Proposed Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Municipal Waste Combustion Units, Large

Monday,
December 19, 2005
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large
Municipal Waste Combustors; Proposed
Rule
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:06 Dec 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2
75348 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION access the docket and submit comments. located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in
AGENCY Follow the on-line instructions. Research Triangle Park, NC, or an
E-mail: Send your comments via alternate site nearby. Persons interested
40 CFR Part 60 electronic mail to a-and-r- in presenting oral testimony must
docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID contact Ms. Pam Garrett at (919) 541–
[EPA–OAR–2005–0117; FRL–8008–1] No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117. 7966 at least 2 days in advance of the
Facsimile: Fax your comments to hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Garrett
RIN 2060–AL97 (202) 566–1741, Attention Docket ID No. in advance of the hearing with a request
EPA–OAR–2005–0117. to present oral testimony at the hearing,
Standards of Performance for New Mail: Send your comments to: EPA
Stationary Sources and Emission we will cancel the hearing. The public
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA, Mailcode hearing will provide interested parties
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Municipal Waste Combustors the opportunity to present data, views,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention or arguments concerning the proposed
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117. action.
Agency (EPA). Hand Delivery: Deliver your Docket: All documents in the docket
comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/ are listed in the http://
ACTION: Proposed rule.
DC), EPA West Building, Room B108, www.regulations.gov index. Although
SUMMARY: On December 19, 1995, EPA 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., listed in the index, some information is
adopted new source performance Washington, DC, 20460, Attention not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
standards (NSPS) and emission Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117. information whose disclosure is
guidelines for large municipal waste Such deliveries are accepted only restricted by statute. Certain other
combustion (MWC) units. The NSPS during the normal hours of operation material, such as copyrighted material,
and emission guidelines were fully (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through is not placed on the Internet and will be
implemented by December 2000. Friday, excluding legal holidays), and publicly available only in hard copy
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) special arrangements should be made form. Publicly available docket
requires EPA to review, and if for deliveries of boxed information. materials are available either
appropriate, revise the NSPS and Instructions: Direct your comments to
electronically at http://
emission guidelines every 5 years. In Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117.
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
this action, EPA is proposing to revise EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
the emission limits in the NSPS and West Building, Room B102, 1301
docket without change and may be
emission guidelines to reflect the levels Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
made available online at http://
of performance actually achieved by the DC. The Public Reading Room is open
www.regulations.gov, including any
emission controls installed to meet the from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
personal information provided, unless
emission limits set forth in the through Friday, excluding legal
the comment includes information
December 19, 1995, NSPS and emission holidays. The telephone number for the
claimed to be Confidential Business
guidelines. Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
Information (CBI) or other information
The MWC NSPS and emission and the telephone number for the EPA
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
guidelines apply to the combustion of Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
Do not submit information that you
non-hazardous municipal solid waste. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
consider to be CBI or otherwise
Hazardous waste combustors Walt Stevenson, Combustion Group,
protected through http://
(incinerators) are addressed by CAA Emission Standards Division (C439–01),
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
section 112 standards. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which Carolina 27711, (919) 541–5264, e-mail
or before February 6, 2006. Because of means EPA will not know your identity stevenson.walt@epa.gov.
the need to resolve the issues raised in or contact information unless you SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
this action in a timely manner, EPA will provide it in the body of your comment. Organization of This Document. The
not grant requests for extensions beyond If you send an e-mail comment directly following outline is provided to aid in
this date. to EPA without going through locating information in this preamble.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts www.regulations.gov, your e-mail I. General Information
EPA by December 30, 2005 requesting to address will be automatically captured A. Do the proposed amendments apply to
speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold and included as part of the comment me?
a public hearing on January 6, 2006. If that is placed in the public docket and B. What should I consider as I prepare my
you are interested in attending the made available on the Internet. If you comments?
public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela submit an electronic comment, EPA II. Background Information
Garrett at (919) 541–7966 to verify that III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
recommends that you include your A. Are revisions to the emission limits
a hearing will be held. name and other contact information in being proposed?
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, the body of your comment and with any B. Are other amendments being proposed?
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–OAR– disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA C. Is an implementation schedule being
2005–0117, by one of the following cannot read your comment due to proposed?
methods: technical difficulties and cannot contact D. Has EPA changed the applicability date
Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/ you for clarification, EPA may not be of the NSPS?
edocket/. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic able to consider your comment. IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
public docket and comment system, will A. How were the proposed emission limits
Electronic files should avoid the use of developed?
be replaced by an enhanced Federal special characters, any form of B. How were the proposed operator stand-
wide electronic docket management and encryption, and be free of any defects or in provisions developed?
comment system located at http:// viruses. C. Why did EPA add two MWC combustor
www.regulations.gov. When that occurs, Public Hearing: If a public hearing is categories to the list of MWC combustor
you will be redirected to that site to held, it will be held at EPA’s Campus types?
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules 75349
D. How were the additional carbon based scrubbing systems to replace the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
monoxide (CO) limits developed? ESP with a fabric filter? Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period for VII. How do the proposed amendments relate Distribution or Use
measuring activated carbon injection to section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act? I. National Technology Transfer
(ACI) rate? VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Advancement Act
F. Are any other changes being considered A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory I. General Information
for measuring ACI? Planning and Review
G. How did EPA determine the amended B. Paperwork Reduction Act A. Do the proposed amendments apply
performance testing and monitoring C. Regulatory Flexibility Act to me?
requirements? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. How did EPA determine the other
Regulated Entities. Categories and
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism entities potentially affected by the
amendments?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation proposed amendments are MWC units
I. How was the implementation schedule
and Coordination with Indian Tribal with a design combustion capacity of
developed?
Governments greater than 250 tons per day. The NSPS
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments for
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of and emission guidelines for municipal
Existing Units
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC units Children from Environmental Health and waste combustors affect the following
equipped with electrostatic precipitator- Safety Risks categories of sources:
SIC code
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities
(optional)
Industry, Federal government, and State/local/tribal gov- 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors or incinerators at waste-to-en-
ernments. 92411 9511 ergy facilities that generate electricity or steam from
the combustion of garbage (typically municipal solid
waste); and solid waste combustors or incinerators at
facilities that combust garbage (typically municipal
solid waste) and do not recover energy from the
waste combustion.
This table is not intended to be that does not contain the information (h) Make sure to submit your
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide claimed as CBI must be submitted for comments by the comment period
for readers regarding entities likely to be inclusion in the public docket. deadline identified in the preceding
regulated by the proposed rule. To Information marked as CBI will not be section titled Dates.
determine whether your facility would disclosed except in accordance with Docket. The docket number for the
be regulated by the proposed rule, you procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. proposed amendments to the large
should examine the applicability If you have any questions about CBI MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
criteria in 40 CFR 60.32b of subpart Cb or the procedures for claiming CBI, Eb) and emission guidelines (40 CFR
and 40 CFR 60.50b of subpart Eb. If you please consult the person identified in part 60, subpart Cb) is Docket ID No.
have any questions regarding the the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT OAR–2005–0117.
applicability of the proposed rule to a section. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
particular entity, contact the person 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. to being available in the docket, an
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER When submitting comments, remember electronic copy of this proposed rule is
INFORMATION CONTACT section. to: available on the WWW through the
B. What should I consider as I prepare (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket Technology Transfer Network Web site
my comments? number and other identifying (TTN Web). Following signature, EPA
information (subject heading, Federal posted a copy of the proposed rule on
1. Submitting Confidential Business Register date and page number). the TTN’s policy and guidance page for
Information (CBI). Do not submit (b) Follow directions. The EPA may newly proposed or promulgated rules at
information that you consider to be CBI ask you to respond to specific questions http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
electronically through EDOCKET, or organize comments by referencing a provides information and technology
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Send or Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part exchange in various areas of air
deliver information identified as CBI to or section number. pollution control.
only the following address: Mr. Walt (c) Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute II. Background Information
Stevenson, c/o OAQPS Document
Control Officer (Room C404–02), U.S. language for your requested changes. Section 129 of the CAA, entitled
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (d) Describe any assumptions and ‘‘Solid Waste Combustion,’’ requires
Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2005– provide any technical information and/ EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and
0117. Clearly mark the part or all of the or data that you used. emission guidelines for solid waste
information that you claim to be CBI. (e) If you estimate potential costs or incineration units pursuant to CAA
For CBI information in a disk or CD burdens, explain how you arrived at sections 111 and 129. Section 111(b) of
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the your estimate in sufficient detail to the CAA (NSPS program) addresses
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI allow for it to be reproduced. emissions from new MWC units and
and then identify electronically within (f) Provide specific examples to CAA section 111(d) (emission
the disk or CD ROM the specific illustrate your concerns, and suggest guidelines program) addresses
information that is claimed as CBI. In alternatives. emissions from existing MWC units.
addition to one complete version of the (g) Explain your views as clearly as The NSPS are directly enforceable
comment that includes information possible, avoiding the use of profanity Federal regulations. The emission
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment or personal threats. guidelines are not directly enforceable
but, rather, are implemented by State air mercury) by more than 93 percent, and A. Are revisions to the emission limits
pollution control agencies through acid gas emissions (hydrogen chloride being proposed?
sections 111(d)/129 State plans. and sulfur dioxide) by more than 91 Yes. The proposed amendments
In December 1995, EPA adopted percent. would revise many of the emission
NSPS (subpart Eb) and emission Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires limits in both the NSPS and emission
guidelines (subpart Cb) for MWC units EPA to conduct a 5-year review of the guidelines. Relative to the NSPS, the
with a combustion capacity greater than NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if most significant changes would be in
250 tons per day. These MWC units are appropriate, revise the NSPS and the lead and cadmium emission limits.
referred to as large MWC units. Both the emission guidelines. The EPA has Relative to the emission guidelines, the
NSPS and emission guidelines require completed that review, and these most significant changes would be in
compliance with emission limitations proposed amendments reflect the the dioxin/furan and lead emission
that reflect the performance of changes EPA believes are appropriate. limits. Also associated with the revised
maximum achievable control emissions limits, are proposed
technology (MACT). The NSPS apply to III. Summary of Proposed Amendments amendments to change the dimensions
new MWC units after the effective date (units of measure) of the emission limits
of the NSPS or at start-up, whichever is Following year 2000 compliance with for cadmium, lead, and mercury from
later. The emission guidelines apply to the emission guidelines, EPA gathered milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
existing MWC units and required information on the performance levels to micrograms per dry standard cubic
compliance by December 2000. These actually being achieved by large MWC meter (µg/dscm). EPA believes the
retrofits were completed on time, and units retrofitted to comply with the proposed emission limits can be
the controls installed to meet the emission guidelines. Today’s proposed achieved with the same emission
required emission limitations were amendments would revise the NSPS control technology currently used by
highly effective in reducing emissions of and emission guidelines based on the large MWCs. EPA requests comment on
all of the CAA section 129 pollutants performance levels being achieved by achievability of the proposed limits and
emitted by large MWC units. Relative to large MWC units. The revisions whether the proposed limits adequately
a 1990 baseline, the emission guidelines discussed in the following text apply to consider emission variability. The
reduced organic emissions (dioxin/ both the NSPS and the emission proposed emission limits for the NSPS
furan) by more than 99 percent, metal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. and emission guidelines are
emissions (cadmium, lead, and summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.
TABLE 1.— PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS

Pollutant Proposed emission limit for existing MWC units* Proposed emission limit for new MWC units*
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) ...... 21 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter total mass 13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter total mass
basis. basis**.
Cadmium (Cd) ...................... 31 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ................. 3.5 micrograms per dry standard cubic per dry meter.
Lead (Pb) ............................. 250 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ............... 84 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Mercury (Hg) ........................ 80 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 85 per- 49 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 90 per-
cent reduction of mercury emissions**. cent reduction of mercury emissions.
Particulate Matter (PM) ........ 24 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter ................... 9.5 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) ...... 26 parts per million dry volume or 97 percent reduction 25 parts per million dry volume or 98 percent reduction
of hydrogen chloride emissions. of hydrogen chloride emissions.
Sulfur dioxide (CO2) ............. 23 parts per million dry volume or 80 percent reduction 19 parts per million dry volume or 90 percent reduction
of sulfur dioxide emissions. of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ........ Varies by combustor type (see table 1 to subpart Cb of 180 parts per million dry volume/150 parts per million
part 60). dry volume after first year of operation**.
*All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
**No change proposed.
B. Are other amendments being stand in for up to 12 hours without combustor/wet RDF process
proposed? notifying EPA; for up to 2 weeks if EPA conversion.’’
is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if Operating Parameters
The proposed amendments would
EPA is notified and the MWC owner
also make the following changes based • The proposed amendments would
demonstrates to EPA that a good faith
on information received during revise § 60.58b(m) to establish an 8-hour
implementation of the MWC emission effort is being made to ensure that a
certified chief facility operator or block average for measuring activated
guidelines and would apply equally to carbon injection (ACI) rate. This would
the NSPS and emission guidelines, certified shift supervisor is on site as
soon as practicable. make the NSPS and emission guidelines
unless otherwise specified. for large MWC units consistent with the
• The proposed amendments would newer (year 2000) section 129
Operating Practices
add two additional classifications of regulations for small MWC units (40
• The proposed amendments would MWC units to the emission guidelines CFR part 60, subparts AAAA, BBBB),
revise the operator stand-in provisions and would add associated CO limits to which monitors ACI rate using an
in § 60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift assure good combustion practices. The 8-hour block average.
supervisor is allowed to be off site when two new classifications are ‘‘spreader
a provisionally certified control room stoker refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-fired/ Performance Testing and Monitoring
operator is standing in. A provisionally 100 percent coal capable combustor’’ • The proposed amendments would
certified control room operator could and ‘‘semi-suspension RDF-fired revise the annual mercury testing
requirements to allow for optimization year after the date by which EPA The EPA is not aware of any MWC
of mercury control operating parameters promulgates revised limits. units that were modified or
by waiving operating parameter limits The proposed emission guidelines reconstructed after June 19, 1996
during the mercury performance test then allow MWC units up to 2 years (effective date of the December 19, 1995
and during the 2 weeks preceding the from the date of approval of a State plan NSPS), therefore, EPA is proposing to
mercury performance test. This is to comply. Consistent with CAA section simplify the applicability text for the
already done for dioxin testing. 129, EPA, therefore, expects States to NSPS to be MWC units that commenced
• The proposed amendments would require compliance as expeditiously as construction, modification, or
revise the reduced testing requirements practicable. Large MWC units have reconstruction after September 20, 1994.
for exceptionally well-operated MWC already installed the emission control The EPA believes the use of one date is
units. Exceptionally well-operated units equipment necessary to meet the the most understandable format. The
are those with emissions significantly proposed revised limits, and EPA, EPA requests comment on this approach
below the emission limits. Specifically, therefore, anticipates that most State and whether all dates referenced in
EPA proposes to lower the dioxin/furan plans will include compliance dates CAA section 129 should remain in the
criteria and add an associated mercury sooner than 3 years following revised NSPS, even if the dates have
criteria to qualify for reduced testing. promulgation of the final rule. In most passed and have no utility.
• The proposed amendments would cases, the only changes necessary are to
review the revisions and adjust the IV. Rationale for the Proposed
add flexibility to the annual compliance Amendments
testing schedule so that a facility still emission monitoring and reporting
tests once per calendar year, but no less accordingly. A. How were the proposed emission
than 9 months and no more than 15 In revising the emission limits in a limits developed?
State plan, a State has two options.
months since the previous test. The The proposed emission limits are
First, it could insert the new emission
revision would provide flexibility to based on the performance of MACT.
limits in place of the current emission
facilities when facing scheduled and One set of emission limits is proposed
limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part
unscheduled outages, adverse local for existing MWC units regulated under
60, subpart B, and submit a revised
weather conditions, and other CAA section 111(d) emission
State plan to EPA for approval. If the
conditions, while still meeting the guidelines, and another set of emission
revised State plan contains only the new
intent of the compliance testing limits is proposed for new MWC units
emission limits (i.e., the existing
requirements. regulated under CAA section 111(b)
emission limits are not retained), then
• The proposed amendments would the new emission limits must become NSPS. Both sets of limits were
allow the use of parametric monitoring effective immediately since the current developed following the procedures
limits from an exceptionally well- limits would be removed from the State discussed below.
operated MWC unit (i.e., unit with plan. A second approach would be for As background, the current emission
emissions significantly below the a State plan to include both the current limits in the emission guidelines, as
emission limits) to be applied to all and the new emission limits. This well as the proposed emission limits for
identical units at the same plant site allows a phased approach in applying the emission guidelines, are based on
without retesting. the new limits. That is, the State plan the application of either spray dryer/
• The proposed amendments would would make it clear that the existing electrostatic precipitator/activated
increase the continuous emission emission limits remain in force and carbon injection/selective non-catalytic
monitoring system (CEMS) data apply until the date the new emission reduction technology (SD/ESP/ACI/
collection rates from 90 percent of limits are effective (as defined in the SNCR) or spray dryer/fabric filter/
operating time on a quarterly calendar State plan). activated carbon injection/selective non-
basis to 95 percent of operating time on catalytic reduction technology (SD/FF/
a quarterly calendar basis. D. Has EPA changed the applicability ACI/SNCR). The current emission limits
• The proposed amendments would date of the NSPS? in the NSPS, as well as the proposed
revise the particulate matter compliance No. The applicability date for the NSPS emission limits, are based on SD/
testing requirements to allow the NSPS units remains September 20, FF/ACI/SNCR technology alone. In
optional use of a particulate matter 1994; however, units for which practice, and as allowed by the emission
CEMS in place of EPA Method 5. construction or modification is guidelines, existing MWC units have
commenced after the date of this used a mix of SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR
Other Amendments proposal will be subject to more technology and SD/FF/ACI/SNCR
• The proposed amendments would stringent emission limits than units on technology to comply with the emission
clarify the meaning of the term which construction or modification was guidelines.
‘‘Administrator’’ in the regulations. completed prior to that date. Under the Following MACT compliance in
• Other details to fine tune the proposed amendments, units that December 2000, EPA obtained
regulation are also proposed. commenced construction after compliance test reports from all
September 20, 1994, and on or before operating large MWC units (167 units at
C. Is an implementation schedule being December 19, 2005, or that are modified 66 plants) and used those data to
proposed? 6 months or more after the effective date evaluate MACT performance. When the
Yes. Under the proposed emission of any final standards, would continue MWC regulations were proposed in
guidelines, and consistent with CAA to be subject to the NSPS emission 1994, no MWC units were operating
section 129, revised State plans limits that were promulgated in 1995 with the full set of controls, and
containing the revised emission limits and that remain in the 40 CFR part 60, significant engineering judgment was
and other requirements in the proposed subpart Eb NSPS. Units that commence necessary in selecting the emission
emission guidelines would be due construction after December 19, 2005 limits. The year 2000 compliance data
within 1 year after promulgation of the would meet the revised emission limits show that the actual performance of the
revisions. That is, revised State plans that are being added to the subpart Eb control technology that industry
would have to be submitted to EPA 1 NSPS. installed to meet the 1995 NSPS and
emission guidelines achieves reductions tests, are used to determine compliance. reflect EPA’s intent in developing the
superior to the 1995 limits. The EPA CEMS can generate up to 8,760 hours of regulation. Under the enforcement
used the MACT data in the compliance data per year and emissions variability guidance memorandum, a provisionally
test reports to develop the emission must be carefully addressed in order to certified control room operator can
limits contained in the proposed select an appropriate emission limit. stand in for a certified plant or shift
amendments. The EPA believes the Typically, EPA analyzes more than supervisor when they are off site for (1)
proposed emission limits more 1,000 hours of CEMS data per source in periods up to twelve hours without
accurately reflect actual MACT order to evaluate and address emissions notifying EPA; (2) periods up to two
performance. variability when setting emission limits weeks if EPA is notified; and (3) periods
The first step in the analysis was to to be enforced by CEMS. To develop the longer than two weeks if EPA is notified
subdivide the database into two proposed SO2 and NOX limits, EPA used and the MWC owner demonstrates to
subgroups based on emission control a two-step process. First, the mean EPA that a good faith effort is being
technology. For the emission guidelines, performance level for SO2 and NOX made to ensure that a certified chief
the data were subcategorized to MWC control was determined using the year facility operator or certified control
units equipped with SD/ESP/ACI/ 2000 MACT compliance data. Next, a room shift supervisor is on site. These
SNCR. For the NSPS, data were variability factor was identified based stand-in provisions were incorporated
subcategorized to MWC units equipped on an analysis of SO2 and NOX CEMS into the small MWC MACT regulations
with SD/FF/ACI/SNCR. The data were data from four MWC plants. The promulgated in 2000. The EPA is now
subcategorized this way because the variability analysis was based on the proposing to amend the large MWC
emission guidelines are based on SD/ evaluation of more than 2,400 hours of NSPS and emission guidelines to be
ESP/ACI/SNCR control and the NSPS SO2 CEMS data and 3,500 hours of NOX consistent with this EPA enforcement
are based on SD/FF/ACI/SNCR control. CEMS data. The variability factor was guidance memorandum and the small
The remaining steps of the analysis added to the mean performance level MWC regulations.
were the same for both data sets. from the year 2000 MACT database to The EPA is aware that later this year
Next, the data were screened. The determine new emission limits. Where the American Society of Mechanical
screening was based on the expectation the analysis supported SO2 and NOX Engineers (ASME) is planning to
that similar MWC units at a single MWC limits more stringent than the current publish updated Standards for the
plant should have similar emissions. limits, new limits are proposed. Qualification and Certification of
That is, at an MWC plant, MWC units EPA requests comment on the data Resource Recovery Facility Operators
with the same configuration, firing screening procedure used for this (QRO–1–1994). The MWC rules
waste from the same waste pit, and proposal and requests suggestions for currently require MWC operators obtain
controlled with the same design of alternative data screening procedures. this certification. A number of changes
pollution control equipment, would be EPA also requests comment on the to QRO are planed by the ASME. At this
expected to have similar emissions. The appropriateness to screen out data. The time it appears the principal affect
test data for multiple MWC units at an data screening procedure for the would be the need for EPA to revise the
MWC plant were compared to identify proposal is presented in a data analysis MWC rules to use the QRO term
the difference between the test results. memo contained in the docket for this ‘‘operator certification’’ in place of the
This was done for all MWC plants. Next, rulemaking. term ‘‘fully certified’’ as currently used
the mean and standard deviation of the in the MWC rules. If the ASME
differences were calculated for the B. How were the proposed operator
completes the QRO update by the time
entire MWC database. This mean and stand-in provisions developed?
the MWC rules are finalized, the new
standard deviation were then used to Under the good combustion practices QRO procedures will be incorporated
screen test results for each MWC plant. component of the regulations into the final MWC rule.
If the test results from multiple MWC (§ 60.54b(c)(2)), a fully certified MWC
units at a specific MWC plant differed plant supervisor or MWC shift C. Why did EPA add two MWC
by more than the mean plus one supervisor must be on site during all combustor categories to the list of MWC
standard deviation from the full dataset, periods of MWC operation, except those combustor types?
the test data for that MWC plant were periods when a provisionally certified In the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA
removed from analysis. This was control room operator ‘‘stands in.’’ A identified three distinct types of RDF-
repeated for each CAA section 129 provisionally certified control room fired MWC units: (1) RDF stoker, (2)
pollutant. Less than 14 percent of the operator on site can stand in for the pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired
data were excluded during screening. duration of the plant or shift combustor, and (3) spreader stoker coal/
Next, a statistical analysis of the supervisor’s shift when the plant or shift RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor.
remaining database was conducted to supervisor must leave prior to the end Recently, EPA has identified two
identify the best fitting frequency of the shift. In implementing the MACT additional types of RDF-fired MWC
distribution. After identifying the best regulations in the late 1990s, a number designs that do not fit within the three
fitting frequency distribution, an of questions were raised on this issue. types of RDF combustors as defined in
actually achievable emission limit was State regulators and MWC owners and the regulations. Since none of the three
calculated (i.e., the mean performance operators questioned how long a previous subcategories of RDF
plus a variability factor). Where the certified plant or shift supervisor is municipal waste combustors correctly
analysis supported limits more stringent allowed to be off site, and how long a describe the design or operation of these
than the current limits, new limits are provisionally certified control room particular units, EPA recognized a need
proposed. This procedure was followed operator is allowed to stand in. to add combustor types that would
in developing the proposed emission Questions were raised about what adequately describe and set CO
limits for the ‘‘stack test’’ pollutants should be done if a plant supervisor emission limits for these combustors.
(dioxin/furan, Cd, Pd, Hg, PM, and HCl). became sick or was off for a week of The EPA is proposing to add
For SO2 and NOX, a different training or vacation. The EPA examined definitions for ‘‘spreader stoker RDF-
approach was used. For these the issue, and in 1998 issued an fired combustor/100 percent coal
pollutants, CEMS, rather than stack enforcement guidance memorandum to capable’’ and ‘‘semi-suspension RDF-
fired combustor/wet RDF process F. Are any other changes being test to establish different site-specific
conversion.’’ For these MWC technology considered for measuring ACI? maximum or minimum values for their
types, the proposed amendments would The EPA is considering including in operating parameters for Hg control.
add good combustion practice-based CO the final regulation a requirement to Waiving the operating parameters
limits. A spreader/stoker RDF-fired monitor the pneumatic injection associated with dioxin/furan control
combustor/100 percent coal capable pressure at the location where the (i.e., load level and temperature at the
combustor fires RDF into the activated carbon is injected into the flue control device inlet) during these times
combustion zone by a mechanism that gases in order to monitor ACI. This allows the source to optimize the
throws the fuel onto the grate from performance of the controls and to
would quickly identify a clogged
above. Combustion takes place both in perform the tests necessary to show that
injection nozzle. If this were done, the
suspension and on the grate. Such a unit the emission limits are met while
same 8-hour block average would be
is capable of firing 100 percent coal as operating under the revised parameter
used for measuring injection pressure.
a replacement for RDF. A semi- values. The EPA requests comments on
The EPA specifically requests comments
suspension RDF-fired combustor/wet whether other parameters need such
on the reasonableness of such
RDF process conversion means a flexibility. If you suggest additional
monitoring.
combustion unit that was converted flexibility, identify the parameters and
from wet RDF processing to dry RDF G. How did EPA determine the amended explain why the flexibility is needed.
processing. For both of these performance testing and monitoring Reduced Testing for Well-operated
technologies, CO emission limits are requirements? MWC Units. The EPA is proposing to
proposed based on levels achievable by amend the NSPS and emission
Annual testing schedule. While
good combustion practices. guidelines provisions that allow
implementing the mandatory 12-month
reduced frequency for testing of
D. How were the additional carbon testing schedule under the current
exceptionally well-operated MWC units.
monoxide (CO) limits developed? regulations, MWC owners and operators
Well-operated MWC units are those
found the testing schedule difficult to with emissions significantly below the
First, EPA determined that both good comply with. The current schedule does
combustion practices and MACT had emission limits. Currently, reduced
not provide flexibility to accommodate testing is allowed if dioxin/furan
been fully implemented at the two unscheduled MWC outages, local
additional MWC types discussed above. emission levels have been repeatedly
weather conditions, and other shown to be less than half of the
Next, EPA obtained over 5,000 hours of unexpected conditions. After an outage,
CO CEMS data from each MWC type emission limit. The proposed
bringing the MWC units back on line, amendments would require both dioxin/
and conducted a statistical analysis of rescheduling the test, notifying the
the data to identify the best fitting furan and mercury emissions to both be
regulatory agencies, and preparing for less than half the emission limit to
distribution. After identifying the best the test can cause delays and prevent
fitting distribution, EPA calculated a qualify for reduced testing. By
testing within the specified 12-month amending the requirements to qualify
statistically achievable emission limit period. Inclement weather can cause for reduced testing, we are providing an
based on a 24-hour block average for similar problems. To accommodate the incentive for MWC owners or operators
each of the two MWC types. The new need for flexibility while retaining an to optimize an MWC unit’s carbon
CO limits fall within the range of annual test schedule, EPA proposes to injection system and other operating
current good combustion practice-based revise the testing schedule to once per parameters for exceptional reduction of
CO limits for other MWC combustors calendar year, with no less than 9 both mercury and dioxin/furan
that range from 50 to 250 parts per months and no more than 15 months emissions.
million (ppm). between tests. CEMS Data Availability. The
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period Optimization Parameters. The proposed amendments would increase
for measuring activated carbon injection proposed amendments would revise the the CEMS data collection requirement
(ACI) rate? testing requirements to allow the use of from 90 percent of the operating days
optimized parametric monitoring data per calendar quarter to 95 percent of the
The proposed amendments would from the most recently tested MWC unit operating days per calendar quarter. The
revise § 60.58b(m) to specify an 8-hour to be applied to all similar MWC units EPA obtained year 2003 CEMS data
block average period for measuring the on site. The use of this approach would from a large MWC plant. That data
ACI rate. Section 60.58b(m) requires an be limited to exceptionally well-run included CEMS information on six
owner or operator using ACI to select an MWC units where dioxin/furan and Hg parameters for each of three MWC units
ACI operating parameter that can be tests show levels less than one half the at the plant (SO2, NOX, opacity, flue gas
used to calculate ACI feed rate (e.g., dioxin/furan and Hg standards. temperature at scrubber discharge, CO,
screw feeder speed) during the mercury Optimization Testing. The proposed and HCl). Overall, the data contained 72
and dioxin/furan performance test. The amendments would revise the operating calendar quarters of CEMS data (3
current § 60.58b does not, however, parameter requirements for the annual combustion units x 4 calendar quarters
indicate the averaging time to be used, testing to waive parameters during Hg x 6 parameters). All CEMS produced
and the performance test period can testing. The use of this approach would more than 99 percent data availability
vary from test to test. provide the same flexibility in Hg for all calendar quarters for all
To select an averaging period, EPA testing as currently allowed for dioxin/ parameters monitored. As demonstrated
examined the Hg test sampling period of furan testing. The standards presently by the data, well-designed and operated
twelve MWC units that use ACI. The allow the operating parameters to be CEMS reliably collect data at rates
test duration averaged about 7 hours. To waived during the dioxin/furan higher than required in current
establish consistency, a fixed 8-hour performance test and during the two regulations; thus, the proposed
block averaging period is being weeks preceding the performance test amendments would increase the data
proposed for ongoing measurement of (§ 60.53b(b) and (c)). Such flexibility is availability requirement to reflect
the ACI system operating parameters needed in cases where the owner or current operating practices and
used to calculate ACI feed rate. operator wishes to use the performance performance.
PM CEMS. The proposed amendments in Michigan, Massachusetts, and owner or operator of an MWC unit may
would allow the use of PM CEMS as an Pennsylvania, already require the use of apply for approval of these monitoring
alternative to PM performance testing by HCl CEMS for MWC units in their methods in lieu of specified monitoring
EPA Method 5. Owners or operators jurisdictions. The EPA is also aware that requirements. Such requests are
who choose to rely on PM CEMS would PS for HCl CEMS have been developed authorized according to the general
be able to discontinue their annual by the Northeast States for Coordinated provisions of part 60 at 40 CFR 60.13(i).
Method 5 test. The proposed Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and The EPA is also aware of the use of
amendments incorporate the use of PS– the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In semi-continuous or CEMS for dioxin/
11 for PM CEMS and PS–11 QA response, EPA will consider such furan as alternatives to the existing ways
Procedure 2 to ensure that PM CEMS are actions as a request by Michigan, of showing compliance with the dioxin/
installed and operated properly and Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania to use furan emissions limits. One semi-
produce good quality monitoring data. HCl CEMS as an alternate test method continuous dioxin/furan sampling
An owner or operator of an MWC unit for determining compliance with the system is the Adsorption Method for
who wishes to use PM CEMS would be HCl emission limits in both the NSPS Sampling of Dioxins and Furans
required to notify EPA one month before and emission guidelines for large MWC (AMESA), which operates like an
starting use of PM CEMS and one month units located in the states of Michigan, automated Method 23 sampler and
before stopping use of the PM CEMS. Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. The yields average dioxin and furan
Additionally, EPA requests comment on EPA will address this request in the emissions over a specified period from
the appropriateness of dropping the final rule. 14 to 30 days. Again, the proposed rule
opacity monitoring requirements for The EPA has proposed PS–13 for HCl does not include provisions for such
MWC units that use PM CEMS. CEMS and believes that PS can serve as monitoring, but EPA is considering
The PM emissions limits are based on the basis for PS for HCl CEMS use at including such provisions in the final
data from infrequent (normally annual) MWC units. In addition to the regulations as an optional test method
stack tests and have been enforced by procedures used in proposed PS–13 for for measuring dioxin/furan emissions.
stack test. The change to use of PM HC1 for initial accuracy determination The EPA specifically requests comments
CEMS for measurement and using the relative accuracy test, a on the reasonableness of including
enforcement of the same emission limits comparison against a referenced provisions for this type of dioxin/furan
must be carefully considered in relation method, EPA is taking comment on an monitoring.
to an appropriate averaging period for alternate initial accuracy determination The EPA continues to be interested in
data reduction. The EPA considered this procedure, similar to the one in section dioxin/furan monitoring technologies,
issue and concluded the use of a 24-hr 11 of PS–15 using the dynamic or as evidenced by the upcoming
block average was appropriate to analyte spiking procedure. Environmental Technology Verification
address PM emissions variability and Relative to the use of Hg CEMS, the testing program scheduled for summer
EPA has included the use of a 24-hour EPA believes that PS–12A for fossil fuel- 2005. During that two-week program, at
block average in the proposed rule. The fired boilers can provide the basis for least four dioxin/furan monitoring
24-hour block average would be using Hg CEMS at MWC units. The EPA technologies will be evaluated, one of
calculated following procedures in is aware of the use of Hg CEMS use at which was successfully tested in
Method 19. MWC units in Germany. Six sites December 2004 at a MWC unit.
PM CEMS have been applied employ Hg CEMS; three MWC units, MWC unit owners and operators
successfully at various sources one hazardous waste combustor, one should note that the use of HCl, Hg,
including fossil fueled power plants and sewage sludge combustor, and one multi-metal, and dioxin/furan CEMS
MWC units in Germany. sewage sludge/coal-fired power plant. technology may allow the
Other CEMS. The EPA considered EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can discontinuation of various parametric
proposing the use of HCl CEMS, Hg be used in many applications, including monitoring including flue gas,
CEMS, and multi-metal CEMS as MWC units. The EPA has monitored temperature, MWC load, and ACI rate.
alternatives to the existing ways of side-by-side evaluations of multi-metals
demonstrating compliance with the HCl, H. How did EPA determine the other
CEMS with Method 29 at industrial
Hg, Cd, and Pb emissions limits. waste incinerators and found good amendments?
Although the proposed rule does not correlation. The EPA was also approved Administrator. The NSPS and
include such monitoring provisions, to the use multi-metals CEMS as an emission guidelines refer to both
EPA is considering development of PS alternative monitoring method at a ‘‘Administrator’’ and ‘‘EPA
and including such provisions in the hazardous waste combustor. The EPA Administrator.’’ Because both terms are
final rule as an optional test method. believes it is possible to adapt proposed used in the regulation and neither has
The EPA has not included such PS–10 or other EPA performance been defined, it has been unclear to
provisions in the proposed rules specifications to allow the use of multi- personnel implementing CAA section
because it appears the current practice metal CEMS at MWC units. In addition 111(d)/129 plans whether Administrator
of continuous monitoring of SO2 and to the procedures used in proposed PS– was to be construed broadly to include
PM in combination with the continuous 10 for initial accuracy determination the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and
monitoring of operating parameters using the relative accuracy test, a all of his/her designees, including the
(boiler load, fuel gas temperature and comparison against a reference method, Administrator of a State Air Pollution
ACI rate) give a good indication of acid EPA is taking comment on an alternate Control Agency consistent with the
gas, metals and organic emissions from initial accuracy determination definition in the General Provisions, or
MWC units. The EPA specifically procedure, similar to the one in section was intended to refer only to the
requests comment on the reasonableness 11 of PS–15 using the dynamic or Administrator of the U.S. EPA. To
of including optional provisions for use analyte spiking procedure. clarify the intent, the text has been
of HCl CEMS, Hg CEMS, and multi- Whether or not EPA includes revised to ‘‘EPA’’ to refer to the EPA
metal CEMS in the final rule. provisions for use of HCl, Hg, or multi- Administrator where appropriate. The
Relative to HCl monitoring, EPA is metal CEMS in the final NSPS and term ‘‘Administrator’’ now refers to the
aware that State agencies, such as those emission guidelines, at any time, an appropriate representative (e.g., Director
of a State Air Pollution Control Agency The EPA requests comment on an compliance margin) remains with the
for section 111(d)/129 State plans and alternate compliance schedule, as proposed limits.
EPA Administrator (or delegate) for follows. That schedule would be to
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC
section 111(d)/129 Federal plans). allow the same one year for State plan
units equipped with electrostatic
Definitions for the terms ‘‘EPA’’ and submittal (approximately April 28,
precipitator (ESP)-based scrubbing
‘‘Administrator’’ are included in the 2007), but allow only one additional
systems to replace the ESP with a fabric
proposed rule. year for MWC units to achieve final
filter?
compliance (approximately April 28,
I. How was the implementation Yes. The EPA considered the option
2008), with the option that a State can
schedule developed? of requiring the MWC owner or operator
request a longer compliance date for
A consent decree issued by the U.S. specific MWC units, but in no case of MWC units equipped with ESP-based
District Court for the District of longer than four years after the date by scrubbing systems to replace the ESP
Columbia requires EPA to promulgate which revised State plans are due (the with a fabric filter. The EPA conducted
any revisions of the emission guidelines maximum allowed by CAA section 129). an analysis of impacts resulting from the
or NSPS for large MWC units that result In requesting a longer site-specific implementation of such an option. The
from this technical review by April 28, schedule, a State would have to provide analysis identified 21 MWC units with
2006. (See Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. a demonstration why additional time is ESP-based scrubbing systems. All other
01–1537 (D.D.C.) Consent decree file needed and how much additional time MWC units are currently equipped with
entered on May 22, 2003.) Consistent is needed. Again, EPA requests fabric filter-based scrubbing systems. As
with CAA section 129, EPA is proposing comment on this alternative schedule. shown in Table 2 of this preamble, ESP
that revisions to State plans be replacement at the 21 identified MWC
submitted to EPA one year following V. Impacts of the Proposed units would reduce MWC emissions by
adoption of the revisions Amendments for Existing Units about 130 tons per year (tpy). The
(approximately April 28, 2007). Dates in The EPA projects the proposed analysis determined that the annualized
this preamble discussion and in the amendments will have no additional cost of ESP replacement at these units
proposed rule are estimated and will impacts to air, water, or energy since the would be about $14.5 million per year.
depend on the date of publication of the proposed emission limits can be If this cost is evenly assigned to the
final rule in the Federal Register. achieved using the same air pollution emissions reductions listed in Table 2 of
Next, EPA chose to provide up to two control technology that was used to this preamble, the cost of these emission
additional years for MWC units to comply with the current emission reductions would exceed $100,000 per
implement the revised guidelines (i.e., limits. Similarly, EPA expects no ton removed. The EPA has recently
units must be in compliance by the date additional cost or economic impact for completed other rulemakings that have
two years after the date specified for the same reason. Existing large MWC achieved considerable reductions of fine
submitting State plans). Thus, final units will continue to use their existing particulate matter (PM 2.5). Because of
compliance would occur on or before MACT control technology to meet the EPA’s interest in reducing such
April 28, 2009 (approximately). As emission limits, and will not incur costs emissions, the reductions in PM 2.5
proposed, while revised State plans to retrofit equipment. The same emissions resulting from replacing ESPs
must specify compliance no later than conclusions apply to new MWC units with fabric filters were also calculated.
three years following adoption of the since EPA expects that new MWC units The PM 2.5 reduction would be about
final rule (a compliance date of will be equipped with the same control 8 tpy. If all costs associated with ESP
approximately April 28, 2009), technology used to comply with the replacement were assigned to PM 2.5
consistent with CAA section 129, EPA 1995 NSPS. EPA requests comment on reductions, the cost of these additional
expects States to require compliance as the projections that revising the reductions in PM 2.5 emissions would
expeditiously as practical, and EPA emission limits as proposed here will be about $900,000 per ton removed.
anticipates that many States will submit not lead to any changes in MWC After considering the above factors in
revised State plans that include earlier operations, costs, or emissions. For relation to recent EPA rules, EPA
compliance dates. The proposed example, we seek information on concluded that the cost-reduction ratio
emission limits can be achieved using whether MWC operations could change for ESP replacement was excessive, and
the same air pollution control (and the resultant impacts on costs and decided not to require ESP replacement.
technology that served as the basis of emissions) to ensure that an adequate For a more detailed discussion of the
the current emission limits. variability margin (some times called a analysis, see the Docket.
TABLE 2.—EMISSION REDUCTION AND COST FOR 21 MWC UNITS WITH ESP-BASED SCRUBBING SYSTEMS
Current emis- Emissions of
sions (with fabric filter op- Potential emis-
Pollutant ESP based tion (with FF- sion reduction,
control sys- based control tpy
tem), tpy system), tpy
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) .............................................................................................................. 2.6 E–4 1.6E–4 1.0E–4

Cd ................................................................................................................................................ 0.20 0.03 0.17
Pb ................................................................................................................................................. 2.7 0.30 2.4
Hg ................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 0.20 0.50
PM ................................................................................................................................................ 210 80 130
PM 2.5 ......................................................................................................................................... 60 44 16
Capital Cost (million, 2002 $) ...................................................................................................... NA 119 NA
Total Annual Cost (million, $ per year, 2002 $) ................................................................... NA 14.5 NA
VII. How do the proposed amendments of the CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants: Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
relate to section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Hg, dioxin, and furans. As explained action’’ as one that is likely to result in
Air Act? below, the air pollution controls a rule that may:
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires necessary to comply with the (1) Have an annual effect on the
EPA to identify categories of sources of requirements of the MWC NSPS and economy of $100 million or more or
seven specified pollutants to assure that emission guidelines also effectively adversely affect in a material way the
sources accounting for not less than 90 reduce emissions of the following CAA economy, a sector of the economy,
percent of the aggregate emissions of section 112(c)(6) pollutants that are productivity, competition, jobs, the
each such pollutant are subject to emitted from MWC units: POM and environment, public health or safety, or
standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) PCBs. State, local, or Tribal governments or
or 112(d)(4). The EPA has identified Although the CAA section 129 MWC communities;
standards do not have separate, specific (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
municipal waste combustors as a source
emissions standards for PCBs and POM, otherwise interfere with an action taken
category that emits five of the seven
emissions of these two CAA section or planned by another agency;
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants: Hg, (3) Materially alter the budgetary
dioxin, furans, polycyclic organic matter 112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively
controlled by the same control measures impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
(POM), and polychlorinated biphenols or loan programs, or the rights and
(PCBs). (The POM emitted by MWC used to comply with the numerical
emissions limits for the enumerated obligations of recipients thereof; or
units is composed of 16 polyaromatic (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable CAA section 129 pollutants.
Specifically, as byproducts of arising out of legal mandates, the
organic matters (EOM).) In the Federal President’s priorities, or the principles
Register notice Source Category Listing combustion, the formation of PCBs and
POM is effectively reduced by the set forth in the Executive Order.
for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) combustion and post-combustion
practices required to comply with the Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA
Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849, that it considers this a ‘‘significant
Table 2 (1998), EPA identified CAA section 129 standards. Any PCBs
and POM that do form during regulatory action’’ within the meaning
municipal waste combustors as a source of the Executive Order. The EPA has
category ‘‘subject to regulation’’ for combustion are captured by the
combination of spray dryer, PM control, submitted this action to OMB for
purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6) with review. Changes made in response to
respect to the CAA section 112(c)(6) and ACI system, which are necessary
post-combustion MWC controls. The OMB suggestions or recommendations
pollutants that MWC units emit. MWC will be documented in the public
units are solid waste incineration units combination of spray dryer, PM control,
and ACI greatly reduces emissions of record.
currently regulated under CAA section
129. For purposes of CAA section these organic pollutants, as well as B. Paperwork Reduction Act
112(c)(6), EPA has determined that reducing Hg emissions. The fact that The Office of Management and Budget
standards promulgated under CAA POM and PCBs are effectively previously approved the information
section 129 are substantively equivalent controlled by the application of MACT collection requirements contained in the
to those promulgated under CAA is confirmed by POM and PCB emission NSPS and emission guidelines for large
section 112(d). See Id. at 17845; see also tests conducted at one large MWC with MWC units under the provisions of the
62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997). As MACT controls which showed non- Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
discussed in more detail below, the detectable levels of POM and PCBs. 3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and
CAA section 129 standards effectively Based on post-MACT compliance tests emission guidelines were promulgated
control emissions of the five identified at all 167 large MWC units, the MWC on December 19, 1995. The information
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants. MACT regulations reduced Hg collection request has been assigned
Further, since CAA section 129(h)(2) emissions by 95 percent and dioxin/ OMB Control Number 2060–0210 (EPA
precludes EPA from regulating these furan emissions by greater than 99 ICR No. 1506.10).
substantial sources of the five identified percent from pre-MACT levels. In light The proposed amendments result in
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants under of the fact that the MACT controls also no changes to the information collection
CAA section 112(d), EPA cannot further effectively reduce emissions of POM requirements of the NSPS or emission
regulate these emissions under that and PCBs, it is, therefore, reasonable to guidelines and will have no impact on
CAA section. As a result, EPA considers conclude that POM and PCB emissions the information collection estimate of
emissions of these five pollutants from are substantially reduced at all 167 large project cost and hour burden made and
MWC units ‘‘subject to standards’’ for MWC units. Thus, while the proposed approved by OMB during the
purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6). rule does not identify specific limits for development of the NSPS and emission
As required by the statute, the CAA POM and PCB, they are for the reasons guidelines. Therefore, the information
section 129 MWC standards include noted above nonetheless ‘‘subject to collection requests have not been
numeric emission limitations for the regulation’’ for purposes of section revised.
nine pollutants specified in that section. 112(c)(6) of the CAA. Burden means the total time, effort, or
The combination of good combustion VIII. Statutory and Executive Order financial resources expended by persons
practices (GCP) and add-on air pollution Reviews to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
control equipment (spray dryer, fabric or provide information to or for a
filter or ESP, ACI, and selective non- A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Federal agency. This includes the time
catalytic reduction) effectively reduces Planning and Review needed to review instructions; develop,
emissions of the pollutants for which Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR acquire, install, and utilize technology
emission limits are required under CAA 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must and systems for the purposes of
section 129: Hg, dioxin, furans, Cd, Pb, determine whether the regulatory action collecting, validating, and verifying
PM, SO2, HCl, and NOX. Thus, the NSPS is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to information, processing and
and emissions guidelines specifically review by OMB and the requirements of maintaining information, and disclosing
require reduction in emissions of three the Executive Order. The Executive and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any analysis, for proposed and final rules include regulations that have
previously applicable instructions and with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
requirements; train personnel to be able result in expenditures by State, local, on the relationship between the national
to respond to a collection of and Tribal governments, in the government and the States, or on the
information; search data sources; aggregate, or by the private sector, of distribution of power and
complete and review the collection of $100 million or more in any 1 year. responsibilities among the various
information; and transmit or otherwise Before promulgating an EPA rule for levels of government.’’
disclose the information. which a written statement is needed, Under section 6 of Executive Order
An Agency may not conduct or section 205 of the UMRA generally 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
sponsor, and a person is not required to requires EPA to identify and consider a that imposes substantial direct
respond to a collection of information reasonable number of regulatory compliance costs, and that is not
unless it displays a currently valid OMB alternatives and adopt the least costly, required by statute, unless the Federal
control number. The OMB control most cost-effective, or least burdensome government provides the funds
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed alternative that achieves the objectives necessary to pay the direct compliance
in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15. of the proposed rule. The provisions of costs incurred by State and local
section 205 do not apply when they are governments, or EPA consults with
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act State and local officials early in the
inconsistent with applicable law.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to process of developing the proposed
generally requires an agency to prepare adopt an alternative other than the least regulation. Also, EPA may not issue a
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any costly, most cost-effective, or least regulation that has federalism
rule subject to notice and comment burdensome alternative if EPA implications and that preempts State
rulemaking requirements under the publishes with the final rule an law, unless EPA consults with State and
Administrative Procedures Act or any explanation why that alternative was local officials early in the process of
other statute unless the agency certifies not adopted. developing the proposed regulation.
that the proposed amendments will not Before EPA establishes any regulatory The proposed amendments do not
have a significant economic impact on requirements that may significantly or have federalism implications. They will
a substantial number of small entities. uniquely affect small governments, not have substantial direct effects on the
Small entities include small businesses, including Tribal governments, EPA States, on the relationship between the
small government organizations, and must develop a small government national government and the States, or
small government jurisdictions. agency plan under section 203 of the on the distribution of power and
For purposes of assessing the impacts UMRA. The plan must provide for responsibilities among the various
of the proposed amendments on small notifying potentially affected small levels of government, as specified in
entities, small entity is defined as governments, enabling officials of Executive Order 13132. The proposed
follows: (1) A small business in the affected small governments to have amendments will not impose substantial
regulated industry that has gross annual meaningful and timely input in the direct compliance costs on State or local
revenues of less than $6 million; (2) a development of EPA’s regulatory governments because the proposed
small governmental jurisdiction that is a proposals with significant Federal regulations will not require any change
government of a city, county, town, intergovernmental mandates, and in the emission control technology
school district or special district with a informing, educating, and advising currently used to comply with the 1995
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small governments on compliance with NSPS and emissions guidelines, and
small organization that is any not-for- the regulatory requirements. will not preempt State law. Thus,
profit enterprise that is independently The EPA has determined that the Executive Order 13132 does not apply
owned and operated and is not proposed amendments do not contain a to the proposed amendments.
dominant in its field. Federal mandate that may result in
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
After considering the economic expenditures of $100 million or more
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
impacts of the proposed amendments on for State, local, and Tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in Governments
small entities, I certify that this action
would not have a significant economic any 1 year. Thus, the proposed Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249,
impact on a substantial number of small amendments are not subject to the November 9, 2000), requires EPA to
entities. The proposed amendments will requirements of section 202 and 205 of develop an accountable process to
not impose any requirements on any the UMRA. In addition, EPA has ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
entities because it does not impose any determined that the proposed Tribal officials in the development of
additional regulatory requirements. amendments contain no regulatory regulatory policies that have Tribal
Nevertheless, we continue to be requirements that might significantly or implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal
interested in the potential impacts of the uniquely affect small governments. implications’’ is defined in the
proposed rule on small entities and Therefore, the proposed amendments Executive Order to include regulations
welcome comments on issues related to are not subject to the requirements of that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
such impacts. section 203 of the UMRA. relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism the distribution of power and
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, responsibilities between the Federal
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public August 10, 1999), requires EPA to government and Indian tribes.’’
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for develop an accountable process to The proposed amendments do not
Federal agencies to assess the effects of ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by have Tribal implications, as specified in
their regulatory actions on State, local, State and local officials in the Executive Order 13175. They will not
and Tribal governments and the private development of regulatory policies that have substantial direct effects on Tribal
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies governments, on the relationship
EPA generally must prepare a written that have federalism implications’’ is between the Federal government and
statement, including a cost-benefit defined in the Executive Order to Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the significant energy action * * *.’’ The 1983). As a result, EPA incorporated
Federal government and Indian tribes, proposed amendments are not ASTM D6216–98 by reference into PS 1
as specified in Executive Order 13175. considered to be a ‘‘significant as the design specifications for opacity
The EPA is not aware of any large MWC regulatory action’’ under Executive monitors in August 2000. (See 40 CFR
unit owned or operated by Indian Tribal Order 12866. They also are not likely to part 60, appendix B.) The MWC NSPS
government. Thus, Executive Order have a significant adverse effect on the and emissions guidelines also
13175 does not apply to the proposed supply, distribution, or use of energy. incorporate by reference into 40 CFR
amendments. Since there would be no change in part 60.17 ASME QRO–1–1994,
energy consumption resulting from the ‘‘Standard for the Qualification and
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of proposed amendments, EPA does not Certification of Resource Recovery
Children from Environmental Health expect any price increase for any energy Facility Operators’’ for operator
and Safety Risks type. We also expect that there would be qualification and certification; ASME
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, no impact on the import of foreign PTC 4.1–1964 (reaffirmed 1991), ‘‘Power
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: energy supplies, and no other adverse Test Codes: Test Code for Steam
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically outcomes are expected to occur with Generating Units,’’ for steam or
significant’’ as defined under Executive regards to energy supplies. feedwater flow; and ASME Interim
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an Therefore, EPA concludes that the Supplement 19.5 (6th Edition, 1971),
environmental health or safety risk that proposed amendments are not likely to ‘‘Instruments and Apparatus:
EPA has reason to believe may have a have a significant adverse effect on the Application, Part II of Fluid Meters,’’ for
disproportionate effect on children. If supply, distribution, or use of energy. nozzle and orifice design.
the regulatory action meets both criteria, In this search and review, EPA
I. National Technology Transfer
EPA must evaluate the environmental conducted searches to identify
Advancement Act
health or safety effects of the planned voluntary consensus standards in
rule on children, and explain why the Section 12(d) of the National addition to EPA methods in the MWC
planned regulation is preferable to other Technology Transfer and Advancement NSPS and emission guidelines. No
potentially effective and reasonably Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. applicable voluntary consensus
feasible alternatives EPA considered. 104–113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the standards were identified for EPA
The EPA interprets Executive Order EPA to use voluntary consensus Methods 7D, 9, 10A, 19, and 22; and PS
13045 as applying only to those standards in regulatory and 3 and 4A. The search for emissions
regulatory actions that are based on procurement activities unless to do so measurement procedures identified 27
health or safety risks, such that the would be inconsistent with applicable voluntary consensus standards
analysis required under section 5–501 of law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary potentially applicable to the proposed
the Executive Order has the potential to consensus standards are technical amendments. One of the 27 voluntary
influence the regulation. The proposed standards (e.g., materials specifications, consensus standards identified in this
amendments are not subject to test methods, sampling procedures, search was not available at the time the
Executive Order 13045 because they are business practices) developed or review was conducted for the purposes
based on technology performance and adopted by one or more voluntary of the proposed amendments because
not on health and safety risks. Also, the consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the standard is under development by a
proposed amendments are not EPA to provide Congress, through voluntary consensus body: ASTM
‘‘economically significant.’’ annual reports to the Office of WK3159 (Begun in 2003), ‘‘Practice for
Management and Budget (OMB), with Quality Assurance of Instrumental
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that
explanations when an agency does not Monitoring Systems.’’ The EPA
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
use available and applicable voluntary determined that two of the remaining 26
Distribution or Use
consensus standards. standards identified for measuring
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, The MWC NSPS and emission emissions subject to the NSPS and
May 22, 2001) provides that agencies guidelines involve technical standards. emission were practical alternatives to
shall prepare and submit to the The EPA cites the following methods in EPA test methods for the purposes of
Administrator of the Office of the NSPS and emission guidelines: the proposed amendments. The EPA
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Methods 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A or 6C, 7 determined that 24 standards were not
OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for or 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E, 9, 10, 10A or 10B, practical alternatives to EPA test
certain actions identified as ‘‘significant 19, 22, 23, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR methods, therefore, EPA does not intend
energy actions.’’ Section 4(b) of part 60, appendix A; Performance to adopt these standards for this
Executive Order 13211 defines Specifications (PS) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of purpose. The reasons for EPA’s
‘‘significant energy actions’’ as ‘‘* * * 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and determinations are discussed in a
any action by an agency (normally appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. memorandum in the docket. The two
published in the Federal Register) that In previous searches and review, acceptable monitoring methods are
promulgates or is expected to lead to the which have been documented and discussed below.
promulgation of a final rule or placed in the docket, EPA identified The EPA identified two voluntary
regulation, including notices of inquiry, four voluntary consensus standards that consensus standards as acceptable
advance notices of proposed have already been incorporated by alternatives to EPA test methods. ASME
rulemaking, and notices of proposed reference in 40 CFR 60.17. The PTC 19–10–1981-Part 10, ‘‘Flue and
rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant voluntary consensus standard ASTM Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ includes manual
regulatory action under Executive Order D6216 (1998), ‘‘Standard Practice for and instrumental methods of analyses
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
likely to have a significant adverse effect Certify Conformance with Design and oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. The manual
on the supply, distribution, or use of Performance Specifications,’’ is an methods of ASME PTC 19–10–1981–
energy; or (2) that is designated by the acceptable alternative for opacity Part 10 for measuring the nitrogen
Administrator of the Office of monitor design specifications given in oxide, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a EPA’s PS 1 (promulgated in March content of exhaust gas are acceptable
alternatives to Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and § 60.58b(d)(2)(ii), § 60.58b(e)(12)(i)(A), 5. Amend § 60.32b by:
7C. The instrumental methods of ASME § 60.58b(e)(12)(i)(B), § 60.58b(g)(2), a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
PTC 19–10–1981–Part 10 are not § 60.58b(h)(10)(i)(A), b. Revising paragraph (d);
acceptable as a substitute for EPA § 60.58b(h)(10)(i)(B), and c. Revising paragraph (e);
Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7E, 10, and 10B. § 60.58b(i)(3)(ii)(B). d. Revising paragraph (f)(1); and
The instrumental methods are only * * * * * e. Revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as
general descriptions of procedures and follows:
are not true methods. Therefore, while Subpart Cb—[Amended]
§ 60.32b Designated facilities.
some of the manual methods are 3. Revise § 60.30b, to read as follows:
acceptable alternatives to EPA methods, * * * * *
the instrumental methods are not. (b) * * *
§ 60.30b Scope and delegation of
The voluntary consensus standard authority. (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
ASTM D6784–02, ‘‘Standard Test claim,
(a) This subpart contains emission
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, guidelines and compliance schedules * * * * *
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas for the control of certain designated (d) A qualifying small power
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary pollutants from certain municipal waste production facility, as defined in section
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ is an combustors in accordance with section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 111(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns
(portion for mercury only) as a method Act and subpart B of this part. The homogeneous waste (such as automotive
for measuring mercury. A full provisions in these emission guidelines tires or used oil, but not including
discussion of acceptable and not apply instead of the provisions of refuse-derived fuel) for the production
acceptable voluntary consensus § 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part. of electric energy is not subject to this
standards is contained in a (b) The following authorities shall be subpart if the owner or operator of the
memorandum in the docket. retained by EPA: facility notifies EPA of this exemption
(1) Approval of exemption claims in and provides data documenting that the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 § 60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e), (f)(1), (i)(1); facility qualifies for this exemption.
Environmental protection, (2) Approval of a nitrogen oxides (e) A qualifying cogeneration facility,
Administrative practice and procedure, trading program under § 60.33b(d)(2); as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental and Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping (3) Approval of other monitoring 796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous
requirements. systems used to obtain emissions data waste (such as automotive tires or used
when data are not obtained by oil, but not including refuse-derived
Dated: December 7, 2005.
continuous emissions monitoring fuel) for the production of electric
Stephen L. Johnson,
systems as specified in § 60.58b(e)(14), energy and steam or forms of useful
Administrator. (h)(12), and (i)(11), as specified in energy (such as heat) that are used for
For the reasons stated in the § 60.38b. industrial, commercial, heating, or
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 4. Amend § 60.31b by adding the cooling purposes, is not subject to this
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be definitions of ‘‘Semi-suspension refuse- subpart if the owner or operator of the
amended as follows: derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse- facility notifies EPA of this exemption
derived fuel process conversion’’ and and provides data documenting that the
PART 60—[AMENDED] ‘‘Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel- facility qualifies for this exemption.
1. The authority citation for part 60 fired combustor/100 percent coal (f) * * *
continues to read as follows: capable’’ in alphabetical order to read as (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
follows: claim, and
§ 60.31b Definitions.
* * * * *
Subpart A—[Amended] (i) * * *
* * * * * (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
2. Section 60.17 is amended by Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel- claim,
revising paragraph (a)(76) and adding fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel
process conversion means a combustion * * * * *
paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
unit that was converted from a wet 6. Amend § 60.33b by:
§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. a. Revising paragraph (a);
refuse-derived fuel process to a dry
* * * * * b. Revising paragraph (b);
refuse-derived fuel process, and because c. Revising paragraph (c);
(a) * * * of constraints in the design of the
(76) ASTM D6784–02, Standard Test d. Removing tables 1 and 2; and
system, includes a low furnace height e. Revising paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3)
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, (less than 60 feet between the grate and
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas introductory text to read as follows:
the roof) and a high waste capacity-to-
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary undergrate air zone ratio (greater than § 60.33b Emission guidelines for
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), IBR 300 tons of waste per day (tpd) fuel per municipal waste combustor metals, acid
approved for appendix B to part 60, each undergrate air zone). gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
Performance Specification 12A, section Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel- (a) The emission limits for municipal
8.6.2., § 60.58b(d)(2)(iii) and fired combustor/100 percent coal waste combustor metals are specified in
60.58b(d)(2)(iv). capable means a spreader stoker refuse- paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
* * * * * derived fuel-fired combustor that section.
(h) * * * typically fires 100 percent refuse- (1) For approval, a State plan shall
(4) ASME PTC 19–10–1981-Part 10, derived fuel but is equipped to burn 100 include emission limits for particulate
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, IBR percent coal instead of refuse-derived matter and opacity at least as protective
approved for § 60.58b(b)(i), fuel to fulfill 100 percent steam or as the emission limits for particulate
§ 60.58b(c)(2), § 60.58b(d)(1)(ii), energy demand. matter and opacity specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
this section. 28, 2009, the emission limit for lead less stringent.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission contained in the gases discharged to the (c) The emission limits for municipal
limit for particulate matter contained in atmosphere from a designated facility is waste combustor organics, expressed as
the gases discharged to the atmosphere 250 micrograms per dry standard cubic total mass dioxin/furan, are specified in
from a designated facility is 27 meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
milligrams per dry standard cubic (b) The emission limits for municipal section.
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. On waste combustor acid gases, expressed (1) For approval, a State plan shall
and after April 28, 2009, the emission as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen include an emission limit for dioxin/
limit for particulate matter contained in chloride, are specified in paragraphs furan contained in the gases discharged
the gases discharged to the atmosphere (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. to the atmosphere from a designated
from a designated facility is 24 (1) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved] facility at least as protective as the
milligrams per dry standard cubic emission limit for dioxin/furan
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. (3) For approval, a State shall include
emission limits for sulfur dioxide and specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
(ii) [Reserved] (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as
(iii) The emission limit for opacity hydrogen chloride at least as protective
as the emission limits specified in applicable.
exhibited by the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this (i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission
10 percent (6-minute average). section. limit for designated facilities that
(2) For approval, a State plan shall (i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission employ an electrostatic precipitator-
include emission limits for cadmium at limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the based emission control system is 60
least as protective as the emission limits gases discharged to the atmosphere from nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
for cadmium specified in paragraphs a designated facility is 29 parts per (total mass), corrected to 7 percent
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section. million by volume or 25 percent of the oxygen.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission potential sulfur dioxide emission (ii) Before April 28, 2009, the
limit for cadmium contained in the concentration (75-percent reduction by emission limit for designated facilities
gases discharged to the atmosphere from weight or volume), corrected to 7 that do not employ an electrostatic
a designated facility is 40 micrograms percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is precipitator-based emission control
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected less stringent. On and after April 28, system is 30 nanograms per dry
to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April 2009, the emission limit for sulfur standard cubic meter (total mass),
28, 2009, the emission limit for dioxide contained in the gases corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
cadmium contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a (iii) On and after April 28, 2009, the
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 23 parts per emission limit for designated facilities is
designated facility is 31 micrograms per million by volume or 20 percent of the 21 nanograms per dry standard cubic
dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 potential sulfur dioxide emission meter (total mass), corrected to 7
percent oxygen. concentration (80-percent reduction by percent oxygen.
(ii) [Reserved] weight or volume), corrected to 7 (2) [Reserved]
(3) For approval, a State plan shall percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is (d) * * *
include emission limits for mercury at less stringent. Compliance with this
least as protective as the emission limits emission limit is based on a 24-hour (2) A State plan may establish a
specified in this paragraph (a)(3). The daily geometric mean. program to allow owners or operators of
emission limit for mercury contained in (ii) Before April 28, 2009, the municipal waste combustor plants to
the gases discharged to the atmosphere emission limit for hydrogen chloride engage in trading of nitrogen oxides
from a designated facility is 80 contained in the gases discharged to the emission credits. A trading program
micrograms per dry standard cubic atmosphere from a designated facility is must be approved by EPA before
meter or 15 percent of the potential 29 parts per million by volume or 5 implementation.
mercury emission concentration (85- percent of the potential hydrogen (3) For approval, a State plan shall
percent reduction by weight), corrected chloride emission concentration (95- include emission limits for nitrogen
to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less percent reduction by weight or volume), oxides from fluidized bed combustors at
stringent. corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry least as protective as the emission limits
(4) For approval, a State plan shall basis), whichever is less stringent. On listed in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and
include an emission limit for lead at and after April 28, 2009, the emission (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
least as protective as the emission limit limit for hydrogen chloride contained in * * * * *
for lead specified in this paragraph. the gases discharged to the atmosphere
§ 60.34b [Amended]
Before April 28, 2009, the emission from a designated facility is 26 parts per
limit for lead contained in the gases million by volume or 3 percent of the 6a. Amend § 60.34b by removing table
discharged to the atmosphere from a potential sulfur dioxide emission 3.
designated facility is 440 micrograms concentration (97-percent reduction by 7. Add tables 1, 2, and 3 to subpart
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected weight or volume), corrected to 7 Cb to read as follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES

On and after
Before April April 28,
28, 2009, ni- 2009, nitro-
trogen oxides gen oxides
Municipal waste combustor technology emission limit emission limit
(parts per (parts per
million by million by
volume) a volume) a
Mass burn waterwall ..................................................................................................................................................... 205 .............. 205

Mass burn rotary waterwall .......................................................................................................................................... 250 .............. 158
Refuse-derived fuel combustor .................................................................................................................................... 250 .............. 219
Fluidized bed combustor .............................................................................................................................................. 180 .............. 180
Mass burn refractory combustors ................................................................................................................................. no limit ......... no limit.
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES LIMITS FOR EXISTING DESIGNATED FACILITIES INCLUDED IN AN
EMISSIONS AVERAGING PLAN AT A MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANT b
Before April On and after
28, 2009, ni- April 28, 2009,
trogen oxides nitrogen ox-
Municipal waste combustor technology emission limit ides emission
(parts per mil- limit (parts per
lion by vol- million by vol-
ume) b ume) a
Mass burn waterwall ................................................................................................................................................ 185 185

Mass burn rotary waterwall ..................................................................................................................................... 220 142
Refuse-derived fuel combustor ................................................................................................................................ 230 197
Fluidized bed combustor ......................................................................................................................................... 165 165
a Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors and other MWC technologies not listed above may not be included in an emissions aver-
aging plan.
b Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES

Carbon mon-
oxide emis-
sions level Averaging time
Municipal waste combustor technology (parts per mil- (hrs) b
lion by vol-
ume) a
Mass burn waterwall ................................................................................................................................................ 100 4

Mass burn refractory ................................................................................................................................................ 100 4
Mass burn rotary refractory ..................................................................................................................................... 100 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall ..................................................................................................................................... 250 24
Modular starved air .................................................................................................................................................. 50 4
Modular excess air .................................................................................................................................................. 50 4
Refuse-derived fuel stoker ....................................................................................................................................... 200 24
Fluidized bed, mixed fuel (wood/refuse-derived fuel) ............................................................................................. 200 c 24
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor ........................................................................................................................... 100 4

Circulating fluidized bed combustor ........................................................................................................................ 100 4
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ............................................................................. 150 4
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor .................................................................... 200 24
Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel process conversion ...................... 250 c 24
Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/100 percent coal capable .................................................... 250 c 24
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. Cal-
culated as an arithmetic average.
b Averaging times are 4-hour or 24-hour block averages.
c 24-hour block average, geometric mean.
8. Revise § 60.36b to read as follows: requirements listed in § 60.55b of (b) For approval, a State plan shall
subpart Eb of this part. include the alternative performance
§ 60.36b Emission guidelines for
municipal waste combustor fugitive ash 9. Amend § 60.38b by revising testing schedule for dioxin/furan
emissions. paragraph (b) to read as follows: specified in § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart
For approval, a State plan shall Eb of this part, as applicable, for those
include requirements for municipal § 60.38b Compliance and performance designated facilities that achieve both a
testing. dioxin/furan emission level less than or
waste combustor fugitive ash emissions
at least as protective as those * * * * * equal to 10 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7 section, shall include compliance energy (such as heat) that are used for
percent oxygen and a mercury emission schedules for meeting the revised April industrial, commercial, heating, or
level less than or equal to 40 28, 2009 emission limits in § 60.33b(a), cooling purposes, is not subject to this
micrograms per dry standard cubic (b), (c), (d), and § 60.34b(a), and the subpart if the owner or operator of the
meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent revised testing provisions in § 60.38b(b). facility notifies EPA of this exemption
oxygen. Compliance with the revised April 28, and provides data documenting that the
* * * * * 2009 emission limits shall be required facility qualifies for this exemption.
10. Amend § 60.39b by: as expeditiously as practicable, but no (g) * * *
a. Revising paragraph (b); later than April 28, 2009. (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory (h) In the event no plan for claim; and
text; implementing the emission guidelines is * * * * *
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B); approved by EPA, all designated (j) * * *
d. Revising paragraph (e); and facilities meeting the applicability
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
e. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to requirements under § 60.32b shall be in
claim;
read as follows: compliance with all of the guidelines,
including the revised April 28, 2009 * * * * *
§ 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping emission limits in § 60.33b(a), (b), (c), (n) The following authorities shall be
guidelines and compliance schedules. retained by the Administrator of the
(d), and § 60.34b(a), and the revised
* * * * * testing provisions in § 60.38b(b), no U.S. EPA and not transferred to a State:
(b) Not later than December 19, 1996, later than [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER (1) Approval of exemption claims in
each State in which a designated facility DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g) and (j) of this
is located shall submit to EPA a plan to THE Federal Register]. section;
implement and enforce all provisions of (2) Enforceability under Federal law
this subpart except those specified Subpart Eb—[Amended] of all Federally enforceable, as defined
under § 60.33b (a)(4), (b)(3), and (d)(3). in § 60.51b, limitations and conditions;
Not later than April 28, 2007, each State 11. Amend § 60.50b by:
(3) Determination of compliance with
in which a designated facility is located a. Revising paragraph (a);
the siting requirements as specified in
shall submit to EPA a plan to implement b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
§ 60.57b(a);
and enforce all provisions of this c. Revising paragraph (e);
d. Revising paragraph (f); (4) Acceptance of relationship
subpart, as amended on [DATE FINAL between carbon monoxide and oxygen
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal e. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
f. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and as part of initial and annual
Register]. The compliance schedule performance tests as specified in
specified in this paragraph is in g. Revising paragraph (n) to read as
follows: § 60.58b(b)(7); and
accordance with section 129(b)(2) of the (5) Approval of other monitoring
Clean Air Act and applies instead of the § 60.50b Applicability and delegation of systems used to obtain emissions data
compliance schedule provided in authority. when data is not obtained by CEMS as
§ 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of this part. (a) The affected facility to which this specified in § 60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12), and
(c) For approval, a State plan that is subpart applies is each municipal waste (i)(11).
required to be submitted by December combustor unit with a combustion * * * * *
19, 1996 and is submitted prior to capacity greater than 250 tons per day 12. Amend § 60.51b by revising the
December 19, 2005 shall include the of municipal solid waste for which definition of ‘‘Federally enforceable’’
compliance schedules specified in construction, modification, or and adding the definitions for
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this reconstruction is commenced after ‘‘Administrator’’ and ‘‘EPA’’ in
section. September 20, 1994. alphabetical order to read as follows:
* * * * * (b) * * *
(4) * * * (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption § 60.51b Definitions.
(iii) * * * claim; Administrator means:
(B) The owner or operator of a * * * * * (1) For approved and effective State
designated facility may request that the (e) A qualifying small power Section 111(d)/129 plans, the Director of
Administrator waive the requirement production facility, as defined in section the State air pollution control agency, or
specified in § 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 employee of the State air pollution
this part for chief facility operators, shift U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns control agency that is delegated the
supervisors, and control room operators homogeneous waste (such as automotive authority to perform the specified task;
who have obtained provisional tires or used oil, but not including (2) For Federal Section 111(d)/129
certification from the American Society refuse-derived fuel) for the production plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an
of Mechanical Engineers on or before of electric energy is not subject to this employee of the EPA, the Director of the
the initial date of State plan approval. subpart if the owner or operator of the State air pollution control agency, or
* * * * * facility notifies EPA of this exemption employee of the State air pollution
(e) Not later than August 25, 1998, and provides data documenting that the control agency to whom the authority
each State in which a designated facility facility qualifies for this exemption. has been delegated by the Administrator
is operating shall submit to EPA a plan (f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, of the EPA to perform the specified task;
to implement and enforce all provisions as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the and
of this subpart specified in § 60.33b Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. (3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the
(a)(4), (b)(3), and (d)(3). 796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous EPA, an employee of the EPA, the
* * * * * waste (such as automotive tires or used Director of the State air pollution
(g) For approval, a revised State plan oil, but not including refuse-derived control agency, or employee of the State
submitted not later than April 28, 2007 fuel) for the production of electric air pollution control agency to whom
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this energy and steam or forms of useful the authority has been delegated by the
Administrator of the EPA to perform the atmosphere from that affected facility percent reduction by weight), corrected
specified task. any gases that contain cadmium in to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
* * * * * excess of the limits specified in stringent.
EPA means the Administrator of the paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this (b) The limits for municipal waste
EPA or employee of the EPA that is section. combustor acid gases are specified in
delegated to perform the specified task. (i) For affected facilities that paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
Federally enforceable means all commenced construction, modification, section.
limitations and conditions that are or reconstruction after September 20, (1) On and after the date on which the
enforceable by EPA including the 1994, and on or before December 19, initial performance test is completed or
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR 2005, the emission limit is 20 is required to be completed under § 60.8
part 61, and 40 CFR part 63, micrograms per dry standard cubic of subpart A of this part, no owner or
requirements within any applicable meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. operator of an affected facility shall
(ii) For affected facilities that cause to be discharged into the
State implementation plan, and any
commenced construction, modification, atmosphere from that affected facility
permit requirements established under
or reconstruction after December 19, any gases that contain sulfur dioxide in
40 CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18
2005, the emission limit is 3.5 excess of the limits specified in
and 40 CFR 51.24.
micrograms per dry standard cubic paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this
* * * * * meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. section.
13. Amend § 60.52b by: (4) On and after the date on which the (i) For affected facilities that
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory initial performance test is completed or commenced construction, modification,
text; is required to be completed under § 60.8 or reconstruction after September 20,
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); of subpart A of this part, no owner or 1994 and on or before December 19,
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3); operator of an affected facility shall 2005, the emission limit is 30 parts per
d. Revising paragraph (a)(4); cause to be discharged into the million by volume or 20 percent of the
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5); atmosphere from the affected facility potential sulfur dioxide emission
f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory any gases that contain lead in excess of concentration (80-percent reduction by
text; the limits specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) weight or volume), corrected to 7
g. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and or (a)(4)(ii) of this section. percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
h. Revising paragraph (c) introductory (i) For affected facilities that less stringent. The averaging time is
text to read as follows: commenced construction, modification, specified in § 60.58b(e).
or reconstruction after September 20, (ii) For affected facilities that
§ 60.52b Standards for municipal waste
combustor metals, acid gases, organics, 1994, and on or before December 19, commenced construction, modification,
and nitrogen oxides. 2005, the emission limit is 200 or reconstruction after December 19,
micrograms per dry standard cubic 2005, the emission limit is 19 parts per
(a) The limits for municipal waste
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. million by volume or 10 percent of the
combustor metals are specified in (ii) For affected facilities that
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this potential sulfur dioxide emission
commenced construction, modification, concentration (90-percent reduction by
section. or reconstruction after December 19,
(1) On and after the date on which the weight or volume), corrected to 7
2005, the emission limit is 84 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
initial performance test is completed or micrograms per dry standard cubic
is required to be completed under § 60.8 less stringent. The averaging time is
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. specified in § 60.58b(e).
of subpart A of this part, no owner or (5) On and after the date on which the
operator of an affected facility shall initial performance test is completed or * * * * *
cause to be discharged into the (c) The limits for municipal waste
is required to be completed under § 60.8
atmosphere from that affected facility combustor organics are specified in
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
any gases that contain particulate matter paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
operator of an affected facility shall
in excess of the limits specified in section.
cause to be discharged into the
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this atmosphere from the affected facility * * * * *
section. any gases that contain mercury in excess 14. Amend § 60.53b by:
(i) For affected facilities that a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
of the limits specified in paragraph
commenced construction, modification, b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
(a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section. c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); and
or reconstruction after September 20, (i) For affected facilities that
1994, and on or before December 19, d. Revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
commenced construction, modification, follows:
2005, the emission limit is 24 or reconstruction after September 20,
milligrams per dry standard cubic 1994 and on or before December 19, § 60.53b Standards for municipal waste
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 2005, the emission limit is 80 combustor operating practices.
(ii) For affected facilities that micrograms per dry standard cubic * * * * *
commenced construction, modification, meter or 15 percent of the potential (b) * * *
or reconstruction after December 19, mercury emission concentration (85- (1) During the annual dioxin/furan or
2005, the emission limit is 9.5 percent reduction by weight), corrected mercury performance test and the 2
milligrams per dry standard cubic to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less weeks preceding the annual dioxin/
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. stringent. furan or mercury performance test, no
* * * * * (ii) For affected facilities that municipal waste combustor unit load
(3) On and after the date on which the commenced construction, modification, limit is applicable if the provisions of
initial performance test is completed or or reconstruction after December 19, paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
is required to be completed under § 60.8 2005, the emission limit is 49 (2) The municipal waste combustor
of subpart A of this part, no owner or micrograms per dry standard cubic unit load limit may be waived in writing
operator of an affected facility shall meter, or 10 percent of the potential by the Administrator for the purpose of
cause to be discharged into the mercury emission concentration (90- evaluating system performance, testing
new technology or control technologies, However, the owner or operator of the § 60.57b Siting requirements.
diagnostic testing, or related activities affected facility must record the period (a) The owner or operator of an
for the purpose of improving facility when the certified chief facility operator affected facility shall prepare a materials
performance or advancing the state-of- and certified shift supervisor are off site separation plan, as defined in § 60.51b,
the-art for controlling facility emissions. and include that information in the for the affected facility and its service
The municipal waste combustor unit annual report as specified under area, and shall comply with the
load limit continues to apply, and § 60.59b(g)(5). requirements specified in paragraphs
remains enforceable, until and unless (iii) When the certified chief facility (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section. The
the Administrator grants the waiver. operator and certified shift supervisor initial application is defined as
(c) * * * are off site for more than 2 weeks, and representing a good faith submittal as
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or no other certified operator is on site, the determined by EPA.
mercury performance test and the 2 provisionally certified control room * * * * *
weeks preceding the annual dioxin/ operator may perform the duties of the (6) As required under § 60.59b(a), the
furan or mercury performance test, no certified chief facility operator or owner or operator shall submit to EPA
particulate matter control device certified shift supervisor without notice a copy of the notification of the public
temperature limitations are applicable. to, or approval by, the Administrator. meeting, a transcript of the public
(2) The particulate matter control However, the owner or operator of the meeting, the document summarizing
device temperature limits may be affected facility must take two actions: responses to public comments, and
waived in writing by the Administrator copies of both the preliminary and final
(A) Notify the Administrator in
for the purpose of evaluating system draft materials separation plans on or
writing. In the notice, state what caused
performance, testing new technology or before the time the facility’s application
the absence and what actions are being
control technologies, diagnostic testing, for a construction permit is submitted
taken by the owner or operator of the
or related activities for the purpose of under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part
facility to ensure that a certified chief
improving facility performance or 52, as applicable.
facility operator or certified shift
advancing the state-of-the-art for
supervisor is on site as expeditiously as * * * * *
controlling facility emissions. The
practicable. 18. Amend § 60.58b by:
temperature limits continue to apply,
and remain enforceable, until and (B) Submit a status report and a. Revising paragraphs (b)
unless the Administrator grants the corrective action summary to the introductory text, (b)(6)(i), and (b)(7);
Administrator every 4 weeks following b. Revising paragraphs (c)
waiver.
15. Amend § 60.54b by revising the initial notification. If the introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(9),
paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: Administrator provides notice that the and (c)(11);
status report or corrective action c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii),
§ 60.54b Standards for municipal waste summary is disapproved, the municipal (d)(1)(vii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv),
combustor operator training and waste combustion unit may continue and (d)(2)(ix);
certification. operation for 90 days, but then must d. Revising paragraphs (e)(7)
* * * * * cease operation. If corrective actions are introductory text, (e)(12)(i)(A),
(c) * * * taken in the 90-day period such that the (e)(12)(i)(B), and (e)(14);
(2) If both the certified chief facility Administrator withdraws the e. Revising paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(5)(i),
operator and certified shift supervisor disapproval, municipal waste (g)(5)(iii), and (g)(7);
are unavailable, a provisionally certified combustion unit operation may f. Revising paragraphs (h)(6)
control room operator on site at the continue. introductory text, (h)(10)(i)(B), and
municipal waste combustion unit may (h)(12);
* * * * *
fulfill the certified operator g. Revising paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(B),
requirement. Depending on the length of 16. Amend § 60.55b by revising (i)(10) introductory text, and (i)(11);
time that a certified chief facility paragraph (a) to read as follows: h. Revising paragraph (m)(2); and
operator and certified shift supervisor § 60.55b Standards for municipal waste i. Adding paragraphs (c)(10) and
are away, the owner or operator of the combustor fugitive ash emissions. (g)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
affected facility must meet one of three
(a) On and after the date on which the § 60.58b Compliance and performance
criteria:
(i) When the certified chief facility initial performance test is completed or testing.
operator and certified shift supervisor is required to be completed under § 60.8 * * * * *
are both off site for 12 hours or less, and of subpart A of this part, no owner or (b) The owner or operator of an
no other certified operator is on site, the operator of an affected facility shall affected facility shall install, calibrate,
provisionally certified control room cause to be discharged to the maintain, and operate a continuous
operator may perform the duties of the atmosphere visible emissions of emission monitoring system for
certified chief facility operator or combustion ash from an ash conveying measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide
certified shift supervisor without notice system (including conveyor transfer content of the flue gas at each location
to, or approval by, the Administrator. points) in excess of 5 percent of the where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
(ii) When the certified chief facility observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3- nitrogen oxides emissions, or particulate
operator and certified shift supervisor hour period), as determined by EPA matter (if the owner or operator elects to
are off site for more than 12 hours, but Reference Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, continuously monitor particulate matter
for 2 weeks or less, and no other appendix A) observations as specified in emissions under paragraph (c)(10) of
certified operator is on site, the § 60.58b(k), except as provided in this section) are monitored and record
provisionally certified control room paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. the output of the system and shall
operator may perform the duties of the * * * * * comply with the test procedures and
certified chief facility operator or 17. Amend § 60.57b by revising test methods specified in paragraphs
certified shift supervisor without notice paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section.
to, or approval by, the Administrator. (a)(6) to read as follows: * * * * *
(6) * * * emissions discharged to the atmosphere the affected facility is combusting

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method and record the output of the system. The municipal solid waste.
3B shall be used to determine the owner or operator of an affected facility (A) At least two data points per hour
relationship between oxygen and carbon who elects to continuously monitor shall be used to calculate each 1-hour
dioxide at a sampling location. Method particulate matter emissions instead of arithmetic average.
3, 3A, or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10– conducting performance testing using (B) Each particulate matter 1-hour
1981—Part 10 (incorporated by EPA Method 5 shall install, calibrate, arithmetic average shall be corrected to
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of maintain, and operate a continuous 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
this part), as applicable, shall be used to emission monitoring system and shall using the 1-hour arithmetic average of
determine the oxygen concentration at comply with the requirements specified the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
the same location as the carbon dioxide in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through continuous emission monitoring system
monitor. (c)(10)(xiv) of this section. data.
* * * * * (i) Notify the Administrator one (ix) The 1-hour arithmetic averages
(7) The relationship between carbon month before starting use of the system. required under paragraph (c)(10)(vii) of
dioxide and oxygen concentrations that (ii) Notify the Administrator one this section shall be expressed in
is established in accordance with month before stopping use of the milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall be system. corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis)
(iii) The monitor shall be installed, and shall be used to calculate the 24-
submitted to EPA or the director of a
evaluated, and operated in accordance hour daily arithmetic average emission
State air pollution control agency, if so
with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part. concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic
delegated by EPA, as part of the initial (iv) The initial performance
performance test report and, if averages shall be calculated using the
evaluation shall be completed no later data points required under § 60.13(e)(2)
applicable, as part of the annual test than 180 days after the date of initial
report if the relationship is reestablished of subpart A of this part.
startup of the affected facility, as (x) All valid continuous emission
during the annual performance test. specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of
(c) Except as provided in paragraph monitoring system data shall be used in
this part or within 180 days of calculating average emission
(c)(10) of this section, the procedures
notification to the Administrator of use concentrations even if the minimum
and test methods specified in
of the continuous monitoring system if continuous emission monitoring system
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(11) of this
the owner or operator was previously data requirements of paragraph
section shall be used to determine
determining compliance by Method 5 (c)(10)(viii) of this section are not met.
compliance with the emission limits for
performance tests, whichever is later. (xi) The continuous emission
particulate matter and opacity under (v) The owner or operator of an
§ 60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2). monitoring system shall be operated
affected facility may request that according to Performance Specification
* * * * * compliance with the particulate matter 11 in appendix B of this part.
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A emission limit be determined using (xii) During each relative accuracy test
or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part carbon dioxide measurements corrected run of the continuous emission
10 (incorporated by reference, see to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. monitoring system required by
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as The relationship between oxygen and Performance Specification 11 in
applicable, shall be used for gas carbon dioxide levels for the affected appendix B of this part, particulate
analysis. facility shall be established as specified matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
(3) EPA Reference Method 5 shall be in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. data shall be collected concurrently (or
used for determining compliance with (vi) The owner or operator of an within a 30-to 60-minute period) by
the particulate matter emission limit. affected facility shall conduct an initial both the continuous emission monitors
The minimum sample volume shall be performance test for particulate matter and the test methods specified in
1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter emissions as required under § 60.8 of paragraphs (c)(10)(xii)(A) and
holder heating systems in the sample subpart A of this part. Compliance with (c)(10)(xii)(B) of this section.
train shall be set to provide a gas the particulate matter emission limit (A) For particulate matter, EPA
temperature no greater than 160°C. An shall be determined by using the Reference Method 5 shall be used.
oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement continuous emission monitoring system (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
shall be obtained simultaneously with specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as
each Method 5 run. section to measure particulate matter applicable shall be used.
* * * * * and calculating a 24-hour block (xiii) Quarterly accuracy
(9) Following the date that the initial arithmetic average emission determinations and daily calibration
performance test for particulate matter concentration using EPA Reference drift tests shall be performed in
is completed or is required to be Method 19, section 4.1. accordance with procedure 2 in
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of (vii) Compliance with the particulate appendix F of this part.
this part for an affected facility, the matter emission limit shall be (xiv) When particulate matter
owner or operator shall conduct a determined based on the 24-hour daily emissions data are not obtained because
performance test for particulate matter (block) average of the hourly arithmetic of continuous emission monitoring
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 average emission concentrations using system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
months and no more than 15 calendar continuous emission monitoring system checks, and zero and span adjustments,
months following the previous outlet data. emissions data shall be obtained by
performance test). (viii) At a minimum, valid continuous using other monitoring systems as
(10) In place of particulate matter monitoring system hourly averages shall approved by the Administrator or EPA
testing with EPA Reference Method 5, be obtained as specified in paragraphs Reference Method 19 to provide, as
an owner or operator may elect to (c)(10)(viii)(A) and (c)(10)(viii)(B) of this necessary, valid emissions data for a
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate section for 75 percent of the operating minimum of 75 percent of the hours per
a continuous emission monitoring hours per day for 95 percent of the day that the affected facility is operated
system for monitoring particulate matter operating days per calendar quarter that and combusting municipal solid waste
for 95 percent of the days per calendar affected facility shall conduct a operating parameter levels, testing new
quarter that the affected facility is performance test for mercury emissions technology or control technologies,
operated and combusting municipal on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 diagnostic testing, or related activities
solid waste. calendar months and no more than 12 for the purpose of improving facility
(11) Following the date that the initial calendar months from the previous performance or advancing the state-of-
performance test for opacity is performance test), unless the owner or the-art for controlling facility emissions,
completed or is required to be operator follows the testing schedule the owner or operator of an affected
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this facility that qualifies for the
this part for an affected facility, the section. performance testing schedule specified
owner or operator shall conduct a * * * * * in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section,
performance test for opacity on an (e) * * * may test one unit and apply the
annual basis (no less than 9 calendar (7) At a minimum, valid continuous operating parameters to similarly
months and no more than 15 calendar monitoring system hourly averages shall designed and equipped units on site by
months following the previous be obtained as specified in paragraphs meeting the requirements specified in
performance test) using the test method (e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) of this section for paragraphs (g)(5)(ii)(A) through
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this 75 percent of the operating hours per (g)(5)(ii)(D) of this section.
section. day for 95 percent of the operating days (A) Follow the testing schedule
(d) * * * per calendar quarter that the affected established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of
(1) * * * facility is combusting municipal solid this section. For example, each year a
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, waste. different affected facility at the
or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part municipal waste combustor plant shall
* * * * *
10 (incorporated by reference, see be tested, and the affected facilities at
(12) * * *
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as (i) * * * the plant shall be tested in sequence
applicable, shall be used for flue gas (A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as
analysis. Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or ASTM D6784– applicable).
* * * * * 02 (incorporated by reference, see (B) Upon meeting the requirements in
(vii) Following the date of the initial paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section for
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), shall
performance test or the date on which one affected facility, the owner or
be used.
the initial performance test is required (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), operator may elect to apply the average
to be completed under § 60.8 of subpart EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or carbon mass feed rate and associated
A of this part, the owner or operator of ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated by carbon injection system operating
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of parameter levels as established in
an affected facility shall conduct a
this part), as applicable, shall be used. paragraph (m) of this section to
performance test for compliance with
similarly designed and equipped units
the emission limits for cadmium and * * * * * on site.
lead on a calendar year basis (no less (14) When sulfur dioxide emissions (C) Upon testing each subsequent unit
than 9 calendar months and no more data are not obtained because of in accordance with the testing schedule
than 15 calendar months following the continuous emission monitoring system established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of
previous performance test). breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, this section, the dioxin/furan and
* * * * * and/or zero and span adjustments, mercury emissions of the subsequent
(2) * * * emissions data shall be obtained by unit shall not exceed the dioxin/furan
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, using other monitoring systems as and mercury emissions measured in the
or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part approved by EPA or EPA Reference most recent test of that unit prior to the
10 (incorporated by reference, see Method 19 to provide, as necessary, revised operating parameter levels.
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as valid emissions data for a minimum of (D) The owner or operator of an
applicable, shall be used for flue gas 75 percent of the hours per day that the affected facility that selects to follow the
analysis. affected facility is operated and performance testing schedule specified
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 or combusting municipal solid waste for in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section
ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated by 95 percent of the days per calendar and apply the carbon injection system
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of quarter that the affected facility is operating parameters to similarly
this part), shall be used to determine the operated and combusting municipal designed and equipped units on site
mercury emission concentration. The solid waste. shall follow the procedures specified in
minimum sample volume when using * * * * * § 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting.
Method 29 for mercury shall be 1.7 (g) * * * (iii) Where all performance tests over
cubic meters. (2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, a 2-year period indicate that both
(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) or 3B, or ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated dioxin/furan emissions are less than or
measurement shall be obtained by reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard
simultaneously with each Method 29 or this part), as applicable, shall be used cubic meter (total mass) and that
ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated by for flue gas analysis. mercury emissions are less than or equal
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of * * * * * to 25 micrograms per dry standard cubic
this part), test run for mercury required (5) * * * meter for all affected facilities located
under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this (i) For affected facilities, performance within a municipal waste combustor
section. tests shall be conducted on a calendar plant, the owner or operator of the
* * * * * year basis (no less than 9 calendar municipal waste combustor plant may
(ix) Following the date that the initial months and no more than 15 calendar elect to conduct annual performance
performance test for mercury is months following the previous tests for one affected facility (i.e., unit)
completed or is required to be performance test.) per year at the municipal waste
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of (ii) For the purpose of evaluating combustor plant. At a minimum, a
this part, the owner or operator of an system performance to establish new performance test for dioxin/furan and
mercury emissions shall be conducted (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17 paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 of subpart A of this part), as applicable, section.
calendar months and no more than 15 shall be used. (i) During the annual mercury
months following the previous * * * * * performance test and the 2 weeks
performance test) for one affected (12) When nitrogen oxides continuous preceding the annual mercury
facility at the municipal waste emissions data are not obtained because performance test, no limit is applicable
combustor plant. Each year a different of continuous emission monitoring for average mass carbon feed rate.
affected facility at the municipal waste system breakdowns, repairs, calibration (ii) The limit for average mass carbon
combustor plant shall be tested, and the checks, and zero and span adjustments, feed rate may be waived in accordance
affected facilities at the plant shall be emissions data shall be obtained using with permission granted by the
tested in sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, other monitoring systems as approved Administrator for the purpose of
unit 3, as applicable). If each annual by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to evaluating system performance, testing
performance test continues to indicate provide, as necessary, valid emissions new technology or control technologies,
both a dioxin/furan emission level less data for a minimum of 75 percent of the diagnostic testing, or related activities
than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry hours per day for 95 percent of the days for the purpose of improving facility
standard cubic meter (total mass) and a per calendar quarter the unit is operated performance or advancing the state-of-
mercury emission level less than or and combusting municipal solid waste. the-art for controlling facility emissions.
equal to 25 micrograms per dry standard (i) * * * * * * * *
cubic meter, the owner or operator may (3) * * * 19. Amend § 60.59b by:
continue conducting a performance test (ii) * * * a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i)
on only one affected facility per (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), introductory text;
calendar year. If any annual EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or b. Revising (d)(2)(ii) introductory text;
performance test indicates either a c. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10
dioxin/furan emission level greater than d. Revising paragraph (d)(6)
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17
7 nanograms per dry standard cubic introductory text;
of subpart A of this part), as applicable,
meter (total mass) or a mercury emission e. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(iv);
shall be used.
level greater than 25 micrograms per dry f. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(v);
standard cubic meter, performance tests * * * * * g. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
shall thereafter be conducted annually (10) At a minimum, valid continuous h. Revising paragraph (d)(12)
on all affected facilities at the plant emission monitoring system hourly introductory text;
until and unless all annual performance averages shall be obtained as specified i. Revising paragraph (g) introductory
tests for all affected facilities at the plant in paragraphs (i)(10)(i) and (i)(10)(ii) of text;
over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/ this section for 75 percent of the j. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii);
furan emission level less than or equal operating hours per day for 95 percent k. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic of the operating days per calendar l. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v);
meter (total mass) and mercury emission quarter that the affected facility is m. Revising paragraph (g)(4);
level less than or equal to 25 combusting municipal solid waste. n. Revising paragraph (h)(1);
micrograms per dry standard cubic * * * * * o. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E);
meter. (11) All valid continuous emission p. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E);
monitoring system data must be used in q. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi);
* * * * * r. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
(7) The owner or operator of an calculating the parameters specified
under paragraph (i) of this section even s. Adding paragraph (d)(12)(iv);
affected facility where activated carbon t. Adding paragraph (g)(5); and
is used to comply with the dioxin/furan if the minimum data requirements of
u. Adding paragraph (m) to read as
and mercury emission limits specified paragraph (i)(10) of this section are not
follows:
in § 60.52b(c) or the dioxin/furan and met. When carbon monoxide
mercury emission limits specified in continuous emission data are not § 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping
paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section shall obtained because of continuous requirements.
follow the procedures specified in emission monitoring system * * * * *
paragraph (m) of this section for breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, (d) * * *
measuring and calculating the carbon and zero and span adjustments, (2) * * *
usage rate. emissions data shall be obtained using (i) The measurements specified in
* * * * * other monitoring systems as approved paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through
(h) * * * by EPA or EPA Reference Method 10 to (d)(2)(i)(E) of this section shall be
(6) At a minimum, valid continuous provide, as necessary, the minimum recorded and be available for submittal
emission monitoring system hourly valid emission data. to the Administrator or review onsite by
averages shall be obtained as specified * * * * * an EPA or State inspector.
in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of (m) * * * * * * * *
this section for 75 percent of the (2) During operation of the affected (E) For owners and operators who
operating hours per day for 95 percent facility, the carbon injection system elect to continuously monitor
of the operating days per calendar operating parameter(s) that are the particulate matter emissions instead of
quarter that the affected facility is primary indicator(s) of the carbon mass conducting performance testing using
combusting municipal solid waste. feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) shall EPA Method 5, all 1-hour average
* * * * * be averaged over a block 8-hour period, particulate matter emission
(10) * * * and the 8-hour block average must equal concentrations as specified under
(i) * * * or exceed the level(s) documented § 60.58b(d)(10).
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), during the performance tests specified (ii) The average concentrations and
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) percent reductions, as applicable,
ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10 of this section, except as specified in specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A)
through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section shall required under appendix F of this part, under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through
be computed and recorded, and shall be procedure 2. (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section.
available for submittal to the * * * * * * * * * *
Administrator or review on-site by an (12) The records specified in (iv) The total number of days that the
EPA or State inspector. paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through (d)(12)(iv) minimum number of hours of data for
* * * * * of this section. sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
(E) For owners and operators who * * * * * monoxide, particulate matter (for
elect to continuously monitor owners and operators who elect to
particulate matter emissions instead of (iv) Records of when a certified
operator is temporarily off site. Include continuously monitor particulate matter
conducting performance testing using emissions instead of conducting
EPA Method 5, all 24-hour daily two main items:
(A) If the certified chief facility performance testing using EPA Method
arithmetic average particulate matter 5), municipal waste combustor unit
emission concentrations as specified operator and certified shift supervisor
are off site for more than 12 hours, but load, and particulate matter control
under § 60.58b(d)(10). device temperature data were not
(3) Identification of the calendar dates for 2 weeks or less, and no other
certified operator is on site, record the obtained based on the data recorded
when any of the average emission under paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
concentrations, percent reductions, or dates that the certified chief facility
operating parameters recorded under operator and certified shift supervisor (v) The total number of hours that
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through were off site. data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
(d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section, or the (B) When all certified chief facility carbon monoxide, particulate matter (for
opacity levels recorded under paragraph operators and certified shift supervisors owners and operators who elect to
(d)(2)(i)(A) of this section are above the are off site for more than 2 weeks and continuously monitor particulate matter
applicable limits, with reasons for such no other certified operator is on site, emissions instead of conducting
exceedances and a description of keep records of four items: performance testing using EPA Method
corrective actions taken. 5), municipal waste combustor unit
(1) Time of day that all certified
load, and particulate matter control
* * * * * persons are off site.
device temperature were excluded from
(6) Identification of the calendar dates (2) The conditions that cause those the calculation of average emission
for which the minimum number of people to be off site. concentrations or parameters based on
hours of any of the data specified in (3) The corrective actions taken by the the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7)
paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(vi) of owner or operator of the affected facility of this section.
this section have not been obtained to ensure a certified chief facility
including reasons for not obtaining * * * * *
operator or certified shift supervisor is
sufficient data and a description of on site as soon as practicable. (4) A notification of intent to begin
corrective actions taken. the reduced dioxin/furan performance
(4) Copies of the written reports
* * * * * testing schedule specified in
submitted every 4 weeks that
(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of this section during
summarize the actions taken by the
load data; the following calendar year and
owner or operator of the affected facility
(v) Particulate matter control device notification of intent to apply the
to ensure that a certified chief facility
temperature data; and average carbon mass feed rate and
operator or certified shift supervisor
(vi) For owners and operators who associated carbon injection system
will be on site as soon as practicable.
elect to continuously monitor operating parameter levels as
particulate matter emissions instead of * * * * * established in § 60.58b(m) to similarly
performance testing by EPA Method 5, (g) Following the first year of designed and equipped units on site.
particulate matter emissions data. municipal combustor operation, the (5) Documentation of periods when
(7) Identification of each occurrence owner or operator of an affected facility all certified chief facility operators and
that sulfur dioxide emissions data, shall submit an annual report that certified shift supervisors are off site for
nitrogen oxides emissions data, includes the information specified in more than 12 hours.
particulate matter emissions data (for paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this
section, as applicable, no later than (h) * * *
owners and operators who elect to
continuously monitor particulate matter February 1 of each year following the (1) The semiannual report shall
emissions instead of conducting calendar year in which the data were include information recorded under
performance testing using EPA Method collected (once the unit is subject to paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur
5) or operational data (i.e., carbon permitting requirements under title V of dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide emissions, unit load, and the Act, the owner or operator of an monoxide, particulate matter (for
particulate matter control device affected facility must submit these owners and operators who elect to
temperature) have been excluded from reports semiannually). continuously monitor particulate matter
the calculation of average emission (1) * * * emissions instead of conducting
concentrations or parameters, and the (ii) A list of the highest emission level performance testing using EPA Method
reasons for excluding the data. recorded for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 5), municipal waste combustor unit load
oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate level, particulate matter control device
* * * * *
(10) The results of daily drift tests and matter (for owners and operators who inlet temperature, and opacity.
quarterly accuracy determinations for elect to continuously monitor * * * * *
particulate matter continuous emission particulate matter emissions instead of (m) Owners and operators who elect
monitoring systems (for owners and conducting performance testing using to continuously monitor particulate
operators who elect to continuously EPA Method 5), municipal waste matter emissions instead of conducting
monitor particulate matter emissions combustor unit load level, and performance testing using EPA Method
instead of conducting performance particulate matter control device inlet 5 must notify the Administrator one
testing using EPA Method 5), as temperature based on the data recorded month prior to starting or stopping use
of the particulate matter continuous

emission monitoring system.
[FR Doc. 05–23968 Filed 12–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Proposed Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Municipal Waste Combustion Units, Large

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Municipal Waste Combustion Units, Large

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monday,

December 19, 2005

TABLE 1.— PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS

Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) .............................................................................................................. 2.6 E–4 1.6E–4 1.0E–4

Total Annual Cost (million, $ per year, 2002 $) ................................................................... NA 14.5 NA

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES

Mass burn waterwall ..................................................................................................................................................... 205 .............. 205

Mass burn waterwall ................................................................................................................................................ 185 185

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES

Mass burn waterwall ................................................................................................................................................ 100 4

Bubbling fluidized bed combustor ........................................................................................................................... 100 4

(6) * * * emissions discharged to the atmosphere the affected facility is combusting

of the particulate matter continuous

You might also like