewhere, we have concluded that only two
of the CISWI subcategories may see any new units within the immediate
future, primarily due to replacement of old units. These two
subcategories are the incinerator subcategory and the small remote
incinerator subcategory. While facilities may find alternative disposal
options are available, we are cognizant of the fact that, for these
subcategories, there may be instances where alternative disposal
options are unavailable, and a new incineration unit may be required.
For incinerators, we estimate units may require a combination of the
ACI system/FF, SNCR, and wet scrubbers to achieve the new source MACT
floor limits. As discussed above for existing incinerators, there are
no control technologies demonstrated or reasonably cost-effective that
we could consider at this time that would perform better or be more
cost-effective than those being used to meet the new source MACT floor
limits. Therefore, we have concluded that no beyond-the-floor emission
limits should be selected for new incinerators. For small remote
incinerators, we anticipate new sources will have an afterburner
installed to achieve the CO limit and that the afterburner will also be
equipped with low NOX burners, require waste segregation for
ferrous and non-ferrous metals and chlorinated plastics, and likely
require ACI system/FF to meet the new source MACT floor limits. As
discussed above for existing small remote incinerators, there are
technical issues with any control technologies that require water for
operation for this subcategory of unit. As a result, there are no
additional or better control technologies available other than those
being used to meet the new source MACT floor limits for the small
remote incinerator subcategory.
D. Rationale for Subcategories
1. Incinerators
Comment: Some commenters argue that EPA wrongly concluded that all
incinerators are sufficiently similar to meet one emission limit. The
commenters suggest that the variability of combusted materials
necessarily means variability in emissions concentrations and that
variability cannot be masked exclusively by emissions control
performance or statistical analysis. One commenter claims that it will
be extremely difficult for incinerators combusting materials other than
what the best-performing incinerators are combusting to comply with the
limits in the proposed rule if EPA does not refine the overly-broad
incinerator subcategory.
Response: EPA disagrees that incinerators should be further
subcategorized. As stated at proposal, ``incinerators, which are the
units currently regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule, are used to dispose
of solid waste materials, and emissions are a function of the types of
materials burned. Incinerators are designed without integral heat
recovery (but may include waste heat recovery). While there are
different designs, they all serve the same purpose: reduction in the
volume of solid waste materials. Incinerators can be operated on a
batch or continuous basis.'' We note that the MACT floor pool of
incinerators represents a wide variety of industrial sources, from
pharmaceuticals to heavy equipment manufacturers. From the data
available, these best-performing units also combust a wide variety of
materials, including liquid waste streams, expired pharmaceutical
products, and spent paint booth filters. Therefore, contrary to
commenters' arguments, there is a wide variety of materials being
combusted in the best-performing units. As we also explained at
proposal, the same types of add-on controls, including FF, wet
scrubbers, SNCR and ACI, can be applied to most incinerators. Our
estimates indicate that the reductions achieved by these controls will
allow incinerator units to comply with the emission limits.
Furthermore, the commenters have provided no information that
indicates that the units in the incinerators subcategory are unable to
retrofit and/or take other actions (e.g., waste segregation) to satisfy
the standards in the final rule. Even if it were true that some sources
will be unable to meet the final standards, which we dispute, we still
believe it would not be reasonable to further subcategorize
incinerators based on the waste stream because such subcategorization,
taken to its logical conclusion, would lead to many subcategories with
one or only a few sources. We presume that Congress recognized when it
enacted CAA section 129 that solid waste incineration units would be
combusting a variety of waste and, in fact, CAA section 129 requires
different standards based on the potential waste streams: MSW; HMI
waste; and commercial and industrial waste. Congress provided
additional discretion to further subcategorize solid waste incineration
units, however, commenters have not provided compelling information
that indicates these units, which are already complying with the 2000
CISWI standards, should be further subcategorized. For these reasons,
we decline to further subcategorize the incinerators subcategory.
2. Energy Recovery Units
Comment: Many commenters suggested that the ERU subcategory is
overly broad and should be subcategorized. The commenters stated that
EPA has broad authority to distinguish among groups of sources within a
source category or subcategory in setting a MACT standard. The
commenters maintained that the statute provides that EPA ``may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory'' when establishing MACT standards. Several
commenters believed that Congress' use of the broad terms ``class,''
``type,'' and ``size'' show that EPA is intended to have broad
discretion in
[[Page 15733]]
the appropriate factors that warrant distinguishing among sources, and
EPA's proposed subcategories fall squarely within the meaning of
``types'' and ``sizes.'' The commenters argued that to the extent that
EPA may distinguish among sources within a category or subcategory on
the basis of ``any [reasonable] criterion of classification
whatsoever,'' and may create subcategories as appropriate, the CAA
clearly grants EPA authority to create additional subcategories for
ERUs.
Many commenters suggested that the subcategorization of ERUs, where
differences among sources affect the applicability of control
technology, is consistent with MACT precedent. Commenters argued that
EPA's proposed inclusion of all types of ERUs (coal units, biomass
units, combination boilers, liquid boilers, and even gas fired units)
into one subcategory is inadequate. Several commenters suggested that
EPA create separate subcategories as it proposed in the Boiler and
Process Heater MACT. The commenters supported their suggestion by
offering the following rationale: (1) Since the CAA requires EPA to set
SO2 limits for CISWI units, and since coal contains
significant concentrations of sulfur, and biomass generally would
contain little or no sulfur, a subcategory for coal-fired boilers
should be established; expensive control devices such as a spray dryer
absorber could not reduce the outlet concentrations of SO2
to the single ppm levels equivalent to those of a biomass boiler; (2)
observation of the proposed Boiler MACT floor standards proposed for
biomass and coal units shows that there are significant differences in
outlet emissions of HCl, Hg, and CO; (3) likewise, the NOxx
emissions from the top performing biomass, coal, liquid, and gas-fired
units would all be significantly different due to inherent differences
in the design of these units.
Response: The CAA allows EPA to divide source categories into
subcategories based on differences in class, type, or size. For
example, differences between given types of units can lead to
corresponding differences in the nature of emissions and the technical
feasibility of applying emission control techniques. The design,
operating, and emissions information that EPA has reviewed indicates
differences in unit design that distinguish different types of ERUs.
Data indicate that there are generally significant design and
operational differences between units that burn coal, biomass, liquid,
and gaseous fuels. Energy Recovery Units are therefore designed for
specific fuel types and will encounter problems if a fuel with
characteristics other than those originally specified is fired. Many
ERUs in the database are indicated to co-fire liquids or gases with
solid fuels, but, in actuality, most of these boilers commonly use fuel
oil or natural gas as a startup fuel only and then operate on solid
fuel during the remainder of their operation. In contrast, some co-
fired units are specifically designed to fire combinations of solids,
liquids, and gases. Changes to the fuel type would generally require
extensive changes to the fuel handling and feeding system (e.g., a
stoker using wood as fuel would need to be redesigned to handle fuel
oil or liquid wastes). Additionally, the burners and combustion chamber
would need to be redesigned and modified to handle different fuel types
and account for increases or decreases in the fuel volume. In some
cases, the changes may reduce the capacity and efficiency of the ERU.
An additional effect of these changes would be extensive retrofitting
needed to operate using a different fuel; therefore, the design of the
ERU impacts the degree of combustion.
In our investigations resulting from commenters' statements, we
concluded that the data were sufficient for determining that a
distinguishable difference in performance exists based on unit design
type. Therefore, because different types of units have different
emission characteristics which may influence the feasibility or
effectiveness of emission control, they should be regulated separately
(i.e., subcategorized) for affected pollutants. Accordingly, we have
subcategorized ERUs based on unit design in order to account for these
differences in emissions and applicable controls. The two primary ERU
subcategories are units designed to burn solid wastes (solids) with
other solid fuels, and units designed to burn liquid wastes with liquid
or gaseous fuel (liquid/gas). The ERU solids subcategory is further
subcategorized into units designed to burn coal and units designed to
burn biomass for CO, NOX and SO2 to address
design differences and feasibility or effectiveness of emission control
between these types of units as commenters have suggested. The
subcategorization for these pollutants is also compelled by the data
available for the solid fuel sources. Specifically, coal fired ERUs
submitted exclusively CEMS data for CO, NOX, and
SO2, and biomass fired ERUs submitted almost exclusively
stack test data for these pollutants. We are unable to convert the vast
majority of CEMS data into equivalent stack test data and the converse
is true as well. Pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2), EPA must establish
emission standards for existing sources based on the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of sources.
Because the data for CO, NOX, and SO2 from the
biomass and coal fired ERUs are not in consistent formats, we would
have to ignore a subset of the available data in establishing the
floors for these pollutants if we did not further subcategorize solid
fuel ERUs. We therefore think it is reasonable to further subcategorize
these units for CO, NOX, and SO2 so the standards
are reflective of the data available to EPA, and we are properly
accounting for the different emissions characteristics associated with
the different types of fuels.
These subcategories are based on the primary fuel that the ERU is
designed to burn. We are aware that some ERUs burn a combination of
fuel types or burn a different fuel type as a backup fuel if the
primary fuel supply is curtailed. However, ERUs are designed based on
the primary fuel type (and perhaps to burn a backup fuel) and can
encounter operational problems if another fuel type that was not
considered in its design is fired at more than 10 percent of the heat
input to the unit. Therefore, we subcategorized ERUs that burn at least
10 percent coal (on an annual heat input basis) as being in solid fuel/
coal subcategory, with the remaining solid ERUs being in the biomass
subcategory for ERUs.
3. Cement Kilns
Comment: One commenter states that waste-burning cement kilns
differ among themselves significantly in terms of type, size,
configuration, and other relevant factors that can influence emissions,
and EPA should consider the further sub-categorization of kilns on this
basis. The commenters provide the example that in its evaluation of
organic emissions from kilns in support of the Portland Cement
rulemaking, they found significant differences due to configuration and
raw materials. The commenter did not develop specific recommendations
for sub-categorization of cement kilns under the proposed CISWI rule
citing the limited data and the limited time EPA has allowed for
comment in this rulemaking.
Response: The authority to subcategorize is discretionary, even
where sources can otherwise be distinguished as a different class,
type, or size. In evaluating the population of kilns that may be
subject to CISWI and estimates of control technologies that may be
required to meet the limits, we realize that most of the kilns in the
[[Page 15734]]
CISWI population at proposal were subject to the standard solely due to
tire combustion. Further investigation indicated that all of these
kilns obtained the tires from established tire recycling programs.
Based on the new definition in Section 241.3, these tires would not be
considered to be solid wastes. Therefore, kilns that we considered as
CISWI units at proposal solely due to tire combustion are not part of
the CISWI category, and we removed them from the CISWI inventory. In
addition, we obtained information on used oil, biomass, and wood waste
being combusted by cement kilns. Based on the definition in 241.3, we
determined which of these materials would be considered to be solid
waste and removed any kilns from the CISWI inventory where we
determined none of the fuels were solid waste. This resulted in the
inventory of CISWI kilns being reduced to 12 kilns total. Of the 12
kilns in the current CISWI inventory, one is a wet kiln, four are
preheater kilns, and the remainder are preheater/precalciner kilns. We
recognize that differences in kiln design and configuration can effect
emissions. These effects are most evident on emissions of
NOX, CO, and SO2. However; all of these
pollutants are also affected by the site specific raw materials fed to
the kiln. We have insufficient data to differentiate between the raw
material affects and the kiln design affects. Therefore, we decided not
to develop separate subcategories for cement kilns. However, all of our
information indicates that NOX, SO2 and CO are
controllable to the level of the standard whether a kiln is wet or dry.
The control devices that may be necessary to comply with the CISWI
limits (including the standards for NOX, SO2 and
CO) may be applied to both types of kiln, and there do not appear to be
any feasibility or effectiveness issues that would necessitate
subcategorization in order for units to achieve the limits. For
example, the controls we estimate the wet kiln units may require in
order to meet the CISWI limits, such as SNCR, wet scrubbers, and RTO,
may be applied to all types of kilns. We are unaware of any design
considerations that prevent FF or RTO use for either the wet type or
preheater type of kiln. Therefore, EPA disagrees with this comment and
is not subcategorizing among waste-burning kilns.
4. Small Remote Incinerators
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA revise the
definition of small remote incinerator. Some commenters suggested that
the proposed definition would inadvertently exclude those incinerators
that are within the spirit of the definition, but are located within 50
miles of a MSW landfill or units that burn more than 1 ton of waste per
day. Other commenters specifically requested an exemption for small
remote incinerators that are not accessible by the Federal Highway
System. Several commenters explained that not all units are accessible
by vehicle, the affected units may or may not be within 50 miles of a
MSW landfill, and road access can be seasonal in Alaska.
Commenters expressed particular concerns about small remote units
operating in remote locations of Alaska. Commenters explained that
waste accumulation due to unavoidable transportation delays could
attract animals, in potential violation of state law and policy and the
Federal Endangered Species Act. Several commenters explained that due
to the location of facilities, increased fog conditions and harsh
winters, it is unlikely that food waste can be transported off-site on
a daily basis. In these circumstances, stored waste may attract
wildlife to facility operations, which could in turn result in
potentially dangerous interactions with personnel. Commenters argued
that longer term on-site storage is not a safe option for either the
wildlife or humans. Further commenters explained that operational
areas, and areas where they can accumulate solid waste, are very small,
such that the ability to store multiple days of solid waste could be
problematic. The commenters asserted that the use of incinerators to
manage food waste has proven to be a valuable tool for preventing
human/wildlife interactions.
Response: EPA has revised the definition of small, remote
incinerator to apply to a unit combusting less than 3 tons of waste per
day and located more than 25 miles from the nearest landfill. The
change to 25 miles and 3 tons of waste combusted per day, instead of
the parameters that were proposed, will help address the commenters'
concerns about applicability for intended units within this
subcategory.
5. Burn-Off Ovens
Comment: Many commenters are opposed to regulating burn-off ovens
under CISWI. They assert that EPA severely underestimated the universe
of burn-off ovens and did not consider the potential subcategories of
burn-off ovens (e.g., metal parts recovery, drum reclamation, and
electric motor rewinding ovens). Several commenters argue that the
units do not use incineration or combustion processes and instead play
a vital role in the reclaiming and recycling process. Many commenters
claim that regulation of these units will result in job loss and
closure of businesses.
Response: At proposal, we combined part, rack, and drum reclamation
units into one burn-off oven subcategory. We estimated that there were
approximately 36 units in the burn-off oven subcategory. We received
comments during the comment period that indicated that there may be
more than 15,000 units in the burn-off oven subcategory as we have
defined it. Furthermore, we have no data on drum reclamation units. We
also do not have data on all CAA section 129 pollutants for the burn-
off ovens we identified at proposal. For all these reasons, and because
we are not required to finalize standards for burn-off ovens to comply
with our CAA section 112(c)(6) obligation, we have determined that this
final action will not subject burn-off ovens to this standard.
6. Soil Treatment Units
Comment: EPA received a comment that soil treatment units are
unique units and do not belong in the floor determination for kilns.
The commenter stated that soil treatment units are ``treating'' and not
``combusting'' soil and therefore should be considered in an
alternative floor analysis.
Response: Based on the information received during the comment
period, EPA agrees that soil treatment units and kilns should be
separate subcategories. In addition, information we have obtained since
proposal indicates that there may be many more soil treatment units
than the two we have identified; and, therefore, we do not have
sufficient data to set emissions standards for soil treatment units.
For these reasons, we have determined that this final action will not
subject soil treatment units to this standard. We do not need to
regulate soil treatment units at this time in order to comply with our
CAA section 112(c)(6) obligation.
E. Emission Limits
1. Consistency Between Other Applicable NESHAP Limits
Comment: Many commenters stated that EPA should adopt MACT
limitations of similar stringency for similar units, irrespective of
whether the source is regulated as a kiln or ERU under CAA section 112
or a CISWI unit under CAA section 129. Commenters stated that for some
emissions, the two rules apply to similar equipment burning similar
fuels for similar
[[Page 15735]]
purposes, but the emission limits are clearly different. They suggested
that efforts be made by the EPA either to explain the differences or to
develop more adequate and consistent limits in the regulations. One
commenter stated that EPA should express standards for waste-burning
cement kilns in a production-based form for a direct comparison of
standards with the Portland Cement NESHAP.
Response: As commenters note, we have subcategorized units to the
extent we determined appropriate within the CISWI population, to
reflect similar design considerations as subcategories for non-CISWI
units, however, the fact that units are similar does not authorize EPA
to set similar standards under CAA section 112 and section 129. As we
have discussed elsewhere in our descriptions of the MACT floor
analysis, we are calculating emission limits based on data from units
that we believe are CISWI units based on the definition of solid waste
and the currently available information. Solid waste incineration units
may not be regulated under CAA section 112 once we have established CAA
section 129 performance standards for the category or subcategory, and
solid waste incineration units should not be included in the floor
calculations for CAA section 112 standards once the units are
identified as solid waste incineration units. The converse is also
true. The requirements for setting CAA section 129 standards are
different for new and existing units. For new units, EPA must base the
standards on the best-performing similar unit for each subcategory,
and, for existing units, we must base the standards on the average
emissions limitation achieved in practice for the best-performing 12
percent of units in the subcategory. See CAA section 129(a)(2). The
statute, therefore, provides some discretion for EPA to establish new
source standards based on the best controlled similar source, instead
of the best controlled source in the subcategory. For this reason, EPA
may consider CAA section 112 sources to the extent they are similar to
the CAA section 129 units when establishing the MACT floor for new
sources. For existing units, however, EPA is required to use
information from sources in the subcategory when establishing the MACT
standards. Section 112 of the CAA contains similar requirements for
establishing the MACT floors. See CAA section 112(d)(3). Because the
existing sources subject to CAA section 112 will have different
emissions information than the sources subject to CAA section 129, we
may not harmonize the existing source standards for similar units
regulated under both CAA section 112 and section 129.
As to the comment that EPA should establish production based
standards for waste-burning kilns to coincide with the Portland Cement
NESHAP, we note that CAA section 129 solid waste incineration rules,
including the 2000 CISWI standards, have consistently presented numeric
limits in stack gas concentration bases. We are maintaining in the
final CISWI standards emission limits as stack gas concentrations;
however, in response to the comments on this issue, we note that the
kiln limits in Tables 1 and 2 of the preamble can be converted to lb/
ton clinker or lb/ton raw feed bases assuming 100,000 dscf/ton clinker
and 1.65 ton raw feed/ton clinker.
2. Opacity Limits
Comment: Several commenters opposed the setting of opacity limits
for CISWI units. Commenters argued that opacity has long been
considered a surrogate monitoring methodology for demonstrating
continuous compliance with PM standards and that the proposed controls
and monitoring techniques eliminate the need for opacity monitoring.
Many commenters also suggested that a certified reader is only able to
distinguish opacity in increments of 5 percent and that the proposed
single digit limits are beyond the capabilities of Method 9. Commenters
also asserted that the correlation between PM and opacity is not
demonstrated based on a review of the data available at proposal.
Several commenters stated that it is not appropriate to apply a ratio
of PM to opacity based only on data from one facility in the
incinerator category and apply it to all types of units regulated under
this rule.
Response: At proposal, we had opacity data for only one unit in the
incinerator subcategory. We developed opacity standards for the CISWI
subcategories by establishing a ratio of PM to opacity for the one
incinerator and multiplying that ratio by the PM MACT standards for
each of the subcategories to establish the opacity standards for the
different subcategories. 75 FR 31956. We requested comment on this
approach. We also requested comment on whether it was appropriate to
establish opacity standards for CISWI units at all. EPA is not required
to establish opacity standards for incineration units pursuant to CAA
section 129(a)(4), which requires EPA to set numeric emission
limitations for nine pollutants plus ``opacity (as appropriate).''
EPA is not promulgating opacity limits for CISWI units at this
time. As commenters note, opacity is often required in CAA rules as a
surrogate for PM to assure compliance with PM standards when continuous
PM monitoring is not required under the applicable standard. In this
case, we are requiring PM stack testing in conjunction with continuous
parametric monitoring; therefore, the need for an opacity limit is
diminished with regards to CISWI units. In addition, we have determined
it is not appropriate to set opacity standards given the lack of
opacity data from all but one of the CISWI units. However, we continue
to maintain that opacity serves as an indicator of PM, and we may in
the future determine that it is appropriate to establish opacity limits
for CISWI units; therefore, EPA is requiring opacity testing for units
as part of their annual testing requirements. Opacity also serves as an
indicator of good air pollution control practices, and as such, is a
valuable tool for EPA in determining compliance with the general
provision at 40 CFR 60.11(d) that sources maintain and operate their
affected facility including associated air pollution control equipment
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions.
3. Limits for TMB and TEQ for D/F
Comment: Some commenters suggest that EPA arbitrarily set floors
for TEQ based on a 0.078 ratio between total mass and TEQ D/F data.
Commenters believe that the data EPA used to calculate the multiplier
was not limited to the best-performing 12 percent of sources and thus,
the approach does not conform to the statute, which requires MACT
floors to be set on the basis of the average of the emissions levels
actually achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of sources.
One commenter asserts that nondetected target compounds (i.e., the
17 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDD/PCDF TEF congeners) were treated with a
zero concentration in all of the stack test reports and that target
compounds reported by the laboratory as an EMPC were treated with a
zero concentration for TEQ calculations. The commenter further states
that EPA used TEQs which treated both nondetected target compounds, as
well as those reported as an EMPC, with a zero concentration (i.e.,
ND=0; EMPC=0).
Response: EPA is no longer using a ratio of TMB to TEQ to calculate
limits for D/F TEQ. EPA further reviewed the data, including data
corrections submitted after proposal, and used
[[Page 15736]]
individual and total mass congener data to establish TEQ limits for all
subcategories. The commenter's assertion that EMPC and ND values were
treated as zero concentration is incorrect. Estimated maximum possible
concentration and ND values were not incorporated into the analysis
unless a facility reported an actual value, including a reported value
of zero. The TEQ limits were calculated using the same statistical
approach used for the other regulated pollutants. See section V.B of
this preamble for discussions on establishing MACT floors,
incorporating nondetect values, and changes in the statistical approach
used to set limits.
F. New Data/Corrections to Existing Data
1. Discussion of EPA Data Validation and Inclusion of New Data Received
Since Proposal
Comment: EPA received several comments on suggested data
corrections or new data to incorporate into the analysis.
Response: See ``Data Amendments and Corrections Following
Proposal'' memorandum in the docket for a discussion on how data were
incorporated to address comments.
G. Testing and Monitoring
1. Monitoring Alternatives (CEMS in Lieu of Testing or Parametric
Monitoring, Decisions on PM CEMS and CO CEMS)
Comment: While some commenters supported the use of CO and PM CEMS
to monitor emissions, others argued that CEMS should not be required
for all units due to unreasonable costs and impracticality. Several
commenters suggested that EPA evaluate the feasibility and measurement
capabilities of CEMS before requiring their use. Commenters stated that
multi-metals and PM CEMS can be inadequate in indicating the complex
nature of emissions and urged EPA not to remove any of the parametric
monitoring requirements in lieu of CEMS. Further, some commenters
suggested that compliance testing is not needed if CEMS is used to
monitor emissions.
Response: For the operations and facilities subject to the rule, we
believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing
and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure
conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing compliance. The rule
allows a source owner or operator to install and operate CEMS in lieu
of some testing and parametric monitoring requirements. This process
requires source owners to propose site-specific monitoring plans for
approval. These plans would include CEMS PS and periodic QA/QC steps to
assure the quality of the alternative monitoring data. Currently, EPA
has the requisite CEMS PS for Hg monitoring systems and not for
multiple metals CEMS.
The final rule will not require CO CEMS for existing ERUs, as
proposed. The rule will require operational parametric monitoring, as
the commenter suggests, for most units affected by the rule, with CO
CEMS allowed as an option at the source owner's discretion.
We agree that a PM CEMS installed and operated in accordance with
PS 11 and the associated QA procedures can provide assurance of ongoing
compliance without the need for additional periodic compliance testing.
The final rule authorized the optional use of PM CEMS. We have retained
the requirement for PM CEMS on existing ERUs greater than 250 mmBtu/hr
to measure continuous compliance for these larger units.
2. CEMS Data To Set Standards
Comment: Several commenters suggested that any limit where CEMS are
required, CEMS data must be used to develop the emission limits. The
commenters discussed their experience with CEMS that shows variability
is much higher than what a periodic stack test will show. The
commenters suggested that 30 days of continuous emission monitoring is
insufficient. They stated that biomass boilers have seasonal
variability that would only be seen over the course of a year or more.
Commenters also requested that EPA be aware that there may be sources
that have installed for criteria pollutants under other permit
requirements, particularly for NOX, CO, and SO2,
and that sources would prefer to use the CEMS to demonstrate compliance
but for the fact that the standards are established using stack test
data. The commenters suggested that even if the standard only requires
a stack test, there are sources that will be using continuous emission
monitors for compliance purposes.
Response: As noted earlier, we are not requiring CEMS for
compliance for existing units, other than PM CEMS for ERUs greater than
250 mmBtu/hr. No ERUs submitted PM CEMS data for us to evaluate in our
development of emission limits. Therefore, we were unable to establish
limits based on CEMS data as the commenter suggests; however, we have
included a longer averaging period to account for the variability in PM
emissions for these sources. In any case, given the controls available
for PM, we do not believe that the PM emissions should vary as much as
they may for other pollutants.
Also, as stated above, the rule allows sources to install and
operate CEMS in lieu of some testing and parametric monitoring
requirements at their discretion. This process requires source owners
to propose site-specific monitoring plans for approval. These plans
would include CEMS PS and periodic QA/QC steps to assure the quality of
the alternative monitoring data. In allowing optional CEMS usage, we
are providing facilities with compliance flexibility in case they wish
to use existing CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the standards.
Facilities that are concerned that they will not be able to
continuously comply with the emissions limitations if they use CEMS for
those limitations established based on stack test data should not avail
themselves of the CEMS alternative.
3. Reduced Testing Provisions
Comment: Commenters contended that the proposed performance testing
requirements are excessive and should be reduced to a reasonable and
appropriate level. EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.2710(b) that all units
conduct performance tests for PM, HCl, fugitive emissions, and opacity
on an annual basis. EPA further proposed for ERUs that annual
performance tests be conducted for PM, HCl, Cd, lead, Hg, dioxins/
furans, opacity, fugitive emissions, NOX, and SO2
(unless a CEMS is used for either PM, HCl, Hg, NOX, and/or
SO2). Thereafter, EPA proposed to reduce the frequency to 3
years if there had been three tests in a row that had results of less
than 75 percent of the emission standard. Commenters recognized EPA has
included a provision to skip to a 3-year frequency provided a source
passes three tests in a row with at least a 25 percent margin. However,
commenters contended that with the very stringent limits EPA had
proposed, very few units would likely to qualify for this provision
and, therefore, they were not sure of its value.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertions that the
performance testing requirements are excessive. As discussed earlier,
the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous
monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is
appropriate for assuring continuous compliance with the emissions
limitations. Without recurring testing, we would have no way to know if
[[Page 15737]]
parameter ranges established during initial performance testing
remained viable in the future. The commenter correctly notes that CEMS
may be used as an option and, if so, annual performance testing is not
required for the pollutant being measured by a CEMS.
Regarding the assertion that the margin for reduced testing is too
high to be effective, we disagree and note that the intent of this
provision is to provide an incentive for better performers. By
specifying the less than 75 percent of the emission standard margin, we
are providing such an incentive for good performance, and not rewarding
units that just barely meet the standard for a pollutant. Performance
testing is required for all pollutants rather than PM and HCl only.
In addition, EPA is maintaining the reduced testing option for
units that demonstrate emissions a specified percentage below the
limits for 3 years. We have clarified and modified this option to state
that performance testing for a given pollutant may be performed every 3
years, instead of annually, if measured emissions during 2 consecutive
annual performance tests are less than 75 percent of the applicable
emission limit.
Also note that sources that switch fuels during the year following
a performance test will not qualify for reduced testing.
H. Start-Up, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
Comment: Several commenters argued that emissions limits should not
apply during SSM events while other commenters stated that SSM
emissions should be included in calculations of emissions and
standards. Several commenters suggested that in order to assure that
SSM are appropriately accommodated, EPA must either assure that the
data on which the standard is based include representative data from
such periods or, alternatively, set a separate work practice standard
to properly accommodate SSM. Several commenters contended that EPA did
not consider enough data to adequately characterize emissions
variability, as the standards were set based only on 3-run stack test
data obtained under the best of operating conditions (and typically
only one operating condition), no long-term CEMS data were used, no
adjustment was made for fuel or feed pollutant content variability, and
no data collected during periods of startup or shutdown were analyzed.
Some commenters suggested that certain control devices take several
hours to warm-up and that emissions during these startup periods will
exceed the emissions standards and would never be able to recover to
meet the average limitations. Further, several commenters stated that
compliance with emissions standards during malfunction events will be
difficult to gauge since emissions testing during such events is near
impossible given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of malfunctions.
The commenters contended that the rule could have the effect of forcing
units to choose between safety and compliance with emissions
requirements. The commenters stated that for some affected units,
malfunctions by their very nature create unsafe conditions which can
lead to excessive combustible mixtures that can result in explosions,
equipment damage and personnel hazards.
Response: 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 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that
are part of a regulation, commonly referred to as 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, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC
Cir. 2008), 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 such as those adopted in the 2000 CISWI rule is
questionable.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control 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.
In Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC
Cir. 2004), the court upheld as reasonable standards that had factored
in variability of emissions under all operating conditions. However,
nothing in section 129 or in case law requires that EPA anticipate and
account for the innumerable types of potential malfunction events in
setting emission standards. 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.'').
It is reasonable to interpret section 129 as not requiring EPA to
account for malfunctions in setting performance standards. For example,
we note that section 129 uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and
``best-performing'' unit in defining MACT, the level of stringency that
section 129 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of
``best controlled'' and ``best-performing'' to a unit that is
malfunctioning presents significant difficulties. The goal of a best
controlled or best-performing unit is to operate in such a way as to
avoid malfunctions of the unit.
Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 129 standards for CISWI units. As noted
above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events,
and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into account the
myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all
sources in the category. Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency,
degree, and duration, further complicating standard setting.
In light of the Sierra Club decision, EPA proposed to require that
sources be in continuous compliance with emissions limits at all times,
even during SSM. 75 FR 31964. We proposed that these sources meet the
same standards at all times. Id. We concluded that CISWI units would be
able to meet the emissions limitations during periods of startup
because most units used natural gas or clean distillate oil to start
their incinerators and only add waste after the incinerator has reached
[[Page 15738]]
combustion temperatures. Id. We proposed that emissions from burning
natural gas or distillate fuel oil would generally be significantly
lower than from burning solid waste. Id. We further proposed that
emissions during shutdown would also be generally significantly lower
because the waste would be almost fully combusted before the unit began
shutting down. Id. We proposed that these factors, in conjunction with
the variability built into the MACT standards and the longer averaging
periods, meant that sources would be able to comply with the standards
during periods of startup and shutdown. Id. For violations caused by
malfunction events, EPA stated at proposal that we would consider
relevant factors in determining the appropriate action to take.
We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA has established standards in this rule that
apply at all times. We have eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping
and reporting related to the SSM exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure
that we have not included in the regulatory language any provisions
that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the
SSM exemption.
In establishing the standards in this final rule, EPA has taken
into account startup and shutdown periods and have not established
different standards for those periods. The standards that we are
finalizing are based on short term stack tests for pollutants that
generally are not expected to vary significantly at startup and
shutdown. The possible exception here is CO, which in some
subcategories such as ERUs, could vary at startup and shutdown.
However, the percent oxygen operating limits will ensure that
combustion conditions are optimized and the CO is minimized. Solid
waste and fuel-fired ERUs do not normally startup and shutdown more the
once per day. Thus, we are not establishing a separate emission
standard for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of
their routine operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the
standards. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operation. We have
evaluated whether it is appropriate to have the same standards apply
during startup and shutdown as applied to normal operations, and as the
rule is structured, well operated and controlled units should be able
to meet the standards at all times.
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.'' 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of
malfunction).
Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (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)). EPA is therefore adding to the final
rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 60.2265 and
60.2875 (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.). We also have added other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in 60.2120 and 60.2685. See 40 CFR 22.24. 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
section Sec. 60.11(d) 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 part 22.77.
I. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
1. Electronic Reporting Tool
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA remove the mandatory
requirement to use the ERT for submitting test results. They also
suggest that EPA revise the provision for test reports, such that these
reports be due no sooner than 90 days following completion of testing.
One commenter stated that sources had requested in the ICR proposal
stage that EPA not use the ERT, which was going through Beta testing,
and informed EPA that the ERT had serious flaws including difficulty of
use, content problems, and inaccessibility. Several commenters
suggested that data submitted through the ERT is error-prone and
imposes additional burdens on reporting sources. Some commenters
asserted that EPA provides no insight or justification in the preamble
or otherwise for requiring this form of data submittal and that the
cost of this requirement, as compared to conventional reporting, is not
evaluated or disclosed in discussion of the cost and impact of the
proposed rule. Commenters state that many of the affected facilities
have not had to participate in such reporting procedures in the past,
and that these facilities will require additional staff time,
equipment, and training to accomplish this requirement. Several
commenters argue that it is also likely that implementation of the
initial testing and most subsequent testing will be done under state
authority and that unless state agencies are willing to use this same
ERT, facilities will have a dual requirement for reporting. Further,
commenters declare that the ERT bypasses the state, creating data
quality issues. Commenters maintain that it is
[[Page 15739]]
important to look at the qualifiers, the test methods, the QA/QC plans,
and the justifications before making any decisions on the validity of
the numbers. The commenters explain that test results from testing
companies can incorporate a number of ``qualifiers'' in their data
reporting, and if the electronic tool cannot accommodate the use of
textual explanation to explain ``qualifiers'' for reported data, then
the tool's usefulness and accuracy is suspect and could cause
additional burden on the facility to explain.
Response: EPA disagrees that the use of ERT should not be required.
The primary purpose of the emissions test is the demonstration that the
facility meets the requirements of the rule. The ERT is designed to
streamline, standardize, and incorporate QA/QC information for all the
test reports and facilitate their submittal to EPA. The ERT will also
make the process of developing emissions factors for rulemaking much
more transparent. All the steps taken and data used to develop
emissions factors for rulemaking will be much clearer with our new
system. We understand that there will be little or no reduction in the
effort needed to produce the test report initially, but as users gain
expertise with the system and it improves over time, the time,
resources, and consistency for review and evaluation will be improved.
EPA agrees with the commenter on the length of time required to
submit the ERT data. We plan to extend the period for entering data
into the ERT and submitting these data to 90 days.
EPA recognizes that there have been some issues with the use of the
ERT, and we have worked closely with stakeholders to identify and
correct these issues. As with all new systems, there are always
transition problems as changes to those systems are implemented. EPA
also disagrees with comments regarding the error-prone data resulting
from the use of the ERT. Use of the ERT will help ensure that QA/QC
requirements in the test methods are addressed. There are data fields
in the ERT that clearly indicate to all users what information and data
are required for each performance test. Thus, we believe that the ERT
will improve data quality rather than provide ``error-prone'' data. The
ERT was established to facilitate performance data collection. There
are many performance tests conducted each year and, along with the
associated pertinent data, it would be very time-consuming and
resource-intensive to compile, transfer, store, and analyze the tests
and resultant data using a manual method. Electronic compilation,
transfer, storage, and analysis are now our preferred ways to handle
this amount and kind of information. EPA is committed to electronic
compilation and submittal of data as demonstrated by the requirement to
report data electronically in the TRI program. Other EPA programs, such
as the acid rain and greenhouse gas reporting already also require
electronic submittal of data. The ERT supplements the time-intensive
manual preparation and transcription of stationary source emissions
test plans and reports for emissions sources testing with an electronic
alternative where the resulting data can be transmitted more easily and
quickly to EPA and state, local, or tribal agencies who choose to use
this system. The ERT provides a format and a process that: (1)
Documents the key information and procedures required by the existing
EPA Test Methods; (2) facilitates coordination among the source, the
test contractor, and the regulatory agency in planning and preparing
for the emissions test; (3) provides for consistent criteria to
characterize quantitatively the quality of the data collected during
the emissions test; (4) standardizes the form and content of test
reports; and (5) calculates the emissions factor, and exports the
emissions factor and associated data to WebFIRE. We expect the ERT to
significantly reduce the monitoring and testing burden for testers,
source owners or operators, state, local or tribal agencies, EPA, and
other interested stakeholders in collecting, reviewing, storing, and
accessing test data and reports. In addition, the ERT will produce a
final report that we believe will satisfy test report requirements.
Although the effort required to compile the performance test
information using the ERT and submitting it to EPA is different from
the existing procedures, we believe that once the test contractors and
reviewers have experience with the ERT, the burden will be comparable
to the existing cost and resources required for performance testing and
reporting. As stated above, we worked closely with stack testing
companies to set up the ERT and have the ERT process mimic most of
their work when producing a final performance test report. We believe
that there is a learning curve for using the ERT, and it will take a
few tests and reports to become proficient in its use. However, as
users continue to employ the ERT, the time, effort, and subsequent
costs needed to produce, review, process, and extract information from
the report will decrease. In addition, we are working on a fix for the
ERT that would allow the ERT to extract data directly into the ERT data
fields by ``tagging'' the data from stack sampling or industry
performance test spreadsheets.
Regarding the assertion that potential lack of state acceptance,
EPA agrees that states provide an important function in verifying the
accuracy of performance tests. EPA has developed the ERT to include a
module for an independent ``third party'' review of test reports and
data. In this third party review, EPA envisions an independent reviewer
would evaluate the test reports and perhaps observe the performance
test to provide an extra level of QA for the resultant data. EPA
believes this step will help ensure quality tests are conducted and
accurate data are obtained. State personnel would perform these reviews
for each performance test before they submit the test reports to EPA.
State personnel are more familiar with the sources and often observe
the testing. EPA has attempted to address this issue by providing a
third party review module to the ERT. In this ERT module, an
independent reviewer would be given some questions to respond to
regarding how the test was conducted and the quality of the resultant
data. Where the third party reviewer provides negative responses to the
conduct of a performance test, points will be deducted from the overall
rating of the performance test. This, in turn, will impact the overall
rating of the test. Thus, we believe that having an objective third
party reviewer will improve performance tests and the resultant data by
providing the incentive to conduct better performance tests. As
mentioned above, states can be the third party reviewers, if they so
choose. States routinely review performance tests conducted for
permitting and compliance purposes, so they would be better suited to
review the tests. EPA also recognizes the states as having an important
role to play in ensuring that performance tests are conducted properly
and provide quality data. EPA encourages states to continue to ensure
that performance tests are conducted properly and subsequently provide
the test reports and data to EPA.
Where stack testers need to deviate from the test methods, there
are narrative fields that allow the submittal of this type of
information. We understand that there are conditions that warrant minor
changes or deviations from the test methods, and in these cases, there
are fields in the ERT to include this kind of information and, at the
discretion of the responsible agency, approval of these minor changes
to test methods may be approved in the
[[Page 15740]]
course of approving the test plan. Major changes to test methods,
however, must be approved in writing by official letter from the EPA.
2. Records of Non-Waste Materials
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA require facilities to
notify appropriate regulatory agencies once they have determined that
they comply with the requirements of the non-hazardous secondary
materials legitimacy criteria and/or the processing requirements in the
solid waste definition rule. The commenter suggested that notifications
should include information on how the determination of a homogeneous
fuel was made, and what methods will be employed to ensure that the
fuel used will continue to comply with the ``homogeneous''
requirements. The commenter suggested that clear recordkeeping and
reporting requirements must be put in place to ensure that enforcement
staff can determine compliance status. Several commenters suggested
that regulating the use of recyclable nonhazardous secondary materials
such as tires will encourage greater use of landfilling which they
asserted is counter to long-standing EPA policy that promotes such
activities.
Response: EPA has added recordkeeping provisions for units that
burn materials other than traditional fuels that document how each of
those materials meet the non-waste criteria in the Solid Waste
Definition Rule. The newly promulgated procedures for identification of
non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes when used as
fuels in combustion units at 40 CFR 241.3 are self-implementing
provisions that require each source owner or operator to determine
whether the materials they are combusting meet certain legitimacy
criteria, and/or whether the materials have been processed from a
discarded non-hazardous secondary material. Materials that remain
within the control of the generator and that meet the legitimacy
criteria specified in Sec. 241.3(d), as well as materials that are
produced from the processing of discarded non-hazardous secondary
materials, and that meet the legitimacy are not considered solid wastes
(see Sec. 241.3(b)). Traditional fuels are defined in the Solid Waste
Definition Rule, and the rule exempts traditional fuels from being
solid waste.
To ensure that owners or operators of units combusting materials
review and apply the non-waste provisions in the Solid Waste Definition
Rule, EPA is requiring owners or operators that combust materials that
are not clearly listed as traditional fuels document how the materials
meet the legitimacy criteria and/or the processing requirements in the
Solid Waste Definition Rule. Failure of a source owner or operator to
correctly apply the non-waste criteria would result in incorrect self-
assessments as to whether their combustion units are subject to CISWI.
Requiring sources to document how the non-waste criteria apply to the
materials combusted will both improve self-assessments of
applicability, and will assist EPA and states in the proper
identification of sources subject to CISWI. The definition of CISWI
unit is amended to require that any material combusted that is not a
traditional fuel will be treated as a solid waste unless the source
makes and keeps the record documenting how the material meets non-waste
criteria in the Solid Waste Definition Rule.
If the material being combusted has received a non-waste
determination pursuant to the petition process in the Solid Waste
Definition Rule at 40 CFR 241.3(c), the source owner or operator must
keep a copy of the non-waste determination granted by EPA. If the
combustion unit is being regulated under CAA section 112 regulations
for boilers and process heaters at major sources (Subpart DDDDD
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants at Major
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters) or for boilers at area sources (Subpart JJJJJJ--National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources), the recordkeeping
requirements in those rules that require documentation of non-waste
criteria meet the non-waste recordkeeping requirements in CISWI.
EPA has similarly added a recordkeeping requirement and amended the
definition of CISWI unit to require that sources burning tires make and
keep a certification that confirms that the tire is part of an
established tire collection program. The Solid Waste Definition Rule
does not include tires from established tire collection programs as
solid waste. An established tire collection program is defined in the
solid waste rule as a comprehensive collection system that ensures
scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities
in accordance with 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of removal from
the automobile through arrival at the combustion facility.
The source owner or operator combusting tires, who is not treating
their tires as solid waste and is not subject to the CISWI emission
limits, must keep a record which identifies the name, owner, and
location of the tire collection program from which they obtained the
tires, the quantity of tires received from that program and the date
received, and they must document how the program handles the tires as
valuable commodities consistent with 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the
point of removal from the automobile through arrival at the combustion
facility. The record may be generated and certified (signed) by the
established tire collection program, or by the owner or operator of the
unit combusting tires. A copy of the record must be retained by the
owner or operator of the tire combustion unit, and produced upon
request. The record must include a signed certification by either the
owner or operator of the tire collection program, or the owner or
operator of the combustion unit, that the tires from the program meet
the EPA definition of an established tire collection program in 40 CFR
241. All tires on-site will be treated as solid waste, unless this
record is retained, and it is clear as to which tires each
certification pertains. If tires on-site are from more than one
collection program or generator, there must be a separate certification
for each generator or collection program from which the tires were
obtained, and the owner or operator of the combustion unit must keep
records which clearly identify the on-site location of tires associated
with each certification
J. Air Curtain Incinerators
Comment: Commenters requested that EPA remove the requirement for
air curtain incinerators regulated under CISWI to obtain a Title V
permit. They suggested that EPA instead require only those units at
major sources or sources that took federally enforceable limits to
become minor sources to obtain a Title V permit under CISWI. Some
argued that an air curtain incinerator is excluded from the statutory
definition of ``solid waste incineration unit.'' Commenters stated that
although CAA section 129(e) requires a ``solid waste incineration
unit'' to obtain a Title V permit, they suggested that the requirement
does not extend to units that are excluded from the definition of
``solid waste incineration unit,'' of which an air curtain incinerator
is only one of several types of excluded units. One commenter suggested
that that EPA allow permitting agencies flexibility in addressing the
ACI system opacity limitation. This opacity requirement can be
addressed through minor source permits, federally enforceable state
[[Page 15741]]
operating permits, registration permits or Title V general permits.
Response: We are not exempting air curtain incinerators located at
area/minor source facilities from the requirement to obtain a Title V
permit in this final rule. Commenters appear to allege that the
requirement to obtain a Title V requirement does not apply to them
because they are not solid waste incineration units and the requirement
in CAA section 129(e) applies only to solid waste incineration units.
Commenters are correct that air curtain incinerators are not solid
waste incineration units pursuant to CAA section 129(g)(1)(C), but that
is only correct if the units ``only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and
clean lumber and [they] * * * comply with opacity limitations to be
established by the Administrator by rule.'' EPA has established opacity
limitations for air curtain incinerators pursuant to sections 111 and
129.
Pursuant to CAA section 502(a), sources subject to standards or
regulations under CAA section 111 must obtain a Title V permit;
therefore, air curtain incinerators are required to obtain a Title V
permit. As commenters note, EPA may exempt minor and area sources from
the requirement to obtain a Title V permit, but EPA must first
determine that compliance with Title V requirements is ``impracticable,
infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on the sources before
exempting them (CAA section 502(a)). EPA has not made the necessary
finding pursuant to CAA section 502(a) for air curtain incinerators in
any of the CAA section 129 rulemakings, and we believe that air curtain
incinerators exist at CAA section 129 facilities other than at the
commercial and industrial facilities subject to this final rule.
Because we think it is important to treat all air curtain incinerators
in the same manner, we decline to consider a Title V exemption for
minor and area source air curtain incinerators at commercial and
industrial facilities.
K. Role of States
Comment: Several commenters believe that the states should retain
as much authority as possible to implement and enforce the standards.
Other commenters suggest that EPA allow states and local regulatory
authorities an option for case-by-case determinations. Some commenters
believe that the local permitting agency should retain the authority to
approve alternate compliance approaches under CISWI rules. The
commenters argue that the states are responsible for incorporating the
EG into their own rules, for permitting and inspecting sources, for
enforcing compliance with the rules, and can apply appropriate
discretion when needed. Commenters assert that facilities have more
frequent communication with their local permitting agency, and the
permitting staff have been to the facility and have knowledge about how
the facilities operate. They suggest that the local permitting agency
can also be more timely in responding to facilities' requests, due to
their knowledge of the facility and the limited number of sources they
cover, as opposed to the larger number of sources under an EPA regional
office.
Response: For previous rules, there has been some confusion about
what authority can be delegated to and exercised by state, local, and
tribal air pollution control agencies and what authority must be
retained by EPA. In some cases, state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies were making decisions, such as allowing waivers of
some provisions of this subpart, which cannot be delegated to those
agencies. We clarify the authorities retained by EPA in 40 CFR
60.2030(c), applicable to the EG and the NSPS. The following
authorities, among others, must be retained by EPA for all NSPS and EG:
Approval of alternatives to the emission limits; approval of major
alternatives to test methods or monitoring; and approval of major
alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting. The list also specifically
includes establishment of operating limits for control devices other
than those listed in the rule and review of status reports submitted
when no qualified operators are available. EPA also retains sole
authority for approval of performance test and data reduction waivers
under 40 CFR 60.8(b), and preconstruction siting analyses. These
authorities may affect the stringency of the emission standards or
limitations, which can only be amended by federal rulemaking; EPA may
not transfer these authorities to state, local, or tribal air pollution
control agencies.
L. Biased Data Collection From Phase II ICR Testing
Comment: Many commenters suggested that EPA ``cherry picked'' the
best data in setting each standard. Several commenters believe the data
that EPA gathered to support the CISWI rule reflects bias, is
incomplete, fundamentally flawed, and that the standards are arbitrary
and capricious. Some commenters argued that EPA's data collection
efforts were biased toward so-called ``top performing facilities''
because EPA directed its information requests to units that it had
reason to believe were the better performing units in each subcategory.
The commenters suggested that the sample population is tainted and has
resulted in proposed standards that are inordinately stringent, are not
representative of the overall performance of the sources in
subcategories to which they apply, and are not in accord with the legal
standards. One commenter suggested that EPA based the standards on a
relatively minute pool of relevant data despite the decade and a half
long process that lead to the proposed rules.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertions that we
obtained skewed data and that data collection efforts to support the
CISWI rule were biased toward ``top performing facilities.'' EPA
documents the procedures used for identifying CISWI units and
collecting information in the CISWI Test Data Database memo for the
proposed rule dated April 26, 2010. As explained in the memo, the
initial database of CISWI units operating in the United States as of
1998 was obtained from the information collected to support EPA's ICR
and promulgate the 2000 CISWI rule. In the 2000 CISWI rule, EPA only
regulated solid waste incineration units at commercial and industrial
facilities that combusted solid waste solely for the purpose of
destroying the waste. Energy recovery units (i.e., boilers and process
heaters) and waste-burning kilns (i.e., cement kilns) were exempt from
the 2000 CISWI rule. In 2005, EPA issued the CISWI Definitions Rule,
which confirmed that ERUs were exempt from CISWI and maintained the
exemption for cement kilns. In 2006, the list of CISWI incinerator
units initially identified based on the CISWI Definitions Rule was
distributed to the 10 EPA Regional offices to confirm whether the units
were operational. Based on the information supplied by the EPA regions,
the initial CISWI database was revised to reflect the unit deletions/
additions provided by the regional contacts. In 2007, the Court vacated
the CISWI Definitions Rule, concluding that the rule was flawed because
CAA section 129 unambiguously regulates any commercial or industrial
combustion unit combusting any solid waste and the CISWI Definitions
Rule exempted units that combust waste if the units also recover energy
in the process. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1260. While not explicitly
addressed in the decision, the implication of the holding extended
beyond ERUs to other commercial or industrial units
[[Page 15742]]
combusting solid waste, e.g., cement kilns.
EPA developed a two phase information collection process to collect
information from units that may be subject to CISWI in light of the
vacatur of the CISWI Definitions Rule. ``Phase I'' survey requests were
sent to all commercial and industrial facilities that we determined may
have solid waste incineration units and for which EPA did not already
have information. The Phase I surveys were reviewed and used to update
the CISWI inventory for incinerators or ERUs. ``Phase II'' surveys were
then sent out to all CISWI units where emissions test data was missing
from the Phase I database, requesting these units test and report for
the missing pollutants. Through this process, EPA requested information
from all known CISWI units, not solely the best performers as
commenters assert, and we used the data to determine the best-
performing sources to set the standards for this rule.
VI. Impacts of the Action
A. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emissions reductions from existing
sources that may be achieved through implementation of the emission
limits. However, we realize that some CISWI owners and operators are
likely to determine that alternatives to waste incineration are viable,
such as further waste segregation or sending the waste to a landfill or
MWC, if available. In fact, sources operating incinerators, where
energy recovery is not a goal, may find it cost-effective to
discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether. Therefore, we have
estimated emissions reductions attributable to existing sources
complying with the limits, as well as those reductions that would occur
if the facilities with incinerators and small, remote incinerators
decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and use alternative
waste disposal options.
For units combusting wastes for energy production, such as ERUs and
waste-burning kilns, the decision to combust or not to combust waste
will depend on several factors. One factor is the cost to replace the
energy provided by the waste material with a traditional fuel, such as
natural gas. Another factor would be whether the owner or operator is
purchasing the waste or obtaining it at no cost from other generators,
or if they are generating the waste on-site and will have to dispose of
the materials in another fashion, such as landfills. Lastly, these
units would have to compare the control requirements needed to meet the
CISWI emission limits with those needed if they stop burning solid
waste and are then subject to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned before, we
have attempted to align the monitoring requirements for similar non-
waste-burning sources as closely as possible in an effort to make them
consistent and to help sources make the cross-walk between waste and
non-waste regulatory requirements as simple as possible.
The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this rule
using the definition of solid waste under RCRA are presented in Table
10 of this preamble.
Table 10--Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and Alternative
Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions achieved
assuming
Reductions achieved incinerators and
Pollutant through meeting MACT small, remote
(ton/yr) incinerators use
alternative
disposal (ton/yr) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl......................... 431.2 443.3
CO.......................... 23,449 23,414
Pb.......................... 4.52 4.53
Cd.......................... 0.902 0.903
Hg.......................... 0.106 0.109
PM (filterable)............. 1,671 1,674
dioxin, furans.............. 0.000125 0.000127
NOX......................... 5,627 5,734
SO2......................... 5,208 5,259
-------------------------------------------
Total.................. 36,392 36,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary
impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted ERU fuel.
EPA expects that many existing CISWI owners and operators may find
that alternate disposal options are preferable to complying with the
standards for the incinerator and small, remote incinerator
subcategories. Our experience with regulations for MWC, HMIWI and, in
fact, CISWI, has shown that negative growth in the source category
historically occurs upon implementation of CAA section 129 standards.
Since CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and have been in effect for
existing sources since 2005, many existing units have closed. At
promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated 122 units in the CISWI population.
In comparison, the incinerator subcategory in this rule, which contains
any such units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, has 28 units. EPA is not
aware of any construction of new units since 2000, so we do not believe
there are any units that are currently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS.
The revised CISWI rule is more stringent, so we expect this trend to
continue. However, EPA does recognize that some facilities may opt to
replace aging incinerator units with new units where it is cost
effective or alternative disposal options are not feasible, as may be
the case with some incinerators, or in very remote locations. We
estimate that there could be one new incineration unit within the next
5 years, and possibly five new small remote incinerators within that
time. In these cases, we have developed model CISWI unit emissions
reduction estimates for these subcategories using the existing unit
baseline and the new source emission limits. Table 11 of this preamble
presents the model plant emissions reductions that would be expected
for new sources.
[[Page 15743]]
Table 11--Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reduction for CISWI
subcategory model units (tpy
unless otherwise noted)
Pollutant -----------------------------------
Small, remote
Incinerator incinerator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl................................. 3.67 0.0
CO.................................. 1.23 0.25
Pb.................................. 0.83 0.0037
Cd.................................. 0.022 0.0007
Hg.................................. 0.004 0.000012
PM (filterable)..................... 148 0.5
D/F (total mass) \a\................ 0.0018 0.0
NOX................................. 16.3 0.15
SO2................................. 7.6 0.15
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 178 1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ D/F estimates are given in lb/yr.
We do not anticipate that any new energy recovery or waste-burning
kiln units will be constructed and will instead use alternative waste
disposal methods or alternative fuels that will not subject them to the
CISWI rule. For example, whole tires obtained from approved tire
management programs and tire-derived fuel from which the metal has been
removed is not considered solid waste under the definition of solid
waste. Consequently, new cement kiln owners will assess their
regulatory requirements under CISWI for burning whole tires or tire-
derived fuel that does not have metals removed against the costs
associated with removing the metal or obtaining tires from an approved
source and complying with the applicable NESHAP instead of the CISWI
rule. Our research suggests that metal removal is routinely practiced
and that several state waste tire management programs are already in
place, and would most likely be a viable option for new kiln owners so
that they would not be subject to the CISWI regulations. Indeed, we
expect that all existing cement kilns that are classified as being
waste-burning solely due to whole tires will, by the compliance date
for the CISWI standards, find a way to obtain their tires through an
approved tire management plan. Likewise, new sources could engineer
their process to minimize waste generation in the first place, or to
separate wastes so that the materials sent to a combustion unit would
not meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. For waste that is
generated, cost analyses have found that alternative waste disposal is
generally available and less expensive.
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative
(i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. We
anticipate affected sources will need to apply additional controls to
meet the emission limits. These controls may use water, such as wet
scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual
requirement of 103 billion gallons per year of additional water would
be required as a result of operating additional controls or increased
sorbent use.
Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls
already in place will increase the amount of particulate collected that
will require disposal. Furthermore, ACI may be used by some sources,
which will result in additional solid waste needing disposal. The
annual amounts of solid waste that would require disposal are
anticipated to be approximately 19,23733,526 tpy from PM capture and
14,289,078 tpy from ACI.
Perhaps the largest impact on solid waste would come from owners
and operators who decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and
instead send waste to the landfill or MWC for disposal. Based on
tipping fees and availability, we would expect most, if not all, of
this diverted waste to be sent to a local landfill. As we discuss
above, it may be that a good portion of the incinerators would
determine that alternative disposal is a better choice than compliance
with the standards. We estimate that approximately 110,417 tpy of waste
would be diverted to a landfill.
For new CISWI units, we estimate an annual requirement of 9102
million gallons per year of additional water would be required as a
result of operating additional controls. The annual amounts of solid
waste that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately
7275.0 tpy from PM capture and 8173.0 tpy from ACI.
C. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with meeting the emission limits
would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or
improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased scrubber
pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity consumption
and sorbent injection controls would likewise require electricity to
power pumps and motors. In our analysis, we have selected the lowest
cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each
facility. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 214,356 MW-
hours per year would be required for the additional and improved
control devices.
As discussed earlier, there could be instances where owners and
operators of ERUs and waste-burning kilns decide to cease burning waste
materials. In these cases, the energy provided by the burning of waste
would need to be replaced with a traditional fuel, such as natural gas.
Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of the energy input to ERUs and
kilns are from waste materials, an estimate of the energy that would be
replaced with a traditional fuel if all existing units stopped burning
waste materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr.
For new CISWI units, we anticipate that 511 MW-hours per year would
be required for additional and improved control devices. Since we do
not anticipate any new energy recovery or waste-burning kiln units to
be constructed, there would be no additional estimate for energy that
would be replaced with a traditional fuel.
[[Page 15744]]
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
For CISWI units adding controls to meet the emission limits, we
anticipate minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel needed
to generate additional electricity and to operate RTO controls would
yield slight increases in emissions, including NOX, CO, PM,
and SO2 and an increase in CO2 emissions. Since
NOX and SO2 are covered by capped emissions
trading programs, and methodological limitations prevent us from
quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an increase in
secondary air impacts for this rule from additional electricity demand.
We believe it likely that the incinerators may elect to discontinue
the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to the landfill or other
disposal means. As we discussed in the solid waste impacts above, this
could result in approximately 110,417 tpy of waste going to landfills.
By using EPA's Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we estimate that, over
the 20-year expected life of a CISWI unit, the resulting methane
generated by a landfill receiving the waste would be about 96,300 tons.
If this landfill gas were combusted in a flare, assuming typical flare
emission factors and landfill gas chlorine, Hg, and sulfur
concentrations, the following emissions would be expected: 20 tons of
PM; 8 tons of HCl; 16 tons of SO2; 890 tons of CO; 46 tons
of NOX; and 1.4 lbs of Hg.
Similar to existing units, we anticipate minor secondary air
impacts for new CISWI units adding controls as discussed above.
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls and monitoring equipment, and to implement the
inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with
the CISWI standards. We have also analyzed the costs of alternative
disposal for the subcategories that may have alternative options to
burning waste, specifically for the incinerators and the small, remote
incinerators that may have an alternative to incineration. In our
analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative (i.e.,
compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. Based on this
analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital investment of $652
million with an associated total annual cost of $232 million ($2008).
Under the rule, EPA's economic model suggests the average national
market-level variables (prices, production-levels, consumption,
international trade) will not change significantly (e.g., are less than
0.02 percent).
EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small entities by
comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., sales and revenue
tests). EPA's analysis found the tests were below 3 percent for five of
the nine small entities included in the screening analysis.
In addition to estimating this rule's social costs and benefits,
EPA has estimated the employment impacts of the final rule. We expect
that the rule's direct impact on employment will be small. We have not
quantified the rule's indirect or induced impacts. For further
explanation and discussion of our analysis, see Chapter 4 of the RIA.
For new CISWI units, we have estimated compliance costs for units
coming online in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on the
assumption that one new incinerator will come online over 5 years and
one new small, remote incinerator will come online each year over the
next 5 years. Additionally, it was assumed that each model unit will
add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with NSPS limits.
Based on our analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $8.4 million over 5 years with an associated total annual
cost (for 2015) of $2.6 million.
F. What are the benefits?
We estimate the monetized benefits of this regulatory action to be
$340 million to $830 million (2008$), 3 percent discount rate) in the
implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the regulatory
action at a 7 percent discount rate are $310 million to $750 million
(2008$). These estimates reflect energy disbenefits valued at $3.8
million. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.\4\ A summary of the monetized benefits
estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 12
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.
Table 12--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates For the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015
[Millions of 2008$] 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
emission Total monetized benefits (3% Total monetized benefits (7%
Pollutant reductions discount rate) discount rate)
(tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................... 710 $160 to $400.................. $150 to $360.
PM2.5 Precursors:
SO2......................... 5,170 $150 to $370.................. $140 to $340.
NOX......................... 5,544 $27 to $66.................... $24 to $59.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... .............. $340 to $830.................. $310 to $750.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers
may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-
ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These estimates do not include the energy disbenefits
valued at $3.8 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits were calculated using
the social cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA.
\2\ The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to
incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs
by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here.
[[Page 15745]]
These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 2015 from
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these
standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the monetized
value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with
reducing a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. To estimate human health benefits derived from reducing
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we used the
general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell
(2009).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos
Health (2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another
model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that
change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were
divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of
their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would
support the development of differential effects estimates by particle
type. Directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX are the primary precursors affected by this rule. Even
though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. For example, SO2 has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not directly
transform into PM2.5, and because sulfate particles formed
from SO2 emissions can transport many miles, including over
areas with low populations. Direct PM2.5 emissions convert
directly into ambient PM2.5, thus, to the extent that
emissions occur in population areas, exposures to direct
PM2.5 will tend to be higher, and monetized health benefits
will be higher than for SO2 emissions.
For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of
assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this rule,
we cite two key empirical studies, the American Cancer Society cohort
study \6\ and the extended Six Cities cohort study.\7\ In the RIA for
this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pope, et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-
1141.
\7\ Laden, et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. After
reviewing the scientific literature and recent scientific advice, we
have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent advice, we are
replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new
``LML'' assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into
the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA
does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-
related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality
concentrations.
Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule would accrue
to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed at
or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006)
study, 40 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10
[mu]g/m\3\. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence
in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major
cohort studies. This fact is important, because as we estimate PM-
related mortality among populations exposed to levels of
PM2.5 that are successively lower, our confidence in the
results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that the great majority
of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits
model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for
this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis \8\
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office of Air
and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects,
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing HAP have not been
monetized in this analysis, including reducing 25,000 tons of CO, 470
tons of HCl, 4.1 tons of Pb, 0.95 tons of Cd, 260 pounds of Hg and 92
grams of total D/F each year. Although we do not have sufficient
information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for
this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health
effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, which is
available in the docket.
In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 12
of this preamble do not reflect the disbenefits associated with
increased electricity and fuel consumption to operate the control
devices. We estimate that the increases in emissions of CO2
would have disbenefits valued at $3.8M at a 3 percent discount rate.
Carbon Dioxide-related disbenefits were calculated using the social
cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA. However, these
disbenefits do not change the rounded total monetized benefits. In the
RIA, we also provide the monetized CO2 disbenefits using
discount rates of 5 percent (average), 2.5 percent (average), and 3
percent (95th percentile).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735;
October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it
will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
[[Page 15746]]
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units.'' A copy of
the analysis is available in the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 and the
analysis is briefly summarized in section VI of this preamble. The net
benefits table is also provided here.
Table 13--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits for the CISWI NSPS and Emissions
Guidelines in 2015
[Millions of 2008$] a d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: MACT Floor:
Total Monetized Benefits \b\........ $340 to $830................... $310 to $750.
Total Social Costs \c\.............. $280........................... $280.
Net Benefits........................ $60 to $550.................... $30 to $470.
Non-monetized Benefits.............. 25,000 tons of CO..............
470 tons of HCl................
260 pounds of Hg...............
0.95 tons of Cd................
4.1 tons of lead...............
92 grams of dioxins/furans.....
Health effects from NO2 and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects..............
Visibility impairment..........
Option 2: Beyond-the-Floor:
Total Monetized Benefits \b\........ $430 to $1,100................. $390 to $960.
Total Social Costs \c\.............. $300........................... $300.
Net Benefits........................ $130 to $770................... $90 to $660.
Non-monetized Benefits.............. 25,000 tons of CO..............
470 tons of HCl................
260 pounds of Hg...............
0.95 tons of Cd................
4.1 tons of lead...............
92 grams of dioxins/furans.....
Health effects from NO2 and SO2
exposure.
Ecosystem effects..............
Visibility impairment..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. These
results include units anticipated to come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption.
\b\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5
through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note
that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits
are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine
particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by
particle type. These estimates include energy disbenefits valued at $3.8 million.
\c\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes
results in the same social costs for both discount rates.
\d\ The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to
incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs
by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA
ICR number 2384.02 for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60 and 2385.02 for
subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60.
When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to
the applicable reporting requirements of these Subparts. 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 63.2 (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
[[Page 15747]]
incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take
advantage of the affirmative defense.
The requirements in this final rule result in industry
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review of the
amendments for all CISWI, and inspections of scrubbers, FFs, and other
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits for all CISWI. Ongoing parametric monitoring requirements for
ESPs, SNCR, and ACI are also required of all CISWI units. Stack testing
and development of new parameter limits would be necessary for CISWI
that need to make performance improvements in order to meet the
emission limits and for CISWI that, prior to this action, have not been
required to demonstrate compliance with certain pollutants. Visual
emissions tests would be required for all subcategories except waste-
burning kilns on an annual basis. Energy recovery units would be
required to continuously monitor percent oxygen, and units larger than
250 mmBtu/hr would be required to monitor PM emissions using a PM CEMS.
Waste-burning kilns would be required to continuously monitor Hg
emissions using a Hg CEMS and PM emissions using a PM CEMS. Any new
CISWI would also be required to continuously monitor CO emissions. The
annual average burden associated with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the EG over the first 3 years following promulgation
is estimated to be 14,672 hours at a total annual labor cost of
$522,323. The total capital and startup plus the O&M costs with the EG
monitoring requirements, EPA Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7
testing, initial stack testing, annual stack testing, storage of data
and reports and photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the
ICR are estimated at $18,592,079 total and $6,197,360 per year. (The
annual inspection costs are included under the recordkeeping and
reporting labor costs.) The annual average burden associated with the
NSPS over the first 3 years following promulgation of this final rule
is estimated to be 858 hours at a total annual labor cost of $30,527,
since we anticipate only one new small remote incineration unit to be
constructed per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it currently displays
a valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 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 rule.
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 government organizations
and small government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of the rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate
that there are 88 entities subject to this regulation, of which 10 of
them are considered to be small companies. The small entities directly
regulated by the rule are facilities engaged in industrial or
commercial operations, such as paper and paperboard manufacturing and
utility providers. The average cost-to-sales ratios for small companies
are below 3.5 percent. The median ratio is 2.2 percent. Only four
entities, which are in 3 different industries, have a sales test that
exceeds 3 percent. For the purposes of this rulemaking, four is not
considered a ``substantial number'' of small entities.
Although this 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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal
agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. This rule contains a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1
year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a
written statement, which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the statutory
authority for the final rule is CAA sections 129 and 111. CAA section
129 CISWI standards include numeric emissions limitations for the nine
pollutants specified in CAA section 129(a)(4), and may include emission
limitations for opacity. Section 129(a)(2) of the CAA directs EPA to
develop standards based on MACT, which require existing and new major
sources to control emissions of the nine pollutants.
In compliance with section 205(a) of the UMRA, we identified and
considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The
regulatory alternative upon which the rule is based is the least
costly, most cost-effective alternative to achieve the statutory
requirements of CAA section 129.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
The RIA prepared for the final rule, including the EPA's assessment
of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units'' in the docket. Based on estimated compliance costs
on all sources associated with the final rule and the predicted change
in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated
social costs of the final rule are $218 million (2008 dollars). In the
year of full implementation (2015), EPA estimates the monetized
PM2.5 benefits of the NSPS and EG are $340 million to $830
million and $310 million to $750 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates respectively. All estimates are in 2008$. Using
alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature
mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are
plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall between these
estimates. The benefits from reducing other air pollutants have not
been monetized in this analysis, including reducing 23,450 tons of CO,
431 tons of HCl, 4.5 tons of Pb, 0.9 tons of Cd, 210 pounds of Hg, and
110 grams of total dioxins and furans each year. In addition, ecosystem
benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this
analysis.
[[Page 15748]]
Exposure to CO can affect the cardiovascular system and the central
nervous system. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM,
which can result in fatalities and many respiratory problems (such as
asthma or bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone
causing several respiratory problems to affected populations.
The net benefits for the NSPS and EG are $60 million to $550
million and $30 million to $470 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates respectively. All estimates are in 2008$.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the rule and
any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future
compliance costs of the final rule are discussed previously in this
preamble. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate
budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the
country, state, or local governments, types of communities (e.g.,
urban, rural), or particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the final rule on
the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the United States
goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are
reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The
nationwide economic impact of the rule is presented in the ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units'' in the docket. This analysis provides
estimates of the effect of the rule on most of the categories mentioned
above. The results of the economic impact analysis are summarized in
section VI of this preamble.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with affected state, local, and tribal officials,
summarize the officials' comments or concerns and summarize our
response to those comments or concerns. We have determined that this
final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this final rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
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
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). EPA is not
aware of any CISWI in Indian country or owned or operated by Indian
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
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 potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in
this final rule would cause most CISWI in the ERU and waste-burning
kiln subcategories to modify existing air pollution control devices
(e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and
operate new control devices, resulting in approximately 233,018 MW-
hours per year of additional electricity being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this final rule, EPA does not expect any significant price increase for
any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected
by this final rule at all since the rule would not affect energy
distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the import
of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes that may
occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be significant. We,
therefore, conclude that if there were to be any adverse energy effects
associated with this final rule, they would be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its regulatory activities unless to
do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or
[[Page 15749]]
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:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'' through the
Enhanced NSSN database, which is a search engine that is defined as a
National Resource for Global Standards, managed by the ANSI. We also
contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus],'' for its manual methods of measuring the
oxygen or CO2 content of the exhaust gas. These parts of
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus] are acceptable alternatives to EPA Methods
3B, 6, 7 and 7C. This standard is available from the ASME, 3 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Another VCS, ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources--Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
26A.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 29.
During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to EPA's reference method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard
and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential
standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for
this rule. This review requires significant method validation data
which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting
alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence
to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when additional information is
available for particular VCS.
The search identified 24 other VCS that were potentially applicable
to this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that 22 candidate VCS (ASTM D3154-
00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO10396:1993 (2007),
ISO12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA
Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC 38-1980 (1985),
ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-
98 (2003), ISO11564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-M1983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-M1978,
ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), EN
13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-M1987), ASTM D6735-01 (2009) identified for
measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important
technical and policy considerations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, PS, or procedures in the final rule and any amendments.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations, low-income, and tribal populations in the United
States.
This final action establishes national emission standards for new
and existing CISWI units. Based on data amendments and corrections that
were incorporated following public comment on the proposed rule, the
EPA estimates that there are approximately 100 such units, including
incinerators, cement kilns, and ERUs, covered by this rule. The final
rule will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this
source. This includes emissions of Cd, HC1, lead, Hg, and chlorinated
D/F. 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 SO2.
Sulfur dioxide and NO2 are precursors for the formation of
PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions will reduce ozone
and PM2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as
adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, and
other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The results of the
demographic analysis are presented in RIA, a copy of which is available
in the docket.
Based on the fact that the rule does not allow emission increases,
the EPA has determined that the rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income, or tribal populations. However, to the extent that any
minority, low income, or tribal subpopulation is disproportionately
impacted by the current emissions as a result of the proximity of their
homes to these sources, that subpopulation also stands to see increased
environmental and health benefit from the emissions reductions called
for by this rule.
EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To
promote meaningful involvement, EPA developed a communication and
outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities had access to
the proposed rule, were aware of its content, and had an opportunity to
comment during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA
publicized the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, tribal newsletters, EJ
listservs, and the Internet, including the Office of Policy's
Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/
). EPA also provided general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this
important for my community) for EJ community groups and conducted
conference calls with interested communities. In addition, in
implementing the final rule, 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.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the
[[Page 15750]]
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 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, 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).
0
c. Adding paragraph (o).
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, and 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. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCCC--Standards of Performance for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.2005 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2005 When does this subpart become effective?
This subpart takes effect on September 21, 2011. Some of the
requirements in this subpart apply to planning the CISWI unit (i.e.,
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.2045 and 60.2050).
Other requirements such as the emission limitations and operating
limits apply after the CISWI unit begins operation.
0
5. Section 60.2015 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2015 What is a new incineration unit?
(a) A new incineration unit is an incineration unit that meets any
of the criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this
section.
(1) A commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit that
commenced construction after May 20, 2011.
(2) A commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit that
commenced reconstruction or modification after September 21, 2011.
(b) This subpart does not affect your CISWI unit if you make
physical or operational changes to your incineration unit primarily to
comply with the EG in subpart DDDD of this part (Emission Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units). Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or
modification under this subpart.
0
6. Section 60.2020 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
c. Revising paragraph (c).
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(3), (g), (m) and (n).
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k), and (l).
0
f. Removing paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.2020 What combustion units are exempt from this subpart?
This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i) and (n) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260.
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
regulated under subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2265. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a small power production facility and
that the waste material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2265. The
[[Page 15751]]
request must include information sufficient to document that the unit
meets the criteria of the definition of a cogeneration facility and
that the waste material the unit is combusting is homogeneous.
(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter that are subject to subpart LLLL
of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) or subpart MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines for Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units). Sewage sludge incineration unit designs
include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.
Sec. 60.2025 [Removed]
0
7. Section 60.2025 is removed.
0
8. Section 60.2030 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(10).
Sec. 60.2030 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and
(c)(6) through (10) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(8) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Sec.
60.2105 under Sec. 60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8).
(9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.2125(j), 60.8(b)(4) and (5).
(10) Determination of whether a qualifying small power production
facility or cogeneration facility under Sec. 60.2020(e) or (f) is
combusting homogenous waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2265.
0
9. Section 60.2045 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2045 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of an incinerator after December 1, 2000.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis for CISWI units that
commenced construction after June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification after September 21, 2011.
(c) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to
submit an initial application for a construction permit under 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit.
0
10. Section 60.2070 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2070 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or to prevent
conditions that may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 60.2085 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2085 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
* * * * *
(d) Prevention and correction of malfunctions or conditions that
may lead to malfunction.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 60.2105 is revised to read as follows:.
Sec. 60.2105 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each CISWI unit,
including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 1 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 8 of this subpart by the applicable date in Sec.
60.2140. You must be in compliance with the emission limitations of
this subpart that apply to you at all times.
(b) An incinerator unit that commenced construction after November
30, 1999, but no later than June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification on or after June 1, 2001, but no later
than September 21, 2011 must meet the more stringent emission limit for
the respective pollutant in table 1 of this subpart or table 6 of
subpart DDDD.
0
13. Section 60.2110 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (g).
Sec. 60.2110 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to comply with the emission
limitations, you must establish operating limits for up to four
operating parameters (as specified in table 2 of this subpart) as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section during the
initial performance test.
* * * * *
(2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate matter
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average pressure
drop across the wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
emission limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average amperage to
the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at the inlet to the wet acid gas
or particulate matter scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission
limitations.
(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated as the lowest
1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet acid gas scrubber
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the HCl emission limitation.
* * * * *
(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the (secondary) voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the
particulate matter performance test. Calculate the average electric
power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = secondary electric
power) for each test run. The operating limit for the electrostatic
precipitator is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to comply with
the emission limitations, you must measure the sorbent flow rate during
the performance testing. The operating limit for the carbon sorbent
injection is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average
[[Page 15752]]
sorbent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limitations.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the charge rate, the secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit), and the reagent
flow rate during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The operating
limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction are calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average charge rate, secondary chamber temperature, and
reagent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limitations.
(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
or fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, and if you do
not determine compliance with your particulate matter emission
limitation with a particulate matter continuous emission monitoring
system, you must maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent
opacity (1-hour block average).
0
14. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2115 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter,
activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?
If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
fabric filter, or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in
some other manner, including material balances, to comply with the
emission limitations under Sec. 60.2105, you must petition the EPA
Administrator for specific operating limits to be established during
the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(b) 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.
(c) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
(d) 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.
(e) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
0
15. Section 60.2120 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2120 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission Limit
During Malfunction.
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec. 60.2105, you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 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:
(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 limitations 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 and/or parameter monitoring and systems, as well
as 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 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) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
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 two 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. 60.2105 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.
0
16. Section 60.2125 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
[[Page 15753]]
Sec. 60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?
* * * * *
(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of
this subpart.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octa-chlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in table 3 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this part must be
used to determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in
table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart.
(i) If you have an applicable opacity operating limit, you must
determine compliance with the opacity limit using Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 of this part, based on three 1-hour blocks
consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values, unless you are
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent
with Sec. Sec. 60.2145 and 60.2165.
0
17. Section 60.2130 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2130 How are the performance test data used?
You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through
8 of this subpart.
0
18. Section 60.2135 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?
You must conduct a performance test, as required under Sec. Sec.
60.2125 and 60.2105 to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this
subpart, to establish compliance with any opacity operating limit in
Sec. 60.2110,and to establish operating limits using the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 60.2110 or 60.2115. The performance test must be conducted
using the test methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5
through 8 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2125. The use
of the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate the
performance test. You must conduct a performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the
monitoring system.
0
19. Section 60.2140 is amended by designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2140 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
test?
* * * * *
(b) If you commence or recommence combusting a solid waste at an
existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial facility, and
you conducted a test consistent with the provisions of this subpart
while combusting the solid waste within the 6 months preceding the
reintroduction of that solid waste in the combustion chamber, you do
not need to retest until 6 months from the date you reintroduce that
solid waste.
(c) If you commence combusting or recommence combusting a solid
waste at an existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial
facility and you have not conducted a performance test consistent with
the provisions of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste
within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that solid waste in
the combustion chamber, you must conduct a performance test within 60
days commencing or recommencing solid waste combustion.
0
20. Section 60.2141 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2141 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the device's initial startup.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the state agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
0
21. Section 60.2145 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2145 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and the operating limits?
(a) Compliance with standards.
(1) The emission standards and operating requirements set forth in
this subpart apply at all times.
(2) If you cease combusting solid waste, you may opt to remain
subject to the provisions of this subpart. Consistent with the
definition of CISWI unit, you are subject to the requirements of this
subpart at least 6 months following the last date of solid waste
combustion. Solid waste combustion is ceased when solid waste is not in
the combustion chamber (i.e., the solid waste feed to the combustor has
been cut off for a period of time not less than the solid waste
residence time).
(3) If you cease combusting solid waste, you must be in compliance
with any newly applicable standards on the effective date of the waste-
to-fuel switch. The effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch is a
date selected by you, that must be at least 6 months from the date that
you ceased combusting solid waste, consistent with Sec. 60.2145(a)(2).
Your source must remain in compliance with this subpart until the
effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch.
(4) If you own or operate an existing commercial or industrial
combustion unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste material, and you
commence or recommence combustion of solid waste, you are subject to
the provisions of this subpart as of the first day you introduce or
reintroduce solid waste to the combustion chamber, and this date
constitutes the effective date of the fuel-to-waste switch. You must
complete all initial compliance demonstrations for any section 112
standards that are applicable to your facility before you commence or
recommence combustion of solid waste. You must provide 30 days prior
notice of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The
notification must identify:
(i) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(ii) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the
CISWI unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6
months, and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(iv) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(v) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-
[[Page 15754]]
fuel switch), consistent with paragraphs (a)(2) and (3)of this section.
(5) All air pollution control equipment necessary for compliance
with any newly applicable emissions limits which apply as a result of
the cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid
waste must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch.
(6) All monitoring systems necessary for compliance with any newly
applicable monitoring requirements which apply as a result of the
cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid waste
must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and drift
checks must be performed as of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel,
or fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy tests must be performed as
of the performance test deadline for PM CEMS. Relative accuracy testing
for other CEMS need not be repeated if that testing was previously
performed consistent with Clean Air Act section 112 monitoring
requirements or monitoring requirements under this subpart.
(b) You must conduct an annual performance test for the pollutants
listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart
and opacity for each CISWI unit as required under Sec. 60.2125. The
annual performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed
in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and
the procedures in Sec. 60.2125. Annual performance tests are not
required if you use continuous emission monitoring systems or
continuous opacity monitoring systems to determine compliance.
(c) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec. 60.2110 or established under Sec. 60.2115 and as
specified in Sec. 60.2170. Use three-hour block average values to
determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is established under Sec. 60.2115.
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. Operating
limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance tests.
(d) You must burn only the same types of waste used to establish
operating limits during the performance test.
(e) For energy recovery units, incinerators, and small remote
units, you must perform an annual visual emissions test for ash
handling.
(f) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for opacity (except where particulate matter
continuous emission monitoring system or continuous opacity monitoring
systems are used are used) and the pollutants listed in table 6 of this
subpart.
(g) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon
monoxide emission limit using a carbon monoxide continuous emission
monitoring system according to the following requirements:
(1) You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
You must demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit using a 30-day rolling average of these 1-hour
arithmetic average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation
19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7 of this part.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emission monitoring
system in accordance with the requirements of performance specification
4A of appendix B of this part and quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part.
(h) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, demonstrate
continuous compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit using
a particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system according to
the procedures in Sec. 60.2165(n).
(i) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
or equal to 10 MMBtu/hour, if you have an opacity operating limit, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2165.
(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and hydrogen chloride as listed
in table 7 of this subpart. You must determine compliance with hydrogen
chloride using a hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring
system if you do not use an acid gas wet scrubber. You must determine
compliance with nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter using continuous emission monitoring systems. You
must determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit using a
mercury continuous emission monitoring system according to the
following requirements:
(1) Operate a continuous emission monitoring system in accordance
with performance specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with performance
specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the
performance test must be a calendar month. For each calendar month in
which the waste-burning kiln operates, hourly mercury concentration
data, and stack gas volumetric flow rate data must be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous emission
monitoring system must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the mercury mass
emissions rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements of
performance specifications 6 and 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and
quality assurance procedure 6 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury continuous emission
monitoring system while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is
operating under normal conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line
kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(k) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air pollution control device. The inspection must
include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(l) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section,
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this
paragraph (l) that addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
[[Page 15755]]
(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f), and (g).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and
(m)(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.
(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(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., PM 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.
(o) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH monitoring
system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and (o)(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.
(p) 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 (l) and (p)(1) through (2) of
this section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the 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.
(q) 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 (l) and (q)(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.
(r) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system
to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system as specified in paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Install a 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak detection
system in accordance with your monitoring plan and consistent with the
guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17).
(4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a system that
will sound an alarm when an increase in relative particulate matter
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is observed readily by plant operating personnel.
(s) For facilities using a continuous emission monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit,
compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be demonstrated
by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified in Sec.
60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 30-day rolling
average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1
of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7 of this
part. The sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring system must be
operated according to performance specification 2 in appendix B of this
part and must follow the procedures and methods specified in this
paragraph(s). For sources that have actual inlet emissions
[[Page 15756]]
less than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative accuracy
criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring
systems should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the
reference method test data in terms of the units of the emission
standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume absolute value of the mean
difference between the reference method and the continuous emission
monitoring systems, whichever is greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 in
appendix B of this part, collect sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with
both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods specified in
paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system at
the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device must be 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the
unit subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous emission
monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide control device
must be 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the unit subject to this rule.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(t) For facilities using a continuous emission monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission
limit, compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit may be
demonstrated by using the continuous emission monitoring system
specified in Sec. 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a
30-day rolling average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7 of this part. The nitrogen oxides continuous emission monitoring
system must be operated according to performance specification 2 in
appendix B of this part and must follow the procedures and methods
specified in paragraphs (t)(1) through (t)(5) of this section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 of
appendix B of this part, collect nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with
both the continuous emission monitoring systems and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (t)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19-
10.1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable,
must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system
must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential nitrogen
oxide emissions of the unit.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections,
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be
established during the initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through
(t)(4)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be re-established
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be used to determine
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a sampling
location. Method 3A or 3B, 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.
(u) For facilities using a continuous emission monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance with any of the emission limits of
this subpart, you must complete the following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s)
using a 30-day rolling average, calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7 of this part.
(2) Operate all continuous emission monitoring systems in
accordance with the applicable procedures under appendices B and F of
this part.
(v) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an emissions standards
deviation for particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, NOX,
SO2, and dioxin/furans.
0
22. Section 60.2150 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2150 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
You must conduct annual performance tests between 11 and 13 months
of the previous performance test.
0
23. Section 60.2151 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2151 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution
control device inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous
annual air pollution control device inspection), you must complete the
air pollution control device inspection as described in Sec. 60.2141.
0
24. Section 60.2155 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2155 May I conduct performance testing less often?
(a) You must conduct annual performance tests according to the
schedule specified in Sec. 60.2150, with the following exceptions:
(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, as specified in Sec. 60.2160. 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. 60.2265.
(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test for any
pollutant in table 1 or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart, as
applicable, demonstrates that the emission level for the pollutant is
no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or
(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, and you are not required to
conduct a performance test for the pollutant in response to a request
by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process
change in paragraph
[[Page 15757]]
(a)(2) of this section, you may elect to skip conducting a performance
test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You must conduct a
performance test for the pollutant during the third year and no more
than 37 months following the previous performance test for the
pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted
at emission levels no greater than their respective emission levels
specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to qualify for
less frequent testing under this paragraph.
(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead and dioxins/furans, the emission
level equal to 75 percent of the applicable emission limit in table 1
or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart, as applicable, to this subpart.
(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of combustion ash
from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent of the time during each of
the three 1-hour observations periods.
(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a pollutant as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and a subsequent
performance test for the pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit does
not meet the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or
(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual
performance tests for the pollutant according to the schedule specified
in paragraph (a) of this section until you qualify for less frequent
testing for the pollutant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(b) [Reserved]
0
25. Section 60.2165 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(6).
0
b. Revising paragraph (c).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2165 What monitoring equipment must I install and what
parameters must I monitor?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alert automatically an operator when an increase in
relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected.
The alarm must be located where it is observed easily by plant
operating personnel.
* * * * *
(c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber, activated
carbon, selective non-catalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations under Sec.
60.2105, you must install, calibrate (to the manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate the equipment necessary to
monitor compliance with the site-specific operating limits established
using the procedures in Sec. 60.2115.
(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, you must measure the minimum
mercury sorbent flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must complete the following:
(1) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.2125, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or the minimum reagent
flow rate measured as 3-hour block averages at all times.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge
rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature and below the
minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously constitute a violation of the
nitrogen oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you must monitor the secondary power
to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-
hour block averages at or above the operating limits established during
the mercury or particulate matter performance test.
(g) For waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, in
place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA Method 321 at 40 CFR part
63, appendix A, an owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring
hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the
hydrogen chloride emissions limit for units other than waste-burning
kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, a facility may substitute use
of a hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring system for
conducting the hydrogen chloride annual performance test, monitoring
the minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent flow rate, and monitoring the
minimum scrubber liquor pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a particulate
matter continuous emission monitoring system for conducting the
particulate matter annual performance test and monitoring the minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the dioxin/furan annual performance test.
You must record the output of the system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this
part. You may propose alternative continuous monitoring consistent with
the requirements in Sec. 60.13(i). The owner or operator who elects to
continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and must comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the mercury annual performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet performance
specification 12B. The owner or operator who elects to continuously
sample mercury emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA
Reference Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 of this
part, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17), or an approved alternative method for measuring mercury
emissions, must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and must comply with performance
specification 12A and quality assurance procedure 5, as well as the
requirements specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous emission
monitoring system for the nitrogen oxides annual performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance procedure one of appendix F of this part and the
procedures under Sec. 60.13 must
[[Page 15758]]
be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the
continuous emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2125, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
required under Sec. 60.52b(d) must be determined based on the 30-day
rolling average of the hourly emission concentrations using continuous
emission monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages
must be expressed in parts per million by volume (dry basis) and used
to calculate the 30-day rolling average concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points required
under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the sulfur dioxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance requirements of procedure one of appendix F of this
part and procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for
installation, evaluation, and operation of the continuous emission
monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2125, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using continuous emission monitoring
system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in
parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to
calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations and daily
geometric average emission percent reductions. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages must be calculated using the data points required under Sec.
60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units over 10 MMBtu/hr design heat input
that do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter with bag leak detection
system, or particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system,
you must install, operate, certify, and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (5) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.
60.2105. Energy recovery units that use a particulate matter continuous
emission monitoring system to demonstrate initial and continuing
compliance according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2165(n) are not
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system and must
perform the annual performance tests for the opacity consistent with
Sec. 60.2145(f).
(1) Install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to performance specification 1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13 and
according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.13(e)(1), each continuous opacity
monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system data as
specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and 1-hour
block averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate matter testing with EPA Method 5
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, an owner or operator must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring
system for monitoring particulate matter emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the system. The owner or operator
of an affected facility who continuously monitors particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous emission monitoring system and must comply with
the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(14) of this
section.
(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use of the
system.
(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use of the
system.
(3) The monitor must be installed, evaluated, and operated in
accordance with the requirements of performance specification 11 of
appendix B of this part and quality assurance requirements of procedure
two of appendix F of this part and Sec. 60.13. Use Method 5 or Method
5I of Appendix A of this part for the PM CEMS correlation testing.
(4) The initial performance evaluation must be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected
facility, as specified under Sec. 60.2125 or within 180 days of
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring
system if the owner or operator was previously determining compliance
by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility must be established according to the
procedures and methods specified in Sec. 60.2145(s)(5)(i) through
(s)(5)(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility must conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.2125. Compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit must be determined by using the continuous emission monitoring
system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to measure
particulate matter and calculating a 30-day rolling average emission
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7 from the 1-hour arithmetic average continuous
emission monitoring system outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified in Sec. 60.2170(e).
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7)
of this section must be expressed in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and must be used to
calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-
hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points
required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph
(n)(8) of this section are not met.
(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
[[Page 15759]]
(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 11 in
appendix B of this part, particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the
following test methods.
(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
as applicable, must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F of
this part.
(14) When particulate matter emissions data are not obtained
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,
calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, emissions data must
be obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by the
Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for a minimum of 85
percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar
quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year that the
affected facility is operated and combusting waste.
(o) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit, you must use a continuous automated sampling system.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring carbon monoxide emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 4B of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part and the
procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for installation,
evaluation, and operation of the continuous emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for carbon
monoxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2140, compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit must be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using continuous emission monitoring
system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in
parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to
calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-
hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points
required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(p) The owner/operator of an affected source with a bypass stack
shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain,
and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time and duration.
0
26. Section 60.2170 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must
obtain?
For each continuous monitoring system required or optionally
allowed under Sec. 60.2165, you must collect data according to this
section:
(a) You must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all
required intervals at all times compliance is required except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods (as specified in 60.2210(o) of this part), and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and
span adjustments). A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system
to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in
part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
You are required to effect monitoring system repairs in response to
monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods and to return
the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as practicable.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions or out-of-control periods, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must use
all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system.
(c) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions
or out-of-control periods, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments, failure to
collect required data is a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
0
27. Section 60.2175 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (w).
Sec. 60.2175 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (u) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for
controls other than wet scrubbers under Sec. 60.2110(d) through (f) or
Sec. 60.2115, you must maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits.
* * * * *
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show
a deviation from the operating limits in table 2 of this subpart or a
deviation from other operating limits established under Sec.
60.2110(d) through (f) or Sec. 60.2115 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(o) Maintain records of the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each CISWI unit subject to the
emissions limits in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of
this subpart, any required maintenance, and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
state regulatory agency.
(p) For continuously monitored pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All 1-hour average concentrations of mercury emissions.
(7) All 1-hour average concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(q) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates,
times, and durations.
(r) If you choose to stack test less frequently than annually,
consistent
[[Page 15760]]
with Sec. 60.2155(a) through (c), you must keep annual records that
document that your emissions in the previous stack test(s) were less
than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit and document that
there was no change in source operations including fuel composition and
operation of air pollution control equipment that would cause emissions
of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past year.
(s) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(t) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(u) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(v) For operating units that burn materials other than traditional
fuels as defined in Sec. 241.2, a description of each material burned,
and a record which documents how each material that is not a
traditional fuel meets each of the legitimacy criteria in Sec.
241.3(d). If you combust a material that has been processed from a
discarded non-hazardous secondary material pursuant to Sec.
241.3(b)(4), you must keep records as to how the operations that
produced the material satisfy the definition of processing in Sec.
241.2. If the material received a non-waste determination pursuant to
the petition process submitted under Sec. 241.3(c), you must keep a
copy of the non-waste determination granted by EPA.
(w) For operating units that burn tires,
(1) A certification that the shipment of tires that are non-waste
per 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i), are part of an established tire collection
program, consistent with the definition of that term in Sec. 241.2.
The certification must document that the tires were not discarded and
are handled as valuable commodities in accordance with Sec. 241.3(d),
from the point of removal from the automobile through arrival at the
combustion facility. The certification must identify the entity the
tires were received from (for example, the name of the state or private
collection program), the quantity, volume, or weight of tires received
by you, and the dates received. The certification must be signed by the
owner or operator of the combustion unit, or by a responsible official
of the established tire collection program, and must include the
following certification of compliance, ``The tires from this tire
collection program meet the EPA definition of an established tire
collection program in 40 CFR section 241.'' and state the title or
position of the person signing the certification.
(2) You must also keep a record that identifies where on your plant
site the tires from each tire collection program are located, and that
accounts for all tires at the plant site.
0
27. Section 60.2210 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2210 What information must I include in my annual report?
* * * * *
(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit
that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no
deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the
reporting period and that caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are not using a continuous
monitoring system to comply with the emission or operating limitations
in this subpart, the annual report must contain the following
information.
(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, the annual
report must contain the following information for each deviation from
an emission or operating limitation occurring for a CISWI unit for
which you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with the
emission and operating limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the CISWI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.
(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was not
out of control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, a
statement that there were not periods during which the continuous
monitoring system was out of control during the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control in accordance
with the procedure in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F of this part, as if
any of the following occur.
(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the
[[Page 15761]]
applicable performance specification or in the relevant standard.
(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 60.2220 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and removing
paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 60.2220 What must I include in the deviation report?
* * * * *
(c) Durations and causes of the following:
(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or operating limits
and your corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 60.2230 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2230 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must
submit?
(a) Yes. You must submit notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7.
(b) If you cease combusting solid waste but continue to operate,
you must provide 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel switch, consistent with 60.2145(a). The notification must
identify:
(1) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(2) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(3) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the CISWI
unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6 months,
and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(4) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(5) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3)of this section.
0
30. Section 60.2235 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2235 In what form can I submit my reports?
(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(b) 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.
0
31. Section 60.2242 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2242 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain incinerator subject to
standards under this subpart must operate pursuant to a permit issued
under Section 129(e) and Title V of the Clean Air Act.
0
32. Section 60.2250 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2250 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
Within 60 days after your air curtain incinerator reaches the
charge rate at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after
its initial startup, you must meet the two limitations specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values), except as described in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 35 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values) during the startup period that is
within the first 30 minutes of operation.
0
33. Section 60.2260 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air curtain incinerators?
* * * * *
(d) You must submit the results (as determined by the average of
three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values)
of the initial opacity tests no later than 60 days following the
initial test. Submit annual opacity test results within 12 months
following the previous report.
* * * * *
0
34. Section 60.2265 is amended by:
0
a. Adding definitions for ``Affirmative defense'', ``Burn-off oven'',
``Bypass stack'', ``Chemical recovery unit'', ``Continuous monitoring
system'', ``Cyclonic burn barrel'', ``Energy recovery unit'', ``Energy
recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass)'', ``Energy recovery
unit designed to burn coal (Coal)'', ``Energy recovery unit designed to
burn solid materials (Solids)'', ``Homogeneous wastes''
``Incinerator'', ``Kiln'', ``Laboratory analysis unit'', ``Minimum
voltage or amperage'', ``Opacity'', ``Operating day'', ``Performance
evaluation'', ``Performance test'', ``Process change'', ``Raw mill'',
``Small remote incinerator'', ``Soil treatment unit'', ``Solid waste
incineration unit,'' ``Space heater'' and ``Waste-burning kiln'', in
alphabetical order.
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) unit'', ``dioxin/furans'', ``Modification or
modified CISWI unit'', and ``Wet scrubber''.
0
c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for ``Deviation.''
0
d. Removing the definition for ``Agricultural waste'', ``Commercial or
industrial waste'', ``Contained gaseous material'', and ``Solid
waste''.
Sec. 60.2265 What definitions must I know?
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation
unit, or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off oven is not an incinerator,
waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote
incinerator under this subpart.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
* * * * *
Chemical recovery unit means combustion units burning materials to
[[Page 15762]]
recover chemical constituents or to produce chemical compounds where
there is an existing commercial market for such recovered chemical
constituents or compounds. The following seven types of units are
considered chemical recovery units:
(1) Units burning only pulping liquors (i.e., black liquor) that
are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery process and reused in the
pulping process.
(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin
sulfuric acid.
(3) Units burning only wood or coal feedstock for the production of
charcoal.
(4) Units burning only manufacturing byproduct streams/residue
containing catalyst metals which are reclaimed and reused as catalysts
or used to produce commercial grade catalysts.
(5) Units burning only coke to produce purified carbon monoxide
that is used as an intermediate in the production of other chemical
compounds.
(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to produce
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or other gases for use in
other manufacturing processes.
(7) Units burning only photographic film to recover silver.
* * * * *
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit
means any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any
solid waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. If the
operating unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as defined
in Sec. 241.2 that have been discarded, and you do not keep and
produce records as required by Sec. 60.2175(v), the material is a
solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI
units will include all of the following components, a CISWI unit
includes, but is not limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate
system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and
bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air pollution
control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at the
solid waste hopper (if applicable) and extends through two areas: The
combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately after the last
combustion chamber or after the waste heat recovery equipment, if any;
and the combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at the truck
loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final
disposal. The CISWI unit includes all ash handling systems connected to
the bottom ash handling system.
* * * * *
Continuous monitoring system means the total equipment, required
under the emission monitoring sections in applicable subparts, used to
sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a
permanent record of emissions or process parameters.
* * * * *
Cyclonic burn barrel means a combustion device for waste materials
that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of
a lid, which fits onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces
combustion air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing
of waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small,
remote incinerator under this subpart.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation,
operating limit, or operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
* * * * *
Energy recovery unit means a combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR 240)
for energy recovery. Energy recovery units include units that would be
considered boilers and process heaters if they did not combust solid
waste.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass) means an
energy recovery unit that burns solid waste and at least 10 percent
biomass, but less than 10 percent coal, on a heat input basis on an
annual average, either alone or in combination with liquid waste,
liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal) means an energy
recovery unit that burns solid waste and at least 10 percent coal on a
heat input basis on an annual average, either alone or in combination
with liquid waste, liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn liquid waste materials and
gas (Liquid/gas) means an energy recovery unit that burns a liquid
waste with liquid or gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuel or
waste materials.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn solid materials (Solids)
includes energy recovery units designed to burn coal and energy
recovery units designed to burn biomass.
* * * * *
Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in formulation, have
known fuel properties, have a defined origin, have predictable chemical
and physical attributes, and result in consistent combustion
characteristics and have a consistent emissions profile.
Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of combusting
solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA in
40 CFR part 240) for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by
removing combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single chamber
and two-chamber.
Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any associated preheater
or precalciner devices, used for processing a substance by burning,
firing or drying. Kilns include cement kilns that produce clinker by
heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of
Portland Cement.
Laboratory analysis unit means units that burn samples of materials
for the purpose of chemical or physical analysis. A laboratory analysis
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
* * * * *
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run
average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured
during the most recent particulate matter or mercury performance test
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit that has
been changed later than June 1, 2001, 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
CISWI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the CISWI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of
CISWI unit.
(2) Any physical change in the CISWI unit or change in the method
of operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted
for which
[[Page 15763]]
section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established
standards.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of solid waste is combusted
at any time in the CISWI unit.
* * * * *
Performance evaluation means the conduct of relative accuracy
testing, calibration error testing, and other measurements used in
validating the continuous monitoring system data.
Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the
execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to
demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission standard as specified
in the performance test section of the relevant standard.
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 a
change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the
emission limits for the affected CISWI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
* * * * *
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, vertical roller mill or other
size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill,
used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or
removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is
used to remove moisture from feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also includes the air separator
associated with the raw mill.
* * * * *
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid
waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA in 40
CFR part 240) and combusts 3 tons per day or less solid waste and is
more than 25 miles driving distance to the nearest municipal solid
waste landfill.
Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats petroleum
contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site remediation. A soil
treatment unit may be direct-fired or indirect fired. A soil treatment
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of
any facility which combusts any solid waste (as that term is defined by
the Administrator under RCRA in 40 CFR part 240) material from
commercial or industrial establishments or the general public
(including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels). Such
term does not include incinerators or other units required to have a
permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term
``solid waste incineration unit'' does not include: (A) Materials
recovery facilities (including primary or secondary smelters) which
combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals; (B)
qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in section
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying
cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous waste (such as
units which burn tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived
fuel) for the production of electric energy or in the case of
qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste for the
production of electric energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such
as heat) which are used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling
purposes; or (C) air curtain incinerators provided that such
incinerators only burn wood wastes, yard wastes, and clean lumber and
that such air curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to
be established by the Administrator by rule.
Space heater means a usually portable appliance for heating a
relatively small area. These units are not subject to the incinerator,
waste-burning kiln, or small, remote subcategories.
* * * * *
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA).
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that uses
an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate matter
(including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb
and neutralize acid gases.
* * * * *
0
35. Table 1 of subpart CCCC is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for CISWI Units for Which Construction Is Commenced
After November 30, 1999, But No Later Than June 4, 2010, or for Which Modification or Reconstruction Is
Commenced on or After June 1, 2001, But No Later Than September 21, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.004 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-
meter per run). 8).
Carbon Monoxide...................... 157 parts per million 30 day rolling average. Carbon Monoxide CEMS
by dry volume. (Performance
Specification 4A of
this part, use a span
value of 300 ppm.).
Dioxin/Furan (toxic equivalency 0.41 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters per run).
Hydrogen Chloride.................... 62 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.04 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 8).
[[Page 15764]]
Mercury.............................. 0.47 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Performance test
standard cubic meter. Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008),\b\ collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 1 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008).\b\
meter per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Nitrogen Oxides...................... 388 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
by dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7 7E at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 800 ppm or less.
Opacity.............................. 10 percent............. Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 at 40 CFR
minute averages part 60, appendix A-
opacity values. 4).
Particulate matter................... 70 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter per run). A-3 or A-8).
Sulfur Dioxide....................... 20 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 60, appendix
liters per run. For A-4. Use a span gas
Method 6C, collect with a concentration
sample for a minimum of 50 ppm or less.
duration of 1 hour per
run).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions.
b Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
0
36. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is amended by revising the entry for
``Annual Report'' and ``Emission limitation or operating limit
deviation report.''
Table 4 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Annual report................. No later than 12 Name and Sec. Sec. 60.2205 and 60.2210.
months following the address.
submission of the Statement
initial test report. and signature by
Subsequent reports responsible official.
are to be submitted Date of
no more than 12 report.
months following the Values for
previous report. the operating limits.
Highest
recorded 3-hour
average and the
lowest 3-hour
average, as
applicable, for each
operating parameter
recorded for the
calendar year being
reported.
If a
performance test was
conducted during the
reporting period,
the results of the
test.
If a
performance test was
not conducted during
the reporting
period, a statement
that the
requirements of Sec.
60.2155(a) were
met.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified CISWI unit
operators were
unavailable for more
than 8 hours but
less than 2 weeks.
[[Page 15765]]
If you are
conducting
performance tests
once every 3 years
consistent with Sec.
60.2155(a), the
date of the last 2
performance tests, a
comparison of the
emission level you
achieved in the last
2 performance tests
to the 75 percent
emission limit
threshold required
in Sec. 60.2155(a)
and a statement as
to whether there
have been any
operational changes
since the last
performance test
that could increase
emissions.
* * * * * * *
Emission limitation or By August 1 of that Dates and Sec. 60.2215 and 60.2220.
operating limit deviation year for data times of deviation.
report. collected during the Averaged and
first half of the recorded data for
calendar year. By those dates.
February 1 of the Duration and
following year for causes of each
data collected deviation and the
during the second corrective actions
half of the calendar taken.
year. Copy of
operating limit
monitoring data and
any test reports.
Dates, times
and causes for
monitor downtime
incidents.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
0
37. Table 5 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Incinerators That Commenced Construction After June
4, 2010, or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After September 21, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0023 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-8
meter per run). of this part).
Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon Monoxide...................... 12 parts per million by 30 day rolling average. Carbon Monoxide CEMS
dry volume. (Performance
Specification 4A of
this part, using an RA
of 0.5 ppm instead of
5 ppm as specified in
section 13.2. For the
cylinder gas audit, +/-
15% or 0.5 ppm,
whichever is greater.)
Use a span gas with a
concentration of 20
ppm or less.
Dioxin/furan (Total Mass Basis)...... 0.052 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Dioxin/furan (toxic equivalency 0.13 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5 percent observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
of the hourly part 60, appendix A-
observation period. 7).
Hydrogen Chloride.................... 0.091 part per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 200 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 3
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.0019 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 at 40 CFR part
meter per run). 60). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
[[Page 15766]]
Mercury.............................. 0.00016 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic enough volume to meet (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. a detection limit data 40 CFR part 60,
quality objective of appendix A-8) or ASTM
0.03 [mu]g/dry D6784-02 (Reapproved
standard cubic meter). 2008) \b\.
Nitrogen Oxides...................... 23 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 50 ppm or less.
Particulate matter................... 18 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
(filterable)......................... standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meters per run). A-3 or appendix A-8 at
40 CFR part 60).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 11 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6C at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4. Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 20 ppm or less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the Total Mass Limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
0
38. Table 6 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Energy Recovery Units That Commenced Construction
After June 4, 2010, or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After September 21, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this emission
limitation \a\ Using this And determining
For the air pollutant -------------------------------------- averaging time compliance using this
Liquid/gas Solids method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium........................ 0.023 milligrams 0.00051 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 29 at 40 CFR
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume part 60, appendix A-
cubic meter. of 4 dry 8). Use ICPMS for the
standard cubic analytical finish.
meters per run).
Carbon monoxide................ 36 parts per Biomass--160 30 day rolling Carbon Monoxide CEMS
million dry parts per average. (Performance
volume. million dry Specification 4A of
Coal--46 parts volume. this part, using a RA
per million dry of 0.5 ppm instead of
volume. 5 ppm as specified in
section 13.2. For the
cylinder gas audit, +/
-15% or 0.5 ppm,
whichever is greater.
Use a span gas with a
concentration of 100
ppm or less for a
liquid/gas or coal-
fed boiler. Use a
span gas with a
concentration of 300
ppm or less for a
biomass-fed boiler.
Dioxins/furans (Total Mass No Total Mass 0.068 nanograms 3-run average Performance test
Basis). Basis limit, per dry standard (collect a (Method 23 at 40 CFR
must meet the cubic meter. minimum volume part 60, appendix A-
toxic of 4 dry 7).
equivalency standard cubic
basis limit meters).
below.
Dioxins/furans (toxic 0.002 nanograms 0.011 nanograms 3-run average Performance test
equivalency basis). per dry standard per dry standard (collect a (Method 23 of
cubic meter. cubic meter. minimum volume appendix A-7 of this
of 4 dry part).
standard cubic
meters per run).
Fugitive ash................... Visible emissions Visible emissions Three 1-hour Visible emission test
for no more than for no more than observation (Method 22 at 40 CFR
5 percent of the 5 percent of the periods. part 60, appendix A-
hourly hourly 7).
observation observation
period. period.
[[Page 15767]]
Hydrogen chloride.............. 14 parts per 0.45 parts per 3-run average Performance test
million dry million dry (For Method 26, (Method 26 or 26A at
volume. volume. collect a 40 CFR part 60,
minimum volume appendix A-8).
of 200 liters
per run. For
Method 26A,
collect a
minimum volume
of 3 dry
standard cubic
meters per run).
Lead........................... 0.096 milligrams 0.00313 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 29 at 40 CFR
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume part 60, appendix A-
cubic meter. of 4 dry 8). Use ICPMS for the
standard cubic analytical finish.
meters per run).
Mercury........................ 0.00025 0.00033 3-run average Performance test
milligrams per milligrams per (collect enough (Method 29 or 30B at
dry standard dry standard volume to meet 40 CFR part 60,
cubic meter. cubic meter. an in-stack appendix A-8) or ASTM
detection limit D6784-02 (Reapproved
data quality 2008).\b\.
objective of
0.03 ug/dscm).
Oxides of nitrogen............. 76 parts per Biomass--290 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry parts per hour minimum (Method 7E at 40 CFR
volume. million dry sample time per part 60, appendix A-
volume. run). 4). Use a span gas
Coal--340 parts with a concentration
per million dry of 150 ppm or less
volume. for liquid/gas fuel
boilers. Use a span
gas with a
concentration of 700
ppm or less for solid
fuel boilers.
Particulate matter (filterable) 110 milligrams 250 milligrams 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard per dry standard (collect a (Method 5 or 29 at 40
cubic meter. cubic meter. minimum volume CFR part 60, appendix
of 1 dry A-3 or appendix A-8)
standard cubic if the unit has a
meter per run). design capacity less
than 250 MMBtu/hr; or
PM CEMS (performance
specification 11 of
appendix B of this
part) if the unit has
a design capacity
equal to or greater
than 250 MMBtu/hr.
Use Method 5 or 5I of
Appendix A of this
part and collect a
minimum sample volume
of 1 dscm per test
run for the PM CEMS
correlation testing.
Sulfur dioxide................. 720 parts per Biomass--6.2 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry parts per hour minimum (Method 6 or 6C at 40
volume. million dry sample time per CFR part 60, appendix
volume. run). A-4. Use a span gas
Coal--650 parts with a concentration
per million dry of 20 ppm or less for
volume. a biomass-fed boiler.
Use a span gas with a
concentration of 1500
ppm or less for a
liquid/gas boiler or
coal-fed boiler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the Total Mass Basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
0
39. Table 7 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Waste-Burning Kilns That Commenced Construction
After June 4, 2010, or Reconstruction or Modification After September 21, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00048 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
[[Page 15768]]
Carbon monoxide...................... 90 parts per million 30-day rolling average. Carbon monoxide CEMS
dry volume. (Performance
Specification 4A of
this part, using an RA
of 1 ppm instead of 5
ppm as specified in
section 13.2. For the
cylinder gas audit, +/-
15% or 0.5 ppm,
whichever is greater).
Use a span gas with a
concentration of 200
ppm or less.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.090 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.0030 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 3.0 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 321 at 40 CFR
per run) or 30-day part 63, appendix A)
rolling average if HCl or HCl CEMS if a wet
CEMS are used. scrubber is not used.
Lead................................. 0.0026 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0062 milligrams per 30-day rolling average. Mercury CEMS or sorbent
dry standard cubic trap monitoring system
meter. (performance
specification 12A or
12B, respectively, of
appendix B of this
part.)
Oxides of nitrogen................... 200 \b\ parts per 30-day rolling average. NOX Continuous
million dry volume. Emissions Monitoring
System (performance
specification 2 of
appendix B of this
part). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 400 ppm or less.
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 2.5 milligrams per dry 30-day rolling average. PM Continuous Emissions
standard cubic meter. Monitoring System
(performance
specification 11 of
appendix B of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 38 parts per million 30-day rolling average. Sulfur dioxide
dry volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 2 of
appendix B of this
part). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 100 ppm or less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\b\ NOX limits for new waste-burning kilns based on data for best-performing similar source, Portland Cement
kilns. See ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources'' for details.
0
40. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Small, Remote Incinerators That Commenced
Construction After June 4, 2010, or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After September 21, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.61 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 8).
[[Page 15769]]
Carbon monoxide...................... 12 parts per million 24 hour block average.. Carbon monoxide CEMS
dry volume. (Performance
Specification 4A of
this part, using a RA
of 0.5 ppm instead of
5 ppm as specified in
section 13.2. For the
cylinder gas audit, +/-
15% or 0.5 ppm,
whichever is
greater.). Use a span
gas with a
concentration of 25
ppm or less.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 1,200 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 31 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5 percent observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
of the hourly part 60, appendix A-
observation period. 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 200 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.26 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic). part 60,appendix A-8).
Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0035 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008) \b\, collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 2 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008)b.
meters per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum volume as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 78 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E at 40 CFR
per run). part 60,appendix A-4).
Use a span gas with a
concentration of 150
ppm or less.
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 230 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter). A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 1.2 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4. Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 5 ppm or less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis
limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
0
41. Revise the heading for subpart DDDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDDD--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
* * * * *
0
42. Section 60.2500 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of emissions from commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. The pollutants addressed by
these emission guidelines are listed in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 9 of this subpart. These emission guidelines are
developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act and subpart B of this part.
0
43. Section 60.2505 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2505 Am I affected by this subpart?
(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a
state or United States protectorate with one or more existing CISWI
units that meets the criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, you must submit a state plan to EPA that implements the
[[Page 15770]]
emission guidelines contained in this subpart.
(b) You must submit a state plan to EPA by December 3, 2001 for
incinerator units that commenced construction on or before November 30,
1999 and that were not modified or reconstructed after June 1, 2001.
(c) You must submit a state plan that meets the requirements of
this subpart and contains the more stringent emission limit for the
respective pollutant in table 6 of this subpart or table 1 of subpart
CCCC of this part to EPA by March 21, 2012 for incinerators that
commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but no later than June
4, 2010, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 1, 2001
but no later than September 21, 2011.
(d) You must submit a state plan to EPA that meets the requirements
of this subpart and contains the emission limits in tables 7 through 9
of this subpart by March 21, 2012 for CISWI units other than
incinerator units that commenced construction on or before June 4,
2010.
0
44. Section 60.2525 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2525 What if my state plan is not approvable?
(a) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a negative
declaration letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA will develop a federal
plan according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI units not
covered by an approved state plan must comply with the federal plan.
The federal plan is an interim action and will be automatically
withdrawn when your state plan is approved.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a negative
declaration letter) to EPA that meets the requirements of this subpart
and contains the emission limits in tables 6 through 9 of this subpart
for CISWI units that commenced construction after November 30, 1999,
but on or before by June 4, 2010, then EPA will develop a federal plan
according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the emission guidelines contained
in this subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI units not covered by an
approved state plan must comply with the federal plan. The federal plan
is an interim action and will be automatically withdrawn when your
state plan is approved.
0
45. Section 60.2535 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c).
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
Sec. 60.2535 What compliance schedule must I include in my state
plan?
(a) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999, your state plan must
include compliance schedules that require CISWI units to achieve final
compliance as expeditiously as practicable after approval of the state
plan but not later than the earlier of the two dates specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999, but on or before June 4, 2010,
and for CISWI units in the energy recovery units, waste-burning kilns,
and small remote incinerators subcategories that commenced construction
before June 4, 2010, your state plan must include compliance schedules
that require CISWI units to achieve final compliance as expeditiously
as practicable after approval of the state plan but not later than the
earlier of the two dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of
this section.
(1) March 21, 2016.
(2) 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval.
* * * * *
0
46. Section 60.2540 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2540 Are there any state plan requirements for this subpart
that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
* * * * *
(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart must be as
protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. State
plans must require all CISWI units to comply by the dates specified in
Sec. 60.2535. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.
60.24(f).
* * * * *
0
47. Section 60.2541 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2541 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other
acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129(b)(2) obligations?
Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129
obligations by submitting an acceptable written request for delegation
of the federal plan that meets the requirements of this section. This
is the only other option for a state to meet its Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129 obligations.
(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request must include the
following:
(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to
administer and enforce the federal plan.
(2) The items under Sec. 60.2515(a)(1), (2) and (7).
(3) Certification that the hearing on the state delegation request,
similar to the hearing for a state plan submittal, was held, a list of
witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at
the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or
written submission.
(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Regional Administrator who sets forth the terms, conditions, and
effective date of the delegation and that serves as the mechanism for
the transfer of authority. Additional guidance and information is given
in EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and Enforcement
of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129(b)(3) federal plans.
(b) A state with an already approved CISWI Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from receiving EPA approval of a
delegation request for the revised federal plan, providing the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met, and at the time
of the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal of EPA's
previous state plan approval.
(c) A state's Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 obligations are
separate from its obligations under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
0
48. Section 60.2542 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2542 What authorities will not be delegated to state, local,
or tribal agencies?
The authorities listed under Sec. 60.2030(c) will not be delegated
to state, local, or tribal agencies.
0
49. Section 60.2545 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect CISWI unit owners and
operators in my state?
* * * * *
(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines contained in this subpart for CISWI units that
commenced construction before November 30, 1999 by December 2, 2002,
EPA will implement and enforce a federal plan, as provided in Sec.
60.2525, to ensure that each unit within your state reaches compliance
with all the provisions of this subpart by December 1, 2005.
[[Page 15771]]
(c) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines contained in this subpart by March 21, 2012 for
CISWI units that commenced construction after November 29, 1999, but on
or before June 4, 2010, EPA will implement and enforce a federal plan,
as provided in Sec. 60.2525, to ensure that each unit within your
state that commenced construction after November 29, 1999, but on or
before June 4, 2010, reaches compliance with all the provisions of this
subpart by March 21, 2016.
0
50. Section Sec. 60.2550 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2550 What CISWI units must I address in my state plan?
(a) * * *
(1) Incineration units in your state that commenced construction on
or before June 4, 2010.
* * * * *
0
51. Section Sec. 60.2555 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c), (e)(3), (f)(3), and (g).
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k) and (l).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n).
0
f. Removing paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.2555 What combustion units are exempt from my state plan?
This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i), (m), and (n) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.2805, 60.2860, and 60.2870.
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
regulated under subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for Small
Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2875. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a small power production facility and
that the waste material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined Sec. 60.2875. The request must include
information sufficient to document that the unit meets the criteria of
the definition of a cogeneration facility and that the waste material
the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter that are subject to subpart LLLL
of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) or subpart MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines for Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units). Sewage sludge incineration unit designs may
include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.
Sec. 60.2558 [Removed]
0
52. Section 60.2558 is removed.
0
53. Section 60.2635 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2635 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or to prevent
conditions that may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *
0
54. Section 60.2650 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2650 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
* * * * *
(d) Prevention and correction of malfunctions or conditions that
may lead to malfunction.
* * * * *
0
55. Section 60.2670 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2670 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each CISWI unit,
including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 2 of this subpart or
tables 6 through 9 of this subpart by the final compliance date under
the approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as applicable.
The emission limitations apply at all times the unit is operating
including and not limited to startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(b) Units that do not use wet scrubbers must maintain opacity to
less than or equal to the percent opacity (three 1-hour blocks
consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values) specified in table 2
of this subpart, as applicable.
0
56. Section 60.2675 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(2),
(a)(3), and (a)(4).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2675 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to comply with the emission
limitations, you must establish operating limits for up to four
operating parameters (as specified in table 3 of this subpart) as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section during the
initial performance test.
* * * * *
(2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate matter
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average pressure
drop across the wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
emission limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average amperage to
the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at the inlet to the wet acid gas
or particulate matter scrubber measured during the
[[Page 15772]]
most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all
applicable emission limitations.
(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated as the lowest
1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet acid gas scrubber
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the HCl emission limitation.
* * * * *
(b) You must meet the operating limits established during the
initial performance test on the date the initial performance test is
required or completed (whichever is earlier). You must conduct an
initial performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and
continuous parameter monitoring system within 60 days of installation
of the monitoring system.
* * * * *
(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the (secondary) voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the
particulate matter performance test. Calculate the average electric
power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = secondary electric
power) for each test run. The operating limit for the electrostatic
precipitator is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to comply with
the emission limitations, you must measure the sorbent flow rate during
the performance testing. The operating limit for the carbon sorbent
injection is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average sorbent flow rate
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limitations.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the charge rate, the secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit), and the reagent
flow rate during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The operating
limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction are calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average charge rate, secondary chamber temperature, and
reagent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limitations.
(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
or fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, and if you do
not determine compliance with your particulate matter emission
limitation with a particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring
system, you must maintain opacity to less than or equal to ten percent
opacity (1-hour block average).
0
57. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2680 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter,
activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?
(a) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
fabric filter, or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in
some other manner, including mass balances, to comply with the emission
limitations under Sec. 60.2670, you must petition the EPA
Administrator for specific operating limits to be established during
the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
(4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
(b) [Reserved]
0
58. Section 60.2685 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2685 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission Limit
During Malfunction.
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec. 60.2670 you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at 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:
(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 limitations 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 and/or parameter monitoring and systems, as well
as control systems, were kept in operation if at all possible,
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices;
(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 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
[[Page 15773]]
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) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
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 two 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. 60.2670 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
exceedances.
0
59. Section 60.2690 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (g)(1)
and (2) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2690 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?
* * * * *
(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in tables 2 and 6 through 9 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through
octa-isomer emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octa-chlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in table 4 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must be used to
determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in table 2 of
this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart.
(i) If you have an applicable opacity operating limit, you must
determine compliance with the opacity limit using Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4, based on three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values, unless you are required to install a
continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent with Sec. 60.2710 and
Sec. 60.2730.
0
60. Section 60.2695 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2695 How are the performance test data used?
You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through
9 of this subpart.
0
61. Section 60.2700 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2700 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the amended
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?
You must conduct a performance test, as required under Sec. Sec.
60.2690 and 60.2670, to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in table 2 of this subpart and tables 6 through 9 of this
subpart, to establish compliance with any opacity operating limits in
Sec. 60.2675, and to establish operating limits using the procedures
in Sec. 60.2675 or Sec. 60.2680. The performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2690.
The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate
the performance test. You must conduct a performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the
monitoring system.
0
62. Section 60.2705 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2705 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
test?
(a) The initial performance test must be conducted no later than
180 days after your final compliance date. Your final compliance date
is specified in table 1 of this subpart.
(b) If you commence or recommence combusting a solid waste at an
existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial facility and
you conducted a test consistent with the provisions of this subpart
while combusting the given solid waste within the 6 months preceding
the reintroduction of that solid waste in the combustion chamber, you
do not need to retest until 6 months from the date you reintroduce that
solid waste.
(c) If you commence combusting or recommence combusting a solid
waste at an existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial
facility and you have not conducted a performance test consistent with
the provisions of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste
within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that solid waste in
the combustion chamber, you must conduct a performance test within 60
days commencing or recommencing solid waste combustion.
0
63. Section 60.2706 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2706 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the final compliance date for
meeting the amended emission limitations.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the state agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
0
64. Section 60.2710 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2710 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
amended emission limitations and the operating limits?
(a) Compliance with standards.
(1) The emission standards and operating requirements set forth in
this subpart apply at all times.
(2) If you cease combusting solid waste you may opt to remain
subject to the provisions of this subpart. Consistent with the
definition of CISWI unit, you are subject to the requirements of this
subpart at least 6 months following the last date of solid waste
combustion. Solid waste combustion is ceased when solid waste is not in
the combustion chamber (i.e., the solid waste feed to the combustor has
been cut off for a period of time not less than the solid waste
residence time).
(3) If you cease combusting solid waste you must be in compliance
with any newly applicable standards on the effective date of the waste-
to-fuel switch. The effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch is a
date selected by you,
[[Page 15774]]
that must be at least 6 months from the date that you ceased combusting
solid waste, consistent with Sec. 60.2710(a)(2). Your source must
remain in compliance with this subpart until the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel switch.
(4) If you own or operate an existing commercial or industrial
combustion unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste material, and you
commence or recommence combustion of solid waste, you are subject to
the provisions of this subpart as of the first day you introduce or
reintroduce solid waste to the combustion chamber, and this date
constitutes the effective date of the fuel-to-waste switch. You must
complete all initial compliance demonstrations for any Section 112
standards that are applicable to your facility before you commence or
recommence combustion of solid waste. You must provide 30 days prior
notice of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The
notification must identify:
(i) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(ii) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the
CISWI unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6
months, and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(iv) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(v) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section.
(5) All air pollution control equipment necessary for compliance
with any newly applicable emissions limits which apply as a result of
the cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid
waste must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch.
(6) All monitoring systems necessary for compliance with any newly
applicable monitoring requirements which apply as a result of the
cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid waste
must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and drift
checks must be performed as of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel,
or fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy tests must be performed as
of the performance test deadline for PM CEMS. Relative accuracy testing
for other CEMS need not be repeated if that testing was previously
performed consistent with section 112 monitoring requirements or
monitoring requirements under this subpart.
(b) You must conduct an annual performance test for the pollutants
listed in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart
and opacity for each CISWI unit as required under Sec. 60.2690. The
annual performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed
in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and
the procedures in Sec. 60.2690. Annual performance tests are not
required if you use continuous emission monitoring systems or
continuous opacity monitoring systems to determine compliance.
(c) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec. 60.2675 or established under Sec. 60.2680 and as
specified in Sec. 60.2735. Operation above the established maximum or
below the established minimum operating limits constitutes a deviation
from the established operating limits. Three-hour block average values
are used to determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection
system alarms) unless a different averaging period is established under
Sec. 60.2680. Operating limits are confirmed or reestablished during
performance tests.
(d) You must burn only the same types of waste used to establish
operating limits during the performance test.
(e) For energy recovery units, incinerators, and small remote
units, you must perform annual visual emissions test for ash handling.
(f) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for the pollutants listed in table 7 of this subpart.
(g) For facilities using a continuous emission monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit,
compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit may be demonstrated
by using the continuous emission monitoring system according to the
following requirements:
(1) You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
You must demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit using a 30-day rolling average of the 1-hour arithmetic
average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring
system in accordance with the applicable requirements of performance
specification 4A of appendix B and the quality assurance procedures of
appendix F of this part.
(h) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, demonstrate continuous compliance
with the particulate matter emissions limit using a particulate matter
continuous emissions monitoring system according to the procedures in
Sec. 60.2730(n).
(i) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
or equal to 10 MMBTU/hour, if you have an opacity operating limit, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2730.
(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for the pollutants (except mercury and particulate matter, and
hydrogen chloride if no acid gas wet scrubber is used) listed in table
8 of this subpart. If your waste-burning kiln is not equipped with a
wet scrubber, you must determine compliance with the hydrogen chloride
emission limit using a continuous emission monitoring system as
specified in Sec. 60.2730. You must determine compliance with the
mercury emissions limit using a mercury continuous emission monitoring
system according to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a continuous emission monitoring system in accordance
with performance specification 12A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with performance
specification 12B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the
performance test must be a calendar month. For each calendar month in
which the waste-burning kiln operates, hourly mercury concentration
data and stack gas volumetric flow rate data must be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous emissions
monitoring systems must install, operate, calibrate and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the mercury mass
emissions rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements of
performance specifications 6 and 12A at
[[Page 15775]]
40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality assurance procedure 5 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix F.
(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury continuous emission monitor
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating under
normal conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill
is not operating.
(k) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air pollution control device. The inspection must
include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(l) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section,
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this
paragraph (l) that addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b),(c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f) and (g).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and
(m)(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.
(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(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., PM 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.
(o) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(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., PM 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.
(p) 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 (l) and (p)(1) through (2) of
this section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the 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.
(q) 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 (l) and (q)(1) through (3) 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.
[[Page 15776]]
(r) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system
to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system as specified in paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Install a 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak detection
system in accordance with your monitoring plan and consistent with the
guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17).
(4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a system that
will sound an alarm when an increase in relative particulate matter
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is observed readily by plant operating personnel.
(s) For facilities using a continuous emission monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit,
compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be demonstrated
by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified in Sec.
60.2730 to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 30-day rolling
average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1
of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. The sulfur
dioxide continuous emission monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part and
must follow the procedures and methods specified in this paragraph (s).
For sources that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per
million dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur
dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems should be no greater
than 20 percent of the mean value of the reference method test data in
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry
volume absolute value of the mean difference between the reference
method and the continuous emission monitoring systems, whichever is
greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 in
appendix B of this part, collect sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with
both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods specified in
paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system at
the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device must be 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the
unit subject to this rule. The span value of the continuous emission
monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide control device
must be 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the unit subject to this rule.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(t) For facilities using a continuous emission monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission
limit, compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit may be
demonstrated by using the continuous emission monitoring system
specified in Sec. 60.2730 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a
30-day rolling average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7. The nitrogen oxides continuous emission monitoring system must be
operated according to performance specification 2 in appendix B of this
part and must follow the procedures and methods specified in paragraphs
(t)(1) through (t)(5) of this section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 2 of
appendix B of this part, collect nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) with
both the continuous emission monitoring systems and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (t)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system
must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential nitrogen
oxide emissions of unit.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections,
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be
established during the initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through
(t)(4)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be reestablished
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be used to determine
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a sampling
location. Method 3A, 3B, 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 3 runs must be performed.
(u) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate continuous compliance with any of the emission limits of
this subpart, you must complete the following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s)
using a 30-day rolling average, calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7.
(2) Operate all continuous emissions monitoring systems in
accordance with the applicable procedures under appendices B and F of
this part.
(v) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an emissions standards
deviation for
[[Page 15777]]
particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, NOX, SO2,
and dioxin/furans.
(w) For energy recovery units with a heat input capacity of 100
MMBtu per hour or greater that do not use a carbon monoxide continuous
emission monitoring system, you must operate and maintain the
continuous oxygen monitoring system specified in Sec. 60.2730
according to the procedures in paragraphs (w)(1) through (4) of this
section by the compliance date specified in table 1 of this subpart.
The oxygen level shall be monitored at the outlet of the energy
recovery unit.
(1) Each monitor must be operated and maintained according to the
applicable procedures under performance specification 3 of appendix B
of this part and according to the site-specific monitoring plan
developed according to paragraph (1) of this section.
(2) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 3 of
appendix B of this part, oxygen data must be collected concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous emission
monitor and the test methods specified in paragraphs (w)(3) of this
section.
(3) For oxygen, EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17),
as applicable, must be used.
(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling average oxygen
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 of Appendix A-7 of this part.
0
65. Section 60.2715 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2715 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
You must conduct annual performance tests between 11 and 13 months
of the previous performance test.
0
66. Section 60.2716 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2716 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution
control device inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous
annual air pollution control device inspection), you must complete the
air pollution control device inspection as described in Sec. 60.2706.
0
67. Section 60.2720 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2720 May I conduct performance testing less often?
(a) You must conduct annual performance tests according to the
schedule specified in Sec. 60.2715, with the following exceptions:
(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, as specified in Sec. 60.2725. 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. 60.2875.
(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test for any
pollutant in table 2 or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as
applicable, demonstrates that the emission level for the pollutant is
no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or
(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, and you are not required to
conduct a performance test for the pollutant in response to a request
by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process
change in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you may elect to skip
conducting a performance test for the pollutant for the next 2 years.
You must conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the third
year and no more than 37 months following the previous performance test
for the pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be
emitted at emission levels no greater than their respective emission
levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to
qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph.
(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and dioxins/
furans, the emission level equal to 75 percent of the applicable
emission limit in table 2 or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as
applicable, to this subpart.
(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of combustion ash
from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent of the time during each of
the three 1-hour observations periods.
(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a pollutant as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and a subsequent
performance test for the pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit does
not meet the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or
(a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual
performance tests for the pollutant according to the schedule specified
in paragraph (a) of this section until you qualify for less frequent
testing for the pollutant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(b) [Reserved]
0
68. Section 60.2730 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (c)
and adding paragraphs (d) through (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2730 What monitoring equipment must I install and what
parameters must I monitor?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alert automatically an operator when an increase in
relative particulate matter emission over a preset level is detected.
The alarm must be located where it is observed easily by plant
operating personnel.
* * * * *
(c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber, activated
carbon, selective non-catalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations under Sec.
60.2670, you must install, calibrate (to the manufacturers'
specifications), maintain and operate the equipment necessary to
monitor compliance with the site-specific operating limits established
using the procedures in Sec. 60.2680.
(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, you must measure the minimum
sorbent flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must complete the following:
(1) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.2690, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or the minimum reagent
flow rate measured as 3-hour block averages at all times.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge
rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature and below the
minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously constitute a violation of the
nitrogen oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you must monitor the secondary power
to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-
hour block averages at or above the operating limits
[[Page 15778]]
established during the mercury or particulate matter performance test.
(g) For waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, in
place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA Method 321 at 40 CFR part
63, appendix A, an owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring
hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the
hydrogen chloride emissions limit for units other than waste-burning
kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, a facility may substitute use
of a hydrogen chloride continuous emissions monitoring system for
conducting the hydrogen chloride annual performance test, monitoring
the minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent flow rate and monitoring the
minimum scrubber liquor pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a particulate
matter continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the
particulate matter annual performance test and monitoring the minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the dioxin/furan annual performance test.
You must record the output of the system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. You may
propose alternative continuous monitoring consistent with the
requirements in Sec. 60.13(i). The owner or operator who elects to
continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must
install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and must comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the mercury annual performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet performance
specification 12B criteria. This option to use a continuous automated
sampling system takes effect on the date a final performance
specification applicable to mercury from monitors is published in the
Federal Register. The owner or operator who elects to continuously
sample mercury emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA
Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, ASTM D6784-02
(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), or an
approved alternative method for measuring mercury emissions, must
install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and must comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
emissions monitoring system for the nitrogen oxides annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part and the
procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for installation,
evaluation and operation of the continuous emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
required under Sec. 60.52b(d) must be determined based on the 30-day
rolling average of the hourly emission concentrations using continuous
emission monitoring system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages
must be expressed in parts per million by volume (dry basis) and used
to calculate the 30-day rolling average concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points required
under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the sulfur dioxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance requirements of procedure 1 of appendix F of this
part and the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for
installation, evaluation and operation of the continuous emission
monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using continuous emission monitoring
system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in
parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to
calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-
hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points
required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet scrubber,
fabric filter with bag leak detection system, or particulate matter
continuous emission monitoring system, you must install, operate,
certify and maintain a continuous opacity monitoring system according
to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this section by
the compliance date specified in Sec. 60.2670. Energy recovery units
that use a particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate initial and continuing compliance according to the
procedures in Sec. 60.2730(n) are not required to install a continuous
opacity monitoring system and must perform the annual performance tests
for opacity consistent with Sec. 60.2710(f).
(1) Install, operate and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to performance specification 1 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13 and
according to performance specification 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.13(e)(1), each continuous opacity
monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system data as
specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and 1-hour
block averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, in place of particulate matter
testing with EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, an owner or
operator
[[Page 15779]]
must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for monitoring particulate matter emissions
discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The
owner or operator of an affected facility who continuously monitors
particulate matter emissions instead of conducting performance testing
using EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 must install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission monitoring system
and must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1)
through (n)(14) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use of the
system.
(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use of the
system.
(3) The monitor must be installed, evaluated and operated in
accordance with the requirements of performance specification 11 of
appendix B of this part and quality assurance requirements of procedure
2 of appendix F of this part and Sec. 60.13.
(4) The initial performance evaluation must be completed no later
than 180 days after the final compliance date for meeting the amended
emission limitations, as specified under Sec. 60.2690 or within 180
days of notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous
monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously determining
compliance by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 performance
tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility must be established according to the
procedures and methods specified in Sec. 60.2710(s)(5)(i) through
(s)(5)(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility must conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.2690. Compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit must be determined by using the continuous emission monitoring
system specified in paragraph (n) of this section to measure
particulate matter and calculating a 30-day rolling average emission
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this part.
(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A-7 of the part from the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the continuous emission monitoring system outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified Sec. 60.2735.
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7)
of this section must be expressed in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) (dry basis) and
must be used to calculate the 30-day rolling average emission
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using
the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph
(n)(8) of this section are not met.
(11) The continuous emission monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 11 in
appendix B of this part, particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon
dioxide) data must be collected concurrently (or within a 30-to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the
following test methods.
(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-3 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, as applicable, must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F of
this part.
(14) When particulate matter emissions data are missing because of
continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks and zero and span adjustments, you must collect emissions data
by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or
EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to provide, as
necessary, valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the
hours per day, 90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter, and 95
percent of the hours per calendar year that the affected facility is
operated and combusting waste.
(o) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the carbon monoxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring carbon monoxide emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of the system. The requirements
under performance specification 4B of appendix B of this part, the
quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part and the
procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be followed for installation,
evaluation, and operation of the continuous emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for carbon
monoxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using continuous emission monitoring
system outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in
parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to
calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-
hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points
required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(p) The owner/operator of an affected source with a bypass stack
shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain
and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time and duration.
(q) For energy recovery units with a heat input capacity of 100
MMBtu per hour or greater that do not use a carbon monoxide continuous
emission monitoring system, you must install, operate and maintain the
continuous oxygen monitoring system according to the procedures in
paragraphs (q)(1) through (4) of this section by the compliance date
specified in table 1 of this subpart. The oxygen level shall be
monitored at the outlet of the energy recovery unit.
(1) Each monitor must be installed, operated, and maintained
according to the applicable procedures under performance specification
3 of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part, the procedures under Sec. 60.13 and according
to the site-specific monitoring plan developed according to paragraph
(l) of this section.
[[Page 15780]]
(2) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by performance specification 3 of
appendix B of this part, oxygen data must be collected concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous emission
monitor and the test methods specified in paragraphs (w)(3) of this
section.
(3) For oxygen, EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17),
as applicable, must be used.
(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling average oxygen
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 of Appendix A-7 of this part. The 1-hour arithmetic averages
must be calculated using the data points required under Sec.
60.13(e)(2).
0
69. Section 60.2735 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must
obtain?
For each continuous monitoring system required or optionally
allowed under Sec. 60.2730, you must monitor and collect data
according to this section:
(a) You must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all
required intervals at all times compliance is required except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods (as specified in Sec. 60.2770(o) of this part), and
required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments. A monitoring system malfunction is any
sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the
monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures
that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions. You are required to effect monitoring system repairs
in response to monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods
and to return the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as
practicable.
(b) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or
out-of control periods, or required monitoring system quality assurance
or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
(c) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions
or out-of-control periods, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments, failure to
collect required data is a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
0
70. Section 60.2740 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (n) through (v).
Sec. 60.2740 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (v) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for
controls other than wet scrubbers under Sec. 60.2675(d) through (f) or
Sec. 60.2680, you must maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits.
* * * * *
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show
a deviation from the operating limits in table 3 of this subpart or a
deviation from other operating limits established under Sec.
60.2675(d) through (f) or Sec. 60.2680 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(n) Maintain records of the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each CISWI unit subject to the
emissions limits in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of
this subpart, any required maintenance and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
state regulatory agency.
(o) For continuously monitored pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All 1-hour average concentrations of mercury emissions.
(7) All 1-hour average concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(p) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates,
times and durations.
(q) If you choose to stack test less frequently than annually,
consistent with Sec. 60.2720(a) through (c), you must keep annual
records that document that your emissions in the previous stack test(s)
were less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source operations including fuel
composition and operation of air pollution control equipment that would
cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past
year.
(r) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(s) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(t) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(u) For operating units that burn materials other than traditional
fuels as defined in Sec. 241.2, a description of each material burned,
and a record which documents how each material that is not a
traditional fuel meets each of the legitimacy criteria in Sec.
241.3(d). If you combust a material that has been processed from a
discarded non-hazardous secondary material pursuant to Sec.
241.3(b)(4), you must keep records as to how the operations that
produced the material satisfy the definition of processing in Sec.
241.2. If the material received a non-waste determination pursuant to
the petition process submitted under Sec. 241.3(c), you must keep a
copy of the non-waste determination granted by EPA.
(v) For operating units that burn tires, a certification that the
shipments of tires that are non-waste per 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i), are
part of an established tire collection program, consistent with the
definition of that term in Sec. 241.2. The certification must document
that
[[Page 15781]]
the tires were not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities in
accordance with Sec. 241.3(b)(2)(i), from the point of removal from
the automobile through arrival at the combustion facility. The
certification must identify the entity the tires were received from
(for example, the name of the state or private collection program), the
quantity, volume, or weight of tires received by you, and the dates
received. The certification must be signed by the owner or operator of
the combustion unit, or by a responsible official of the established
tire collection program, and must include the following certification
of compliance, ``The tires from this tire collection program meet the
EPA definition of an established tire collection program in Sec. 241''
and state the title or position of the person signing the
certification. You must also keep a record that identifies where on
your plant site the tires from each tire collection program are
located, and that accounts for all tires at the plant site.
0
71. Section 60.2770 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2770 What information must I include in my annual report?
* * * * *
(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit
that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no
deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the
reporting period and that caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are not using a CMS to
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the
annual report must contain the following information.
(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, the annual
report must contain the following information for each deviation from
an emission or operating limitation occurring for a CISWI unit for
which you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with the
emission and operating limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the CISWI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.
(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous emission monitoring system, was not
out of control as specified in paragraph (o) of this section, a
statement that there were not periods during which the continuous
monitoring system was out of control during the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control if any of the
following occur.
(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
0
72. Section 60.2780 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and removing
paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 60.2780 What must I include in the deviation report?
* * * * *
(c) Durations and causes of the following:
(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or operating limits
and your corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
* * * * *
0
73. Section 60.2790 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2790 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must
submit?
(a) Yes. You must submit notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7.
(b) If you cease combusting solid waste but continue to operate,
you must provide 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel switch, consistent with Sec. 60.2710(a). The
notification must identify:
(1) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(2) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(3) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the CISWI
unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6 months,
and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
[[Page 15782]]
(4) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(5) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3)of this section.
0
74. Section 60.2795 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2795 In what form can I submit my reports?
(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(b) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or performance test, as they are
defined in Sec. 63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, the owner or operator of the affected facility must submit the
relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except
opacity data, to EPA by successfully submitting the 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).
0
75. Section 60.2805 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2805 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain incinerator subject to
standards under this subpart must operate pursuant to a permit issued
under Clean Air Act sections 129(e) and Title V.
0
76. Section 60.2860 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2860 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
After the date the initial stack test is required or completed
(whichever is earlier), you must meet the limitations in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values), except as described in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 35 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values) during the startup period that is
within the first 30 minutes of operation.
0
77. Section 60.2870 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air curtain incinerators?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The results (as determined by the average of three 1-hour
blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values) of the
initial opacity tests.
* * * * *
0
78. Section 60.2875 is amended by:
0
a. Adding definitions for ``Affirmative defense,'' ``Burn-off oven,''
``Bypass stack,'' ``Chemical recovery unit,'' ``Continuous monitoring
system,'' ``Cyclonic burn barrel,'' ``Energy recovery unit,'' ``Energy
recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass),'' ``Energy recovery
unit designed to burn coal (Coal),'' ``Energy recovery unit designed to
burn liquid wastes material and gas (Liquid/gas),'' ``Energy recovery
unit designed to burn solid materials (Solid),'' ``Fabric filter,''
``Homogeneous wastes,'' ``Incinerator,'' ``Kiln,'' ``Laboratory
analysis unit,'' ``Minimum voltage or amperage,'' ``Opacity,''
``Operating day,'' ``Performance evaluation,'' ``Performance test,''
``Process change,'' ``Raw mill,'' ``Small remote incinerator,'' ``Soil
treatment unit,'' ``Solid waste incineration unit,'' ``Space heater''
and ``Waste-burning kiln,'' in alphabetical order.
0
b. Revising the definition for ``Commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) unit,'' ``Modification,'' and ``Wet scrubber.''
0
c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for ``Deviation.''
0
d. Removing the definition for ``Commercial or industrial waste,''
``Contained gaseous material,'' and ``Solid Waste.''
Sec. 60.2875 What definitions must I know?
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation
unit, or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off oven is not an incinerator,
waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote
incinerator under this subpart.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
* * * * *
Chemical recovery unit means combustion units burning materials to
recover chemical constituents or to produce chemical compounds where
there is an existing commercial market for such recovered chemical
constituents or compounds. The following seven types of units are
considered chemical recovery units:
(1) Units burning only pulping liquors (i.e., black liquor) that
are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery process and reused in the
pulping process.
(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin
sulfuric acid.
(3) Units burning only wood or coal feedstock for the production of
charcoal.
(4) Units burning only manufacturing byproduct streams/residue
containing catalyst metals that are reclaimed and reused as catalysts
or used to produce commercial grade catalysts.
(5) Units burning only coke to produce purified carbon monoxide
that is used as an intermediate in the production of other chemical
compounds.
(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to produce
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or other gases for use in
other manufacturing processes.
(7) Units burning only photographic film to recover silver.
* * * * *
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit
means any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any
solid waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. If the
operating unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as defined
in Sec. 241.2 that have been discarded, and you do not keep and
produce records as required by Sec. 60.2740(u), the material is a
solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI
units will include all of the following components, a CISWI unit
includes, but is not limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate
system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and
bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air pollution
control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at the
solid waste hopper (if applicable) and extends through two areas: The
combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately after the last
combustion
[[Page 15783]]
chamber or after the waste heat recovery equipment, if any; and the
combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at the truck loading
station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal.
The CISWI unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the
bottom ash handling system.
* * * * *
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means the total equipment,
required under the emission monitoring sections in applicable subparts,
used to sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to
provide a permanent record of emissions or process parameters.
* * * * *
Cyclonic burn barrel means a combustion device for waste materials
that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of
a lid, which fits onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces
combustion air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing
of waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small,
remote incinerator under this subpart.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation,
operating limit, or operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Energy recovery unit means a combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the Administrator under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act in 40 CFR 240) for energy recovery.
Energy recovery units include units that would be considered boilers
and process heaters if they did not combust solid waste.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass) means an
energy recovery unit that burns solid waste and at least 10 percent
biomass, but less than 10 percent coal, on a heat input basis on an
annual average, either alone or in combination with liquid waste,
liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal) means an energy
recovery unit that burns solid waste and at least 10 percent coal on a
heat input basis on an annual average, either alone or in combination
with liquid waste, liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn liquid waste material and gas
(Liquid/gas) means an energy recovery unit that burns a liquid waste
with liquid or gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuel or waste
materials.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn solid materials (Solids)
includes energy recovery units designed to burn coal and energy
recovery units designed to burn biomass
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.
Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in formulation, have
known fuel properties, have a defined origin, have predictable chemical
and physical attributes, and result in consistent combustion
characteristics and have a consistent emissions profile.
Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of combusting
solid waste (as the term is defined by the Administrator under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act in 40 CFR 240) for the purpose of
reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible matter.
Incinerator designs include single chamber and two-chamber.
Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any associated preheater
or precalciner devices, used for processing a substance by burning,
firing or drying. Kilns include cement kilns that produce clinker by
heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of
Portland Cement.
Laboratory analysis unit means units that burn samples of materials
for the purpose of chemical or physical analysis. A laboratory analysis
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
* * * * *
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run
average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured
during the most recent particulate matter or mercury performance test
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit that has
been changed later than June 1, 2001, 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
CISWI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the CISWI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of
CISWI unit.
(2) Any physical change in the CISWI unit or change in the method
of operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted
for which Clean Air Act section 129 or section 111 has established
standards.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of solid waste is combusted
at any time in the CISWI unit.
* * * * *
Performance evaluation means the conduct of relative accuracy
testing, calibration error testing, and other measurements used in
validating the continuous monitoring system data.
Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the
execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to
demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission standard as specified
in the performance test section of the relevant standard.
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 a
change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the
emission limits for the affected CISWI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
* * * * *
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, vertical roller mill or other
size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill,
used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or
removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is
used to remove moisture from feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also includes the air separator
associated with the raw mill.
* * * * *
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid
waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA in 40
CFR 240) and combusts 3 tons per day or less solid waste and is more
than 25 miles driving distance to the nearest municipal solid waste
landfill.
[[Page 15784]]
Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats petroleum-
contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site remediation. A soil
treatment unit may be direct-fired or indirect fired. A soil treatment
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of
any facility which combusts any solid (as that term is defined by the
Administrator under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 40
CFR part 240) waste material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public (including single and multiple
residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include incinerators
or other units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ``solid waste incineration unit''
does not include (A) materials recovery facilities (including primary
or secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of
recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power production facilities, as
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in
section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which
burn homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil, but
not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric
energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn
homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and steam or
forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial,
commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C) air curtain
incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood wastes,
yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators
comply with opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator
by rule.
Space heater means a usually portable appliance for heating a
relatively small area.
* * * * *
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act pursuant
in 40 CFR part 240).
* * * * *
0
79. Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of Progress
and Compliance Schedules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comply with these increments of progress By these dates\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment 1--Submit final control plan.... (Dates to be specified in
state plan).
Increment 2--Final compliance............. (Dates to be specified in
state plan).\b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the state.
\b\ The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of
state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later
than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state
plan or March 21, 2012 for CISWI units that commenced construction on
or before June 4, 2010.
0
80. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is amended by:
0
a. Revising the title to read ``Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--
Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply Before [Date to be
specified in state plan].''
0
b. Revising the entries for ``Hydrogen chloride,'' ``Mercury,''
``Opacity'' and ``Oxides of nitrogen.''
0
c. Adding footnotes b and c.
Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply Before
[Date to be specified in state plan] \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Hydrogen chloride.................... 62 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
* * * * * * *
Mercury.............................. 0.47 milligrams per dry 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
standard cubic meter. minimum sample time (Method 29 or 30B at
per run). 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8) or ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008).\c\
Opacity.............................. 10 percent............. Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 at 40 CFR
minute average opacity part 60, appendix A-
values. 4).
* * * * * * *
Oxides of nitrogen................... 388 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
by dry volume. minimum sample time (Methods 7 or 7E at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 800 ppm or less.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or March 21, 2016.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
[[Page 15785]]
0
81. Table 4 of subpart DDDD is amended by revising the row headings to
read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency
Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan isomer Toxic equivalency factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
82. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``Annual Report''.
0
b. Revising the entry for ``Emission limitation or operating limit
deviation report''.
Table 5 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Annual report..................... No later than 12 months Name and address. Sec. Sec. 60.2765
following the submission Statement and and 60.2770.
of the initial test signature by responsible
report. Subsequent official.
reports are to be Date of report...
submitted no more than 12 Values for the
months following the operating limits.
previous report. Highest recorded
3-hour average and the
lowest 3-hour average, as
applicable, for each
operating parameter
recorded for the calendar
year being reported.
If a performance
test was conducted during
the reporting period, the
results of the test.
If a performance
test was not conducted
during the reporting
period, a statement that
the requirements of Sec.
60.2720(a) were met.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified CISWI unit
operators were
unavailable for more than
8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
If you are
conducting performance
tests once every 3 years
consistent with Sec.
60.2720(a), the date of
the last 2 performance
tests, a comparison of
the emission level you
achieved in the last 2
performance tests to the
75 percent emission limit
threshold required in
Sec. 60.2720(a) and a
statement as to whether
there have been any
operational changes since
the last performance test
that could increase
emissions.
* * * * * * *
Emission limitation or operating By August 1 of that year Dates and times Sec. 60.2775 and
limit deviation report. for data collected during of deviation. 60.2780.
the first half of the Averaged and
calendar year. By recorded data for those
February 1 of the dates.
following year for data Duration and
collected during the causes of each deviation
second half of the and the corrective
calendar year. actions taken.
Copy of operating
limit monitoring data and
any test reports.
Dates, times and
causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
0
83. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
[[Page 15786]]
Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Incinerators on and After
[Date to be specified in state plan] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\b\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0026 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 36 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a maximum
allowable drift of 0.2
ppm and a span gas
with a CO
concentration of 75
ppm or less. The span
gas must contain
approximately the same
concentration of CO2
expected from the
source.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 4.6 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.13 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 29 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.0036 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0054 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 an ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008)b, collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 2 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008) \c\.
meters per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 53 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 100 ppm or less.
Particulate matter filterable........ 34 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter). A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 11 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4. Use a maximum
allowable drift of 0.2
ppm and a span gas
with concentration of
20 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
hourly observation part 60, appendix A-
period. 7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or March 21, 2016.
\b\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
0
84. Table 7 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
[[Page 15787]]
Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Energy Recovery Units After
May 20, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this emission
limitation \a\ Using this And determining
For the air pollutant ---------------------------------------- averaging time compliance using
Liquid/gas Solids this method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium......................... 0.023 milligrams 0.00051 milligrams 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard per dry standard (collect a (Method 29 at 40
cubic meter. cubic meter. minimum volume of CFR part 60,
2 dry standard appendix A-8).
cubic meters). Use ICPMS for the
analytical
finish.
Carbon monoxide................. 36 parts per Biomass--490 parts 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry per million dry hour minimum (Method 10 at 40
volume. volume. sample time per CFR part 60,
Coal--59 parts per run). appendix A-4).
million dry Use a span gas
volume. with a
concentration of
100 ppm or less
for liquid/gas
boilers and coal-
fed boilers. Use
a span gas with a
concentration of
1000 ppm or less
for biomass-fed
boilers.
Dioxins/furans (total mass 2.9 nanograms per 0.35 nanograms per 3-run average Performance test
basis). dry standard dry standard (collect a (Method 23 at 40
cubic meter. cubic meter. minimum volume of CFR part 60,
1 dry standard appendix A-7).
cubic meter).
Dioxins/furans (toxic 0.32 nanograms per 0.059 nanograms 3-run average Performance test
equivalency basis). dry standard per dry standard (collect a (Method 23 at 40
cubic meter. cubic meter. minimum volume of CFR part 60,
1 dry standard appendix A-7).
cubic meter).
Hydrogen chloride............... 14 parts per 0.45 parts per 3-run average Performance test
million dry million dry (collect a (Method 26 or 26A
volume. volume. minimum volume of at 40 CFR part
1 dry standard 60, appendix A-
cubic meters). 8).
Lead............................ 0.096 milligrams 0.0036 milligrams 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard per dry standard (collect a (Method 29 at 40
cubic meter. cubic meter. minimum volume of CFR part 60,
2 dry standard appendix A-8).
cubic meters). Use ICPMS for the
analytical
finish.
Mercury......................... 0.0013 milligrams 0.00033 milligrams 3-run average (For Performance test
per dry standard per dry standard Method 29 and (Method 29 or 30B
cubic meter. cubic meter. ASTM D6784-02 at 40 CFR part
(Reapproved 60, appendix A-8)
2008),\b\ collect or ASTM D6784-02
a minimum volume (Reapproved
of 2 dry standard 2008).\b\
cubic meters per
run. For Method
30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in
Method 30B at 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen.............. 76 parts per Biomass--290 parts 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry per million dry hour minimum (Method 7E at 40
volume. volume. sample time per CFR part 60,
Coal--340 parts run). appendix A-4).
per million dry Use a span gas
volume. with a
concentration of
150 ppm or less
for liquid/gas
fuel boilers. Use
a span gas with a
concentration of
700 ppm or less
for solid fuel
boilers.
[[Page 15788]]
Particulate matter filterable... 110 milligrams per 250 milligrams per 3-run average Performance test
dry standard dry standard (collect a (Method 5 or 29
cubic meter. cubic meter or 30- minimum volume of at 40 CFR part
day rolling 1 dry standard 60, appendix A-3
average if PM cubic meter). or appendix A-8)
CEMS is required if the unit has a
or being used. design capacity
less than or
equal to 250
MMBtu/hr; or PM
CEMS (performance
specification 11
of appendix B of
this part) if the
unit has a design
capacity greater
than 250 MMBtu/
hr. Use Method 5
or 5I of Appendix
A of this part
and collect a
minimum sample
volume of 1 dscm
for the PM CEMS
correlation
testing.
Sulfur dioxide.................. 720 parts per Biomass--6.2 parts 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry per million dry hour minimum (Method 6 or 6c
volume. volume. sample time per at 40 CFR part
Coal--650 parts run). 60, appendix A-4.
per million dry Use a span gas
volume. with a
concentration of
20 ppm or less
for biomass-fed
boilers. Use a
span gas with a
concentration of
1500 ppm or less
for liquid/gas
and coal-fed
boilers.
Fugitive ash.................... Visible emissions Visible emissions Three 1-hour Visible emission
for no more than for no more than observation test (Method 22
5 percent of the 5 percent of the periods. at 40 CFR part
hourly hourly 60, appendix A-
observation observation 7).
period. period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis
limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
0
85. Table 8 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Waste-Burning Kilns After May
20, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00048 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8).
Carbon monoxide...................... 110 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 200 ppm or less.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.02 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.0070 nanograms per 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 25 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 321 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 63, appendix A)
meter) or 30-day or HCl CEMS if a wet
rolling average if HCl scrubber is not used.
CEMS is being used.
[[Page 15789]]
Lead................................. 0.0026 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8).
Mercury.............................. 0.0079 milligrams per 30-day rolling average. Mercury CEMS or sorbent
dry standard cubic trap monitoring system
meter. (performance
specification 12A or
12B, respectively, of
appendix B of this
part.)
Oxides of nitrogen................... 540 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 1,000 ppm or less.
Particulate matter filterable........ 6.2 milligrams per dry 30-day rolling average. PM CEMS (performance
standard cubic meter. specification 11 of
appendix B of this
part; Use Method 5 or
5I of Appendix A of
this part and collect
a minimum sample
volume of 2 dscm for
the PM CEMS
correlation testing.)
Sulfur dioxide....................... 38 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 80 ppm or less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis
limit.
0
86. Table 9 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Small, Remote Incinerators
After May 20, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.61 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 8).
Carbon monoxide...................... 20 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 50 ppm or less.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 1,200 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 57 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 220 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 2.7 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 8).
Mercury.............................. 0.0057 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008)b, collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 2 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008).\b\
meters per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
[[Page 15790]]
Oxides of nitrogen................... 240 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 7E at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 500 ppm or less.
Particulate matter filterable........ 230 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter). A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 420 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 1000 ppm or less.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5 percent observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
of the hourly part 60, appendix A-
observation period. 7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
[FR Doc. 2011-4495 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P