Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors, 75348-75369 [05-23968]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75348
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–OAR–2005–0117; FRL–8008–1]
RIN 2060–AL97
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large
Municipal Waste Combustors
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On December 19, 1995, EPA
adopted new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission
guidelines for large municipal waste
combustion (MWC) units. The NSPS
and emission guidelines were fully
implemented by December 2000.
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires EPA to review, and if
appropriate, revise the NSPS and
emission guidelines every 5 years. In
this action, EPA is proposing to revise
the emission limits in the NSPS and
emission guidelines to reflect the levels
of performance actually achieved by the
emission controls installed to meet the
emission limits set forth in the
December 19, 1995, NSPS and emission
guidelines.
The MWC NSPS and emission
guidelines apply to the combustion of
non-hazardous municipal solid waste.
Hazardous waste combustors
(incinerators) are addressed by CAA
section 112 standards.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on
or before February 6, 2006. Because of
the need to resolve the issues raised in
this action in a timely manner, EPA will
not grant requests for extensions beyond
this date.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA by December 30, 2005 requesting to
speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold
a public hearing on January 6, 2006. If
you are interested in attending the
public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela
Garrett at (919) 541–7966 to verify that
a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–
2005–0117, by one of the following
methods:
Agency Web Site: https://www.epa.gov/
edocket/. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic
public docket and comment system, will
be replaced by an enhanced Federal
wide electronic docket management and
comment system located at https://
www.regulations.gov. When that occurs,
you will be redirected to that site to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
access the docket and submit comments.
Follow the on-line instructions.
E-mail: Send your comments via
electronic mail to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to
(202) 566–1741, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–OAR–2005–0117.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA, Mailcode
6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room B108,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117.
Such deliveries are accepted only
during the normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays), and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2005–0117.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is
held, it will be held at EPA’s Campus
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an
alternate site nearby. Persons interested
in presenting oral testimony must
contact Ms. Pam Garrett at (919) 541–
7966 at least 2 days in advance of the
hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Garrett
in advance of the hearing with a request
to present oral testimony at the hearing,
we will cancel the hearing. The public
hearing will provide interested parties
the opportunity to present data, views,
or arguments concerning the proposed
action.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Walt Stevenson, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (C439–01),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, (919) 541–5264, e-mail
stevenson.walt@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Do the proposed amendments apply to
me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments?
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
A. Are revisions to the emission limits
being proposed?
B. Are other amendments being proposed?
C. Is an implementation schedule being
proposed?
D. Has EPA changed the applicability date
of the NSPS?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How were the proposed emission limits
developed?
B. How were the proposed operator standin provisions developed?
C. Why did EPA add two MWC combustor
categories to the list of MWC combustor
types?
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
D. How were the additional carbon
monoxide (CO) limits developed?
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period for
measuring activated carbon injection
(ACI) rate?
F. Are any other changes being considered
for measuring ACI?
G. How did EPA determine the amended
performance testing and monitoring
requirements?
H. How did EPA determine the other
amendments?
I. How was the implementation schedule
developed?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments for
Existing Units
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC units
equipped with electrostatic precipitator-
based scrubbing systems to replace the
ESP with a fabric filter?
VII. How do the proposed amendments relate
to section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
Category
NAICS code
Industry, Federal government, and State/local/tribal governments.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by the proposed rule. To
determine whether your facility would
be regulated by the proposed rule, you
should examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 60.32b of subpart Cb
and 40 CFR 60.50b of subpart Eb. If you
have any questions regarding the
applicability of the proposed rule to a
particular entity, contact the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to
only the following address: Mr. Walt
Stevenson, c/o OAQPS Document
Control Officer (Room C404–02), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2005–
0117. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
562213
92411
SIC code
(optional)
4953
9511
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Do the proposed amendments apply
to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially affected by the
proposed amendments are MWC units
with a design combustion capacity of
greater than 250 tons per day. The NSPS
and emission guidelines for municipal
waste combustors affect the following
categories of sources:
Examples of potentially regulated entities
Solid waste combustors or incinerators at waste-to-energy 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.
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI
or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
(b) Follow directions. The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
(c) Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
(d) Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
(e) If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
(f) Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
(g) Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
PO 00000
75349
(h) Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the preceding
section titled Dates.
Docket. The docket number for the
proposed amendments to the large
MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
Eb) and emission guidelines (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cb) is Docket ID No.
OAR–2005–0117.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this proposed rule is
available on the WWW through the
Technology Transfer Network Web site
(TTN Web). Following signature, EPA
posted a copy of the proposed rule on
the TTN’s policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
II. Background Information
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled
‘‘Solid Waste Combustion,’’ requires
EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and
emission guidelines for solid waste
incineration units pursuant to CAA
sections 111 and 129. Section 111(b) of
the CAA (NSPS program) addresses
emissions from new MWC units and
CAA section 111(d) (emission
guidelines program) addresses
emissions from existing MWC units.
The NSPS are directly enforceable
Federal regulations. The emission
guidelines are not directly enforceable
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75350
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
but, rather, are implemented by State air
pollution control agencies through
sections 111(d)/129 State plans.
In December 1995, EPA adopted
NSPS (subpart Eb) and emission
guidelines (subpart Cb) for MWC units
with a combustion capacity greater than
250 tons per day. These MWC units are
referred to as large MWC units. Both the
NSPS and emission guidelines require
compliance with emission limitations
that reflect the performance of
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The NSPS apply to
new MWC units after the effective date
of the NSPS or at start-up, whichever is
later. The emission guidelines apply to
existing MWC units and required
compliance by December 2000. These
retrofits were completed on time, and
the controls installed to meet the
required emission limitations were
highly effective in reducing emissions of
all of the CAA section 129 pollutants
emitted by large MWC units. Relative to
a 1990 baseline, the emission guidelines
reduced organic emissions (dioxin/
furan) by more than 99 percent, metal
emissions (cadmium, lead, and
mercury) by more than 93 percent, and
acid gas emissions (hydrogen chloride
and sulfur dioxide) by more than 91
percent.
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires
EPA to conduct a 5-year review of the
NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if
appropriate, revise the NSPS and
emission guidelines. The EPA has
completed that review, and these
proposed amendments reflect the
changes EPA believes are appropriate.
A. Are revisions to the emission limits
being proposed?
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
Following year 2000 compliance with
the emission guidelines, EPA gathered
information on the performance levels
actually being achieved by large MWC
units retrofitted to comply with the
emission guidelines. Today’s proposed
amendments would revise the NSPS
and emission guidelines based on the
performance levels being achieved by
large MWC units. The revisions
discussed in the following text apply to
both the NSPS and the emission
guidelines, unless otherwise specified.
Yes. The proposed amendments
would revise many of the emission
limits in both the NSPS and emission
guidelines. Relative to the NSPS, the
most significant changes would be in
the lead and cadmium emission limits.
Relative to the emission guidelines, the
most significant changes would be in
the dioxin/furan and lead emission
limits. Also associated with the revised
emissions limits, are proposed
amendments to change the dimensions
(units of measure) of the emission limits
for cadmium, lead, and mercury from
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
to micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter (µg/dscm). EPA believes the
proposed emission limits can be
achieved with the same emission
control technology currently used by
large MWCs. EPA requests comment on
achievability of the proposed limits and
whether the proposed limits adequately
consider emission variability. The
proposed emission limits for the NSPS
and emission guidelines are
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
basis.
31 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter .................
250 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ...............
80 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 85 percent reduction of mercury emissions**.
24 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter ...................
26 parts per million dry volume or 97 percent reduction
of hydrogen chloride emissions.
23 parts per million dry volume or 80 percent reduction
of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Varies by combustor type (see table 1 to subpart Cb of
part 60).
13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter total mass
basis**.
3.5 micrograms per dry standard cubic per dry meter.
84 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter.
49 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 90 percent reduction of mercury emissions.
9.5 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
25 parts per million dry volume or 98 percent reduction
of hydrogen chloride emissions.
19 parts per million dry volume or 90 percent reduction
of sulfur dioxide emissions.
180 parts per million dry volume/150 parts per million
dry volume after first year of operation**.
Cadmium (Cd) ......................
Lead (Pb) .............................
Mercury (Hg) ........................
Particulate Matter (PM) ........
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) ......
Sulfur dioxide (CO2) .............
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ........
*All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
**No change proposed.
B. Are other amendments being
proposed?
The proposed amendments would
also make the following changes based
on information received during
implementation of the MWC emission
guidelines and would apply equally to
the NSPS and emission guidelines,
unless otherwise specified.
Operating Practices
• The proposed amendments would
revise the operator stand-in provisions
in § 60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift
supervisor is allowed to be off site when
a provisionally certified control room
operator is standing in. A provisionally
certified control room operator could
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
stand in for up to 12 hours without
notifying EPA; for up to 2 weeks if EPA
is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if
EPA is notified and the MWC owner
demonstrates to EPA that a good faith
effort is being made to ensure that a
certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor is on site as
soon as practicable.
• The proposed amendments would
add two additional classifications of
MWC units to the emission guidelines
and would add associated CO limits to
assure good combustion practices. The
two new classifications are ‘‘spreader
stoker refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-fired/
100 percent coal capable combustor’’
and ‘‘semi-suspension RDF-fired
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
combustor/wet RDF process
conversion.’’
Operating Parameters
• The proposed amendments would
revise § 60.58b(m) to establish an 8-hour
block average for measuring activated
carbon injection (ACI) rate. This would
make the NSPS and emission guidelines
for large MWC units consistent with the
newer (year 2000) section 129
regulations for small MWC units (40
CFR part 60, subparts AAAA, BBBB),
which monitors ACI rate using an
8-hour block average.
Performance Testing and Monitoring
• The proposed amendments would
revise the annual mercury testing
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
requirements to allow for optimization
of mercury control operating parameters
by waiving operating parameter limits
during the mercury performance test
and during the 2 weeks preceding the
mercury performance test. This is
already done for dioxin testing.
• The proposed amendments would
revise the reduced testing requirements
for exceptionally well-operated MWC
units. Exceptionally well-operated units
are those with emissions significantly
below the emission limits. Specifically,
EPA proposes to lower the dioxin/furan
criteria and add an associated mercury
criteria to qualify for reduced testing.
• The proposed amendments would
add flexibility to the annual compliance
testing schedule so that a facility still
tests once per calendar year, but no less
than 9 months and no more than 15
months since the previous test. The
revision would provide flexibility to
facilities when facing scheduled and
unscheduled outages, adverse local
weather conditions, and other
conditions, while still meeting the
intent of the compliance testing
requirements.
• The proposed amendments would
allow the use of parametric monitoring
limits from an exceptionally welloperated MWC unit (i.e., unit with
emissions significantly below the
emission limits) to be applied to all
identical units at the same plant site
without retesting.
• The proposed amendments would
increase the continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) data
collection rates from 90 percent of
operating time on a quarterly calendar
basis to 95 percent of operating time on
a quarterly calendar basis.
• The proposed amendments would
revise the particulate matter compliance
testing requirements to allow the
optional use of a particulate matter
CEMS in place of EPA Method 5.
Other Amendments
• The proposed amendments would
clarify the meaning of the term
‘‘Administrator’’ in the regulations.
• Other details to fine tune the
regulation are also proposed.
C. Is an implementation schedule being
proposed?
Yes. Under the proposed emission
guidelines, and consistent with CAA
section 129, revised State plans
containing the revised emission limits
and other requirements in the proposed
emission guidelines would be due
within 1 year after promulgation of the
revisions. That is, revised State plans
would have to be submitted to EPA 1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
year after the date by which EPA
promulgates revised limits.
The proposed emission guidelines
then allow MWC units up to 2 years
from the date of approval of a State plan
to comply. Consistent with CAA section
129, EPA, therefore, expects States to
require compliance as expeditiously as
practicable. Large MWC units have
already installed the emission control
equipment necessary to meet the
proposed revised limits, and EPA,
therefore, anticipates that most State
plans will include compliance dates
sooner than 3 years following
promulgation of the final rule. In most
cases, the only changes necessary are to
review the revisions and adjust the
emission monitoring and reporting
accordingly.
In revising the emission limits in a
State plan, a State has two options.
First, it could insert the new emission
limits in place of the current emission
limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part
60, subpart B, and submit a revised
State plan to EPA for approval. If the
revised State plan contains only the new
emission limits (i.e., the existing
emission limits are not retained), then
the new emission limits must become
effective immediately since the current
limits would be removed from the State
plan. A second approach would be for
a State plan to include both the current
and the new emission limits. This
allows a phased approach in applying
the new limits. That is, the State plan
would make it clear that the existing
emission limits remain in force and
apply until the date the new emission
limits are effective (as defined in the
State plan).
D. Has EPA changed the applicability
date of the NSPS?
No. The applicability date for the
NSPS units remains September 20,
1994; however, units for which
construction or modification is
commenced after the date of this
proposal will be subject to more
stringent emission limits than units on
which construction or modification was
completed prior to that date. Under the
proposed amendments, units that
commenced construction after
September 20, 1994, and on or before
December 19, 2005, or that are modified
6 months or more after the effective date
of any final standards, would continue
to be subject to the NSPS emission
limits that were promulgated in 1995
and that remain in the 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Eb NSPS. Units that commence
construction after December 19, 2005
would meet the revised emission limits
that are being added to the subpart Eb
NSPS.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75351
The EPA is not aware of any MWC
units that were modified or
reconstructed after June 19, 1996
(effective date of the December 19, 1995
NSPS), therefore, EPA is proposing to
simplify the applicability text for the
NSPS to be MWC units that commenced
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after September 20, 1994.
The EPA believes the use of one date is
the most understandable format. The
EPA requests comment on this approach
and whether all dates referenced in
CAA section 129 should remain in the
revised NSPS, even if the dates have
passed and have no utility.
IV. Rationale for the Proposed
Amendments
A. How were the proposed emission
limits developed?
The proposed emission limits are
based on the performance of MACT.
One set of emission limits is proposed
for existing MWC units regulated under
CAA section 111(d) emission
guidelines, and another set of emission
limits is proposed for new MWC units
regulated under CAA section 111(b)
NSPS. Both sets of limits were
developed following the procedures
discussed below.
As background, the current emission
limits in the emission guidelines, as
well as the proposed emission limits for
the emission guidelines, are based on
the application of either spray dryer/
electrostatic precipitator/activated
carbon injection/selective non-catalytic
reduction technology (SD/ESP/ACI/
SNCR) or spray dryer/fabric filter/
activated carbon injection/selective noncatalytic reduction technology (SD/FF/
ACI/SNCR). The current emission limits
in the NSPS, as well as the proposed
NSPS emission limits, are based on SD/
FF/ACI/SNCR technology alone. In
practice, and as allowed by the emission
guidelines, existing MWC units have
used a mix of SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR
technology and SD/FF/ACI/SNCR
technology to comply with the emission
guidelines.
Following MACT compliance in
December 2000, EPA obtained
compliance test reports from all
operating large MWC units (167 units at
66 plants) and used those data to
evaluate MACT performance. When the
MWC regulations were proposed in
1994, no MWC units were operating
with the full set of controls, and
significant engineering judgment was
necessary in selecting the emission
limits. The year 2000 compliance data
show that the actual performance of the
control technology that industry
installed to meet the 1995 NSPS and
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75352
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
emission guidelines achieves reductions
superior to the 1995 limits. The EPA
used the MACT data in the compliance
test reports to develop the emission
limits contained in the proposed
amendments. The EPA believes the
proposed emission limits more
accurately reflect actual MACT
performance.
The first step in the analysis was to
subdivide the database into two
subgroups based on emission control
technology. For the emission guidelines,
the data were subcategorized to MWC
units equipped with SD/ESP/ACI/
SNCR. For the NSPS, data were
subcategorized to MWC units equipped
with SD/FF/ACI/SNCR. The data were
subcategorized this way because the
emission guidelines are based on SD/
ESP/ACI/SNCR control and the NSPS
are based on SD/FF/ACI/SNCR control.
The remaining steps of the analysis
were the same for both data sets.
Next, the data were screened. The
screening was based on the expectation
that similar MWC units at a single MWC
plant should have similar emissions.
That is, at an MWC plant, MWC units
with the same configuration, firing
waste from the same waste pit, and
controlled with the same design of
pollution control equipment, would be
expected to have similar emissions. The
test data for multiple MWC units at an
MWC plant were compared to identify
the difference between the test results.
This was done for all MWC plants. Next,
the mean and standard deviation of the
differences were calculated for the
entire MWC database. This mean and
standard deviation were then used to
screen test results for each MWC plant.
If the test results from multiple MWC
units at a specific MWC plant differed
by more than the mean plus one
standard deviation from the full dataset,
the test data for that MWC plant were
removed from analysis. This was
repeated for each CAA section 129
pollutant. Less than 14 percent of the
data were excluded during screening.
Next, a statistical analysis of the
remaining database was conducted to
identify the best fitting frequency
distribution. After identifying the best
fitting frequency distribution, an
actually achievable emission limit was
calculated (i.e., the mean performance
plus a variability factor). Where the
analysis supported limits more stringent
than the current limits, new limits are
proposed. This procedure was followed
in developing the proposed emission
limits for the ‘‘stack test’’ pollutants
(dioxin/furan, Cd, Pd, Hg, PM, and HCl).
For SO2 and NOX, a different
approach was used. For these
pollutants, CEMS, rather than stack
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
tests, are used to determine compliance.
CEMS can generate up to 8,760 hours of
data per year and emissions variability
must be carefully addressed in order to
select an appropriate emission limit.
Typically, EPA analyzes more than
1,000 hours of CEMS data per source in
order to evaluate and address emissions
variability when setting emission limits
to be enforced by CEMS. To develop the
proposed SO2 and NOX limits, EPA used
a two-step process. First, the mean
performance level for SO2 and NOX
control was determined using the year
2000 MACT compliance data. Next, a
variability factor was identified based
on an analysis of SO2 and NOX CEMS
data from four MWC plants. The
variability analysis was based on the
evaluation of more than 2,400 hours of
SO2 CEMS data and 3,500 hours of NOX
CEMS data. The variability factor was
added to the mean performance level
from the year 2000 MACT database to
determine new emission limits. Where
the analysis supported SO2 and NOX
limits more stringent than the current
limits, new limits are proposed.
EPA requests comment on the data
screening procedure used for this
proposal and requests suggestions for
alternative data screening procedures.
EPA also requests comment on the
appropriateness to screen out data. The
data screening procedure for the
proposal is presented in a data analysis
memo contained in the docket for this
rulemaking.
B. How were the proposed operator
stand-in provisions developed?
Under the good combustion practices
component of the regulations
(§ 60.54b(c)(2)), a fully certified MWC
plant supervisor or MWC shift
supervisor must be on site during all
periods of MWC operation, except those
periods when a provisionally certified
control room operator ‘‘stands in.’’ A
provisionally certified control room
operator on site can stand in for the
duration of the plant or shift
supervisor’s shift when the plant or shift
supervisor must leave prior to the end
of the shift. In implementing the MACT
regulations in the late 1990s, a number
of questions were raised on this issue.
State regulators and MWC owners and
operators questioned how long a
certified plant or shift supervisor is
allowed to be off site, and how long a
provisionally certified control room
operator is allowed to stand in.
Questions were raised about what
should be done if a plant supervisor
became sick or was off for a week of
training or vacation. The EPA examined
the issue, and in 1998 issued an
enforcement guidance memorandum to
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reflect EPA’s intent in developing the
regulation. Under the enforcement
guidance memorandum, a provisionally
certified control room operator can
stand in for a certified plant or shift
supervisor when they are off site for (1)
periods up to twelve hours without
notifying EPA; (2) periods up to two
weeks if EPA is notified; and (3) periods
longer than two weeks if EPA is notified
and the MWC owner demonstrates to
EPA that a good faith effort is being
made to ensure that a certified chief
facility operator or certified control
room shift supervisor is on site. These
stand-in provisions were incorporated
into the small MWC MACT regulations
promulgated in 2000. The EPA is now
proposing to amend the large MWC
NSPS and emission guidelines to be
consistent with this EPA enforcement
guidance memorandum and the small
MWC regulations.
The EPA is aware that later this year
the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) is planning to
publish updated Standards for the
Qualification and Certification of
Resource Recovery Facility Operators
(QRO–1–1994). The MWC rules
currently require MWC operators obtain
this certification. A number of changes
to QRO are planed by the ASME. At this
time it appears the principal affect
would be the need for EPA to revise the
MWC rules to use the QRO term
‘‘operator certification’’ in place of the
term ‘‘fully certified’’ as currently used
in the MWC rules. If the ASME
completes the QRO update by the time
the MWC rules are finalized, the new
QRO procedures will be incorporated
into the final MWC rule.
C. Why did EPA add two MWC
combustor categories to the list of MWC
combustor types?
In the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA
identified three distinct types of RDFfired MWC units: (1) RDF stoker, (2)
pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired
combustor, and (3) spreader stoker coal/
RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor.
Recently, EPA has identified two
additional types of RDF-fired MWC
designs that do not fit within the three
types of RDF combustors as defined in
the regulations. Since none of the three
previous subcategories of RDF
municipal waste combustors correctly
describe the design or operation of these
particular units, EPA recognized a need
to add combustor types that would
adequately describe and set CO
emission limits for these combustors.
The EPA is proposing to add
definitions for ‘‘spreader stoker RDFfired combustor/100 percent coal
capable’’ and ‘‘semi-suspension RDF-
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
fired combustor/wet RDF process
conversion.’’ For these MWC technology
types, the proposed amendments would
add good combustion practice-based CO
limits. A spreader/stoker RDF-fired
combustor/100 percent coal capable
combustor fires RDF into the
combustion zone by a mechanism that
throws the fuel onto the grate from
above. Combustion takes place both in
suspension and on the grate. Such a unit
is capable of firing 100 percent coal as
a replacement for RDF. A semisuspension RDF-fired combustor/wet
RDF process conversion means a
combustion unit that was converted
from wet RDF processing to dry RDF
processing. For both of these
technologies, CO emission limits are
proposed based on levels achievable by
good combustion practices.
D. How were the additional carbon
monoxide (CO) limits developed?
First, EPA determined that both good
combustion practices and MACT had
been fully implemented at the two
additional MWC types discussed above.
Next, EPA obtained over 5,000 hours of
CO CEMS data from each MWC type
and conducted a statistical analysis of
the data to identify the best fitting
distribution. After identifying the best
fitting distribution, EPA calculated a
statistically achievable emission limit
based on a 24-hour block average for
each of the two MWC types. The new
CO limits fall within the range of
current good combustion practice-based
CO limits for other MWC combustors
that range from 50 to 250 parts per
million (ppm).
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period
for measuring activated carbon injection
(ACI) rate?
The proposed amendments would
revise § 60.58b(m) to specify an 8-hour
block average period for measuring the
ACI rate. Section 60.58b(m) requires an
owner or operator using ACI to select an
ACI operating parameter that can be
used to calculate ACI feed rate (e.g.,
screw feeder speed) during the mercury
and dioxin/furan performance test. The
current § 60.58b does not, however,
indicate the averaging time to be used,
and the performance test period can
vary from test to test.
To select an averaging period, EPA
examined the Hg test sampling period of
twelve MWC units that use ACI. The
test duration averaged about 7 hours. To
establish consistency, a fixed 8-hour
block averaging period is being
proposed for ongoing measurement of
the ACI system operating parameters
used to calculate ACI feed rate.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
F. Are any other changes being
considered for measuring ACI?
The EPA is considering including in
the final regulation a requirement to
monitor the pneumatic injection
pressure at the location where the
activated carbon is injected into the flue
gases in order to monitor ACI. This
would quickly identify a clogged
injection nozzle. If this were done, the
same 8-hour block average would be
used for measuring injection pressure.
The EPA specifically requests comments
on the reasonableness of such
monitoring.
G. How did EPA determine the amended
performance testing and monitoring
requirements?
Annual testing schedule. While
implementing the mandatory 12-month
testing schedule under the current
regulations, MWC owners and operators
found the testing schedule difficult to
comply with. The current schedule does
not provide flexibility to accommodate
unscheduled MWC outages, local
weather conditions, and other
unexpected conditions. After an outage,
bringing the MWC units back on line,
rescheduling the test, notifying the
regulatory agencies, and preparing for
the test can cause delays and prevent
testing within the specified 12-month
period. Inclement weather can cause
similar problems. To accommodate the
need for flexibility while retaining an
annual test schedule, EPA proposes to
revise the testing schedule to once per
calendar year, with no less than 9
months and no more than 15 months
between tests.
Optimization Parameters. The
proposed amendments would revise the
testing requirements to allow the use of
optimized parametric monitoring data
from the most recently tested MWC unit
to be applied to all similar MWC units
on site. The use of this approach would
be limited to exceptionally well-run
MWC units where dioxin/furan and Hg
tests show levels less than one half the
dioxin/furan and Hg standards.
Optimization Testing. The proposed
amendments would revise the operating
parameter requirements for the annual
testing to waive parameters during Hg
testing. The use of this approach would
provide the same flexibility in Hg
testing as currently allowed for dioxin/
furan testing. The standards presently
allow the operating parameters to be
waived during the dioxin/furan
performance test and during the two
weeks preceding the performance test
(§ 60.53b(b) and (c)). Such flexibility is
needed in cases where the owner or
operator wishes to use the performance
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75353
test to establish different site-specific
maximum or minimum values for their
operating parameters for Hg control.
Waiving the operating parameters
associated with dioxin/furan control
(i.e., load level and temperature at the
control device inlet) during these times
allows the source to optimize the
performance of the controls and to
perform the tests necessary to show that
the emission limits are met while
operating under the revised parameter
values. The EPA requests comments on
whether other parameters need such
flexibility. If you suggest additional
flexibility, identify the parameters and
explain why the flexibility is needed.
Reduced Testing for Well-operated
MWC Units. The EPA is proposing to
amend the NSPS and emission
guidelines provisions that allow
reduced frequency for testing of
exceptionally well-operated MWC units.
Well-operated MWC units are those
with emissions significantly below the
emission limits. Currently, reduced
testing is allowed if dioxin/furan
emission levels have been repeatedly
shown to be less than half of the
emission limit. The proposed
amendments would require both dioxin/
furan and mercury emissions to both be
less than half the emission limit to
qualify for reduced testing. By
amending the requirements to qualify
for reduced testing, we are providing an
incentive for MWC owners or operators
to optimize an MWC unit’s carbon
injection system and other operating
parameters for exceptional reduction of
both mercury and dioxin/furan
emissions.
CEMS Data Availability. The
proposed amendments would increase
the CEMS data collection requirement
from 90 percent of the operating days
per calendar quarter to 95 percent of the
operating days per calendar quarter. The
EPA obtained year 2003 CEMS data
from a large MWC plant. That data
included CEMS information on six
parameters for each of three MWC units
at the plant (SO2, NOX, opacity, flue gas
temperature at scrubber discharge, CO,
and HCl). Overall, the data contained 72
calendar quarters of CEMS data (3
combustion units x 4 calendar quarters
x 6 parameters). All CEMS produced
more than 99 percent data availability
for all calendar quarters for all
parameters monitored. As demonstrated
by the data, well-designed and operated
CEMS reliably collect data at rates
higher than required in current
regulations; thus, the proposed
amendments would increase the data
availability requirement to reflect
current operating practices and
performance.
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75354
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
PM CEMS. The proposed amendments
would allow the use of PM CEMS as an
alternative to PM performance testing by
EPA Method 5. Owners or operators
who choose to rely on PM CEMS would
be able to discontinue their annual
Method 5 test. The proposed
amendments incorporate the use of PS–
11 for PM CEMS and PS–11 QA
Procedure 2 to ensure that PM CEMS are
installed and operated properly and
produce good quality monitoring data.
An owner or operator of an MWC unit
who wishes to use PM CEMS would be
required to notify EPA one month before
starting use of PM CEMS and one month
before stopping use of the PM CEMS.
Additionally, EPA requests comment on
the appropriateness of dropping the
opacity monitoring requirements for
MWC units that use PM CEMS.
The PM emissions limits are based on
data from infrequent (normally annual)
stack tests and have been enforced by
stack test. The change to use of PM
CEMS for measurement and
enforcement of the same emission limits
must be carefully considered in relation
to an appropriate averaging period for
data reduction. The EPA considered this
issue and concluded the use of a 24-hr
block average was appropriate to
address PM emissions variability and
EPA has included the use of a 24-hour
block average in the proposed rule. The
24-hour block average would be
calculated following procedures in
Method 19.
PM CEMS have been applied
successfully at various sources
including fossil fueled power plants and
MWC units in Germany.
Other CEMS. The EPA considered
proposing the use of HCl CEMS, Hg
CEMS, and multi-metal CEMS as
alternatives to the existing ways of
demonstrating compliance with the HCl,
Hg, Cd, and Pb emissions limits.
Although the proposed rule does not
include such monitoring provisions,
EPA is considering development of PS
and including such provisions in the
final rule as an optional test method.
The EPA has not included such
provisions in the proposed rules
because it appears the current practice
of continuous monitoring of SO2 and
PM in combination with the continuous
monitoring of operating parameters
(boiler load, fuel gas temperature and
ACI rate) give a good indication of acid
gas, metals and organic emissions from
MWC units. The EPA specifically
requests comment on the reasonableness
of including optional provisions for use
of HCl CEMS, Hg CEMS, and multimetal CEMS in the final rule.
Relative to HCl monitoring, EPA is
aware that State agencies, such as those
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
in Michigan, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania, already require the use of
HCl CEMS for MWC units in their
jurisdictions. The EPA is also aware that
PS for HCl CEMS have been developed
by the Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In
response, EPA will consider such
actions as a request by Michigan,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania to use
HCl CEMS as an alternate test method
for determining compliance with the
HCl emission limits in both the NSPS
and emission guidelines for large MWC
units located in the states of Michigan,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. The
EPA will address this request in the
final rule.
The EPA has proposed PS–13 for HCl
CEMS and believes that PS can serve as
the basis for PS for HCl CEMS use at
MWC units. In addition to the
procedures used in proposed PS–13 for
HC1 for initial accuracy determination
using the relative accuracy test, a
comparison against a referenced
method, EPA is taking comment on an
alternate initial accuracy determination
procedure, similar to the one in section
11 of PS–15 using the dynamic or
analyte spiking procedure.
Relative to the use of Hg CEMS, the
EPA believes that PS–12A for fossil fuelfired boilers can provide the basis for
using Hg CEMS at MWC units. The EPA
is aware of the use of Hg CEMS use at
MWC units in Germany. Six sites
employ Hg CEMS; three MWC units,
one hazardous waste combustor, one
sewage sludge combustor, and one
sewage sludge/coal-fired power plant.
EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can
be used in many applications, including
MWC units. The EPA has monitored
side-by-side evaluations of multi-metals
CEMS with Method 29 at industrial
waste incinerators and found good
correlation. The EPA was also approved
to the use multi-metals CEMS as an
alternative monitoring method at a
hazardous waste combustor. The EPA
believes it is possible to adapt proposed
PS–10 or other EPA performance
specifications to allow the use of multimetal CEMS at MWC units. In addition
to the procedures used in proposed PS–
10 for initial accuracy determination
using the relative accuracy test, a
comparison against a reference method,
EPA is taking comment on an alternate
initial accuracy determination
procedure, similar to the one in section
11 of PS–15 using the dynamic or
analyte spiking procedure.
Whether or not EPA includes
provisions for use of HCl, Hg, or multimetal CEMS in the final NSPS and
emission guidelines, at any time, an
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
owner or operator of an MWC unit may
apply for approval of these monitoring
methods in lieu of specified monitoring
requirements. Such requests are
authorized according to the general
provisions of part 60 at 40 CFR 60.13(i).
The EPA is also aware of the use of
semi-continuous or CEMS for dioxin/
furan as alternatives to the existing ways
of showing compliance with the dioxin/
furan emissions limits. One semicontinuous dioxin/furan sampling
system is the Adsorption Method for
Sampling of Dioxins and Furans
(AMESA), which operates like an
automated Method 23 sampler and
yields average dioxin and furan
emissions over a specified period from
14 to 30 days. Again, the proposed rule
does not include provisions for such
monitoring, but EPA is considering
including such provisions in the final
regulations as an optional test method
for measuring dioxin/furan emissions.
The EPA specifically requests comments
on the reasonableness of including
provisions for this type of dioxin/furan
monitoring.
The EPA continues to be interested in
dioxin/furan monitoring technologies,
as evidenced by the upcoming
Environmental Technology Verification
testing program scheduled for summer
2005. During that two-week program, at
least four dioxin/furan monitoring
technologies will be evaluated, one of
which was successfully tested in
December 2004 at a MWC unit.
MWC unit owners and operators
should note that the use of HCl, Hg,
multi-metal, and dioxin/furan CEMS
technology may allow the
discontinuation of various parametric
monitoring including flue gas,
temperature, MWC load, and ACI rate.
H. How did EPA determine the other
amendments?
Administrator. The NSPS and
emission guidelines refer to both
‘‘Administrator’’ and ‘‘EPA
Administrator.’’ Because both terms are
used in the regulation and neither has
been defined, it has been unclear to
personnel implementing CAA section
111(d)/129 plans whether Administrator
was to be construed broadly to include
the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and
all of his/her designees, including the
Administrator of a State Air Pollution
Control Agency consistent with the
definition in the General Provisions, or
was intended to refer only to the
Administrator of the U.S. EPA. To
clarify the intent, the text has been
revised to ‘‘EPA’’ to refer to the EPA
Administrator where appropriate. The
term ‘‘Administrator’’ now refers to the
appropriate representative (e.g., Director
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75355
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of a State Air Pollution Control Agency
for section 111(d)/129 State plans and
EPA Administrator (or delegate) for
section 111(d)/129 Federal plans).
Definitions for the terms ‘‘EPA’’ and
‘‘Administrator’’ are included in the
proposed rule.
I. How was the implementation
schedule developed?
A consent decree issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia requires EPA to promulgate
any revisions of the emission guidelines
or NSPS for large MWC units that result
from this technical review by April 28,
2006. (See Sierra Club v. Whitman, No.
01–1537 (D.D.C.) Consent decree file
entered on May 22, 2003.) Consistent
with CAA section 129, EPA is proposing
that revisions to State plans be
submitted to EPA one year following
adoption of the revisions
(approximately April 28, 2007). Dates in
this preamble discussion and in the
proposed rule are estimated and will
depend on the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register.
Next, EPA chose to provide up to two
additional years for MWC units to
implement the revised guidelines (i.e.,
units must be in compliance by the date
two years after the date specified for
submitting State plans). Thus, final
compliance would occur on or before
April 28, 2009 (approximately). As
proposed, while revised State plans
must specify compliance no later than
three years following adoption of the
final rule (a compliance date of
approximately April 28, 2009),
consistent with CAA section 129, EPA
expects States to require compliance as
expeditiously as practical, and EPA
anticipates that many States will submit
revised State plans that include earlier
compliance dates. The proposed
emission limits can be achieved using
the same air pollution control
technology that served as the basis of
the current emission limits.
The EPA requests comment on an
alternate compliance schedule, as
follows. That schedule would be to
allow the same one year for State plan
submittal (approximately April 28,
2007), but allow only one additional
year for MWC units to achieve final
compliance (approximately April 28,
2008), with the option that a State can
request a longer compliance date for
specific MWC units, but in no case
longer than four years after the date by
which revised State plans are due (the
maximum allowed by CAA section 129).
In requesting a longer site-specific
schedule, a State would have to provide
a demonstration why additional time is
needed and how much additional time
is needed. Again, EPA requests
comment on this alternative schedule.
V. Impacts of the Proposed
Amendments for Existing Units
The EPA projects the proposed
amendments will have no additional
impacts to air, water, or energy since the
proposed emission limits can be
achieved using the same air pollution
control technology that was used to
comply with the current emission
limits. Similarly, EPA expects no
additional cost or economic impact for
the same reason. Existing large MWC
units will continue to use their existing
MACT control technology to meet the
emission limits, and will not incur costs
to retrofit equipment. The same
conclusions apply to new MWC units
since EPA expects that new MWC units
will be equipped with the same control
technology used to comply with the
1995 NSPS. EPA requests comment on
the projections that revising the
emission limits as proposed here will
not lead to any changes in MWC
operations, costs, or emissions. For
example, we seek information on
whether MWC operations could change
(and the resultant impacts on costs and
emissions) to ensure that an adequate
variability margin (some times called a
compliance margin) remains with the
proposed limits.
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC
units equipped with electrostatic
precipitator (ESP)-based scrubbing
systems to replace the ESP with a fabric
filter?
Yes. The EPA considered the option
of requiring the MWC owner or operator
of MWC units equipped with ESP-based
scrubbing systems to replace the ESP
with a fabric filter. The EPA conducted
an analysis of impacts resulting from the
implementation of such an option. The
analysis identified 21 MWC units with
ESP-based scrubbing systems. All other
MWC units are currently equipped with
fabric filter-based scrubbing systems. As
shown in Table 2 of this preamble, ESP
replacement at the 21 identified MWC
units would reduce MWC emissions by
about 130 tons per year (tpy). The
analysis determined that the annualized
cost of ESP replacement at these units
would be about $14.5 million per year.
If this cost is evenly assigned to the
emissions reductions listed in Table 2 of
this preamble, the cost of these emission
reductions would exceed $100,000 per
ton removed. The EPA has recently
completed other rulemakings that have
achieved considerable reductions of fine
particulate matter (PM 2.5). Because of
EPA’s interest in reducing such
emissions, the reductions in PM 2.5
emissions resulting from replacing ESPs
with fabric filters were also calculated.
The PM 2.5 reduction would be about
8 tpy. If all costs associated with ESP
replacement were assigned to PM 2.5
reductions, the cost of these additional
reductions in PM 2.5 emissions would
be about $900,000 per ton removed.
After considering the above factors in
relation to recent EPA rules, EPA
concluded that the cost-reduction ratio
for ESP replacement was excessive, and
decided not to require ESP replacement.
For a more detailed discussion of the
analysis, see the Docket.
TABLE 2.—EMISSION REDUCTION AND COST FOR 21 MWC UNITS WITH ESP-BASED SCRUBBING SYSTEMS
Current emissions (with
ESP based
control system), tpy
Emissions of
fabric filter option (with FFbased control
system), tpy
Potential emission reduction,
tpy
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) ..............................................................................................................
Cd ................................................................................................................................................
Pb .................................................................................................................................................
Hg ................................................................................................................................................
PM ................................................................................................................................................
PM 2.5 .........................................................................................................................................
Capital Cost (million, 2002 $) ......................................................................................................
2.6 E–4
0.20
2.7
0.70
210
60
NA
1.6E–4
0.03
0.30
0.20
80
44
119
1.0E–4
0.17
2.4
0.50
130
16
NA
Total Annual Cost (million, $ per year, 2002 $) ...................................................................
NA
14.5
NA
Pollutant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75356
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VII. How do the proposed amendments
relate to section 112(c)(6) of the Clean
Air Act?
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires
EPA to identify categories of sources of
seven specified pollutants to assure that
sources accounting for not less than 90
percent of the aggregate emissions of
each such pollutant are subject to
standards under CAA section 112(d)(2)
or 112(d)(4). The EPA has identified
municipal waste combustors as a source
category that emits five of the seven
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants: Hg,
dioxin, furans, polycyclic organic matter
(POM), and polychlorinated biphenols
(PCBs). (The POM emitted by MWC
units is composed of 16 polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable
organic matters (EOM).) In the Federal
Register notice Source Category Listing
for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6)
Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849,
Table 2 (1998), EPA identified
municipal waste combustors as a source
category ‘‘subject to regulation’’ for
purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6) with
respect to the CAA section 112(c)(6)
pollutants that MWC units emit. MWC
units are solid waste incineration units
currently regulated under CAA section
129. For purposes of CAA section
112(c)(6), EPA has determined that
standards promulgated under CAA
section 129 are substantively equivalent
to those promulgated under CAA
section 112(d). See Id. at 17845; see also
62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997). As
discussed in more detail below, the
CAA section 129 standards effectively
control emissions of the five identified
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants.
Further, since CAA section 129(h)(2)
precludes EPA from regulating these
substantial sources of the five identified
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants under
CAA section 112(d), EPA cannot further
regulate these emissions under that
CAA section. As a result, EPA considers
emissions of these five pollutants from
MWC units ‘‘subject to standards’’ for
purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA
section 129 MWC standards include
numeric emission limitations for the
nine pollutants specified in that section.
The combination of good combustion
practices (GCP) and add-on air pollution
control equipment (spray dryer, fabric
filter or ESP, ACI, and selective noncatalytic reduction) effectively reduces
emissions of the pollutants for which
emission limits are required under CAA
section 129: Hg, dioxin, furans, Cd, Pb,
PM, SO2, HCl, and NOX. Thus, the NSPS
and emissions guidelines specifically
require reduction in emissions of three
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
of the CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants:
Hg, dioxin, and furans. As explained
below, the air pollution controls
necessary to comply with the
requirements of the MWC NSPS and
emission guidelines also effectively
reduce emissions of the following CAA
section 112(c)(6) pollutants that are
emitted from MWC units: POM and
PCBs.
Although the CAA section 129 MWC
standards do not have separate, specific
emissions standards for PCBs and POM,
emissions of these two CAA section
112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively
controlled by the same control measures
used to comply with the numerical
emissions limits for the enumerated
CAA section 129 pollutants.
Specifically, as byproducts of
combustion, the formation of PCBs and
POM is effectively reduced by the
combustion and post-combustion
practices required to comply with the
CAA section 129 standards. Any PCBs
and POM that do form during
combustion are captured by the
combination of spray dryer, PM control,
and ACI system, which are necessary
post-combustion MWC controls. The
combination of spray dryer, PM control,
and ACI greatly reduces emissions of
these organic pollutants, as well as
reducing Hg emissions. The fact that
POM and PCBs are effectively
controlled by the application of MACT
is confirmed by POM and PCB emission
tests conducted at one large MWC with
MACT controls which showed nondetectable levels of POM and PCBs.
Based on post-MACT compliance tests
at all 167 large MWC units, the MWC
MACT regulations reduced Hg
emissions by 95 percent and dioxin/
furan emissions by greater than 99
percent from pre-MACT levels. In light
of the fact that the MACT controls also
effectively reduce emissions of POM
and PCBs, it is, therefore, reasonable to
conclude that POM and PCB emissions
are substantially reduced at all 167 large
MWC units. Thus, while the proposed
rule does not identify specific limits for
POM and PCB, they are for the reasons
noted above nonetheless ‘‘subject to
regulation’’ for purposes of section
112(c)(6) of the CAA.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action
is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to
review by OMB and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA
that it considers this a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ within the meaning
of the Executive Order. The EPA has
submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the
NSPS and emission guidelines for large
MWC units under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and
emission guidelines were promulgated
on December 19, 1995. The information
collection request has been assigned
OMB Control Number 2060–0210 (EPA
ICR No. 1506.10).
The proposed amendments result in
no changes to the information collection
requirements of the NSPS or emission
guidelines and will have no impact on
the information collection estimate of
project cost and hour burden made and
approved by OMB during the
development of the NSPS and emission
guidelines. Therefore, the information
collection requests have not been
revised.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the proposed amendments will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small government organizations, and
small government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of the proposed amendments on small
entities, small entity is defined as
follows: (1) A small business in the
regulated industry that has gross annual
revenues of less than $6 million; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a
small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of the proposed amendments on
small entities, I certify that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed amendments will
not impose any requirements on any
entities because it does not impose any
additional regulatory requirements.
Nevertheless, we continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures by State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any 1 year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the proposed rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if EPA
publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including Tribal governments, EPA
must develop a small government
agency plan under section 203 of the
UMRA. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA’s regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the
proposed amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and Tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any 1 year. Thus, the proposed
amendments are not subject to the
requirements of section 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. In addition, EPA has
determined that the proposed
amendments contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, the proposed amendments
are not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive Order to
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75357
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
Under section 6 of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. Also, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law, unless EPA consults with State and
local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
The proposed amendments do not
have federalism implications. They will
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The proposed
amendments will not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on State or local
governments because the proposed
regulations will not require any change
in the emission control technology
currently used to comply with the 1995
NSPS and emissions guidelines, and
will not preempt State law. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to the proposed amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’
The proposed amendments do not
have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. They will not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75358
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The EPA is not aware of any large MWC
unit owned or operated by Indian Tribal
government. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the proposed
amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. The proposed
amendments are not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because they are
based on technology performance and
not on health and safety risks. Also, the
proposed amendments are not
‘‘economically significant.’’
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) provides that agencies
shall prepare and submit to the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for
certain actions identified as ‘‘significant
energy actions.’’ Section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211 defines
‘‘significant energy actions’’ as ‘‘* * *
any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
significant energy action * * *.’’ The
proposed amendments are not
considered to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866. They also are not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Since there would be no change in
energy consumption resulting from the
proposed amendments, EPA does not
expect any price increase for any energy
type. We also expect that there would be
no impact on the import of foreign
energy supplies, and no other adverse
outcomes are expected to occur with
regards to energy supplies.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the
proposed amendments are not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No.
104–113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through
annual reports to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), with
explanations when an agency does not
use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
The MWC NSPS and emission
guidelines involve technical standards.
The EPA cites the following methods in
the NSPS and emission guidelines:
Methods 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A or 6C, 7
or 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E, 9, 10, 10A or 10B,
19, 22, 23, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A; Performance
Specifications (PS) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and
appendix F of 40 CFR part 60.
In previous searches and review,
which have been documented and
placed in the docket, EPA identified
four voluntary consensus standards that
have already been incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 60.17. The
voluntary consensus standard ASTM
D6216 (1998), ‘‘Standard Practice for
Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to
Certify Conformance with Design and
Performance Specifications,’’ is an
acceptable alternative for opacity
monitor design specifications given in
EPA’s PS 1 (promulgated in March
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1983). As a result, EPA incorporated
ASTM D6216–98 by reference into PS 1
as the design specifications for opacity
monitors in August 2000. (See 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.) The MWC NSPS
and emissions guidelines also
incorporate by reference into 40 CFR
part 60.17 ASME QRO–1–1994,
‘‘Standard for the Qualification and
Certification of Resource Recovery
Facility Operators’’ for operator
qualification and certification; ASME
PTC 4.1–1964 (reaffirmed 1991), ‘‘Power
Test Codes: Test Code for Steam
Generating Units,’’ for steam or
feedwater flow; and ASME Interim
Supplement 19.5 (6th Edition, 1971),
‘‘Instruments and Apparatus:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters,’’ for
nozzle and orifice design.
In this search and review, EPA
conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in
addition to EPA methods in the MWC
NSPS and emission guidelines. No
applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA
Methods 7D, 9, 10A, 19, and 22; and PS
3 and 4A. The search for emissions
measurement procedures identified 27
voluntary consensus standards
potentially applicable to the proposed
amendments. One of the 27 voluntary
consensus standards identified in this
search was not available at the time the
review was conducted for the purposes
of the proposed amendments because
the standard is under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASTM
WK3159 (Begun in 2003), ‘‘Practice for
Quality Assurance of Instrumental
Monitoring Systems.’’ The EPA
determined that two of the remaining 26
standards identified for measuring
emissions subject to the NSPS and
emission were practical alternatives to
EPA test methods for the purposes of
the proposed amendments. The EPA
determined that 24 standards were not
practical alternatives to EPA test
methods, therefore, EPA does not intend
to adopt these standards for this
purpose. The reasons for EPA’s
determinations are discussed in a
memorandum in the docket. The two
acceptable monitoring methods are
discussed below.
The EPA identified two voluntary
consensus standards as acceptable
alternatives to EPA test methods. ASME
PTC 19–10–1981-Part 10, ‘‘Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ includes manual
and instrumental methods of analyses
for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. The manual
methods of ASME PTC 19–10–1981–
Part 10 for measuring the nitrogen
oxide, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide
content of exhaust gas are acceptable
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
alternatives to Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and
7C. The instrumental methods of ASME
PTC 19–10–1981–Part 10 are not
acceptable as a substitute for EPA
Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7E, 10, and 10B.
The instrumental methods are only
general descriptions of procedures and
are not true methods. Therefore, while
some of the manual methods are
acceptable alternatives to EPA methods,
the instrumental methods are not.
The voluntary consensus standard
ASTM D6784–02, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(portion for mercury only) as a method
for measuring mercury. A full
discussion of acceptable and not
acceptable voluntary consensus
standards is contained in a
memorandum in the docket.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 60—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(76) ASTM D6784–02, Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), IBR
approved for appendix B to part 60,
Performance Specification 12A, section
8.6.2., § 60.58b(d)(2)(iii) and
60.58b(d)(2)(iv).
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(4) ASME PTC 19–10–1981-Part 10,
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, IBR
approved for § 60.58b(b)(i),
§ 60.58b(c)(2), § 60.58b(d)(1)(ii),
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
§ 60.30b Scope and delegation of
authority.
(a) This subpart contains emission
guidelines and compliance schedules
for the control of certain designated
pollutants from certain municipal waste
combustors in accordance with section
111(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air
Act and subpart B of this part. The
provisions in these emission guidelines
apply instead of the provisions of
§ 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part.
(b) The following authorities shall be
retained by EPA:
(1) Approval of exemption claims in
§ 60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e), (f)(1), (i)(1);
(2) Approval of a nitrogen oxides
trading program under § 60.33b(d)(2);
and
(3) Approval of other monitoring
systems used to obtain emissions data
when data are not obtained by
continuous emissions monitoring
systems as specified in § 60.58b(e)(14),
(h)(12), and (i)(11), as specified in
§ 60.38b.
4. Amend § 60.31b by adding the
definitions of ‘‘Semi-suspension refusederived fuel-fired combustor/wet refusederived fuel process conversion’’ and
‘‘Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuelfired combustor/100 percent coal
capable’’ in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuelfired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel
process conversion means a combustion
unit that was converted from a wet
refuse-derived fuel process to a dry
refuse-derived fuel process, and because
of constraints in the design of the
system, includes a low furnace height
(less than 60 feet between the grate and
the roof) and a high waste capacity-toundergrate air zone ratio (greater than
300 tons of waste per day (tpd) fuel per
each undergrate air zone).
Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuelfired combustor/100 percent coal
capable means a spreader stoker refusederived fuel-fired combustor that
typically fires 100 percent refusederived fuel but is equipped to burn 100
percent coal instead of refuse-derived
fuel to fulfill 100 percent steam or
energy demand.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5. Amend § 60.32b by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (d);
c. Revising paragraph (e);
d. Revising paragraph (f)(1); and
e. Revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 60.32b
3. Revise § 60.30b, to read as follows:
*
2. Section 60.17 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(76) and adding
paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Subpart Cb—[Amended]
§ 60.31b
Subpart A—[Amended]
§ 60.17
§ 60.58b(d)(2)(ii), § 60.58b(e)(12)(i)(A),
§ 60.58b(e)(12)(i)(B), § 60.58b(g)(2),
§ 60.58b(h)(10)(i)(A),
§ 60.58b(h)(10)(i)(B), and
§ 60.58b(i)(3)(ii)(B).
*
*
*
*
*
75359
Designated facilities.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
claim,
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A qualifying small power
production facility, as defined in section
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive
tires or used oil, but not including
refuse-derived fuel) for the production
of electric energy is not subject to this
subpart if the owner or operator of the
facility notifies EPA of this exemption
and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility,
as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous
waste (such as automotive tires or used
oil, but not including refuse-derived
fuel) for the production of electric
energy and steam or forms of useful
energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or
cooling purposes, is not subject to this
subpart if the owner or operator of the
facility notifies EPA of this exemption
and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(f) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
claim, and
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
claim,
*
*
*
*
*
6. Amend § 60.33b by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b);
c. Revising paragraph (c);
d. Removing tables 1 and 2; and
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3)
introductory text to read as follows:
§ 60.33b Emission guidelines for
municipal waste combustor metals, acid
gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The emission limits for municipal
waste combustor metals are specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall
include emission limits for particulate
matter and opacity at least as protective
as the emission limits for particulate
matter and opacity specified in
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75360
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for particulate matter contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere
from a designated facility is 27
milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. On
and after April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for particulate matter contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere
from a designated facility is 24
milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) The emission limit for opacity
exhibited by the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is
10 percent (6-minute average).
(2) For approval, a State plan shall
include emission limits for cadmium at
least as protective as the emission limits
for cadmium specified in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for cadmium contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from
a designated facility is 40 micrograms
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected
to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April
28, 2009, the emission limit for
cadmium contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 31 micrograms per
dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For approval, a State plan shall
include emission limits for mercury at
least as protective as the emission limits
specified in this paragraph (a)(3). The
emission limit for mercury contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere
from a designated facility is 80
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter or 15 percent of the potential
mercury emission concentration (85percent reduction by weight), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
stringent.
(4) For approval, a State plan shall
include an emission limit for lead at
least as protective as the emission limit
for lead specified in this paragraph.
Before April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for lead contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 440 micrograms
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April
28, 2009, the emission limit for lead
contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is
250 micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(b) The emission limits for municipal
waste combustor acid gases, expressed
as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
chloride, are specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(3) For approval, a State shall include
emission limits for sulfur dioxide and
hydrogen chloride at least as protective
as the emission limits specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from
a designated facility is 29 parts per
million by volume or 25 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (75-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7
percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
less stringent. On and after April 28,
2009, the emission limit for sulfur
dioxide contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 23 parts per
million by volume or 20 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (80-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7
percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
less stringent. Compliance with this
emission limit is based on a 24-hour
daily geometric mean.
(ii) Before April 28, 2009, the
emission limit for hydrogen chloride
contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is
29 parts per million by volume or 5
percent of the potential hydrogen
chloride emission concentration (95percent reduction by weight or volume),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis), whichever is less stringent. On
and after April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for hydrogen chloride contained in
the gases discharged to the atmosphere
from a designated facility is 26 parts per
million by volume or 3 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (97-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
less stringent.
(c) The emission limits for municipal
waste combustor organics, expressed as
total mass dioxin/furan, are specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall
include an emission limit for dioxin/
furan contained in the gases discharged
to the atmosphere from a designated
facility at least as protective as the
emission limit for dioxin/furan
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as
applicable.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission
limit for designated facilities that
employ an electrostatic precipitatorbased emission control system is 60
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
(total mass), corrected to 7 percent
oxygen.
(ii) Before April 28, 2009, the
emission limit for designated facilities
that do not employ an electrostatic
precipitator-based emission control
system is 30 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter (total mass),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(iii) On and after April 28, 2009, the
emission limit for designated facilities is
21 nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (total mass), corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) * * *
(2) A State plan may establish a
program to allow owners or operators of
municipal waste combustor plants to
engage in trading of nitrogen oxides
emission credits. A trading program
must be approved by EPA before
implementation.
(3) For approval, a State plan shall
include emission limits for nitrogen
oxides from fluidized bed combustors at
least as protective as the emission limits
listed in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and
(d)(3)(ii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 60.34b
[Amended]
6a. Amend § 60.34b by removing table
3.
7. Add tables 1, 2, and 3 to subpart
Cb to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75361
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES
Municipal waste combustor technology
Before April
28, 2009, nitrogen oxides
emission limit
(parts per
million by
volume) a
On and after
April 28,
2009, nitrogen oxides
emission limit
(parts per
million by
volume) a
Mass burn waterwall .....................................................................................................................................................
Mass burn rotary waterwall ..........................................................................................................................................
Refuse-derived fuel combustor ....................................................................................................................................
Fluidized bed combustor ..............................................................................................................................................
Mass burn refractory combustors .................................................................................................................................
205 ..............
250 ..............
250 ..............
180 ..............
no limit .........
205
158
219
180
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
28, 2009, nitrogen oxides
emission limit
(parts per million by volume) b
Municipal waste combustor technology
Mass burn waterwall ................................................................................................................................................
Mass burn rotary waterwall .....................................................................................................................................
Refuse-derived fuel combustor ................................................................................................................................
Fluidized bed combustor .........................................................................................................................................
On and after
April 28, 2009,
nitrogen oxides emission
limit (parts per
million by volume) a
185
220
230
165
185
142
197
165
a Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors and other MWC technologies not listed above may not be included in an emissions averaging plan.
b Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART CB OF PART 60.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES
Carbon monoxide emissions level
(parts per million by volume) a
Municipal waste combustor technology
Mass burn waterwall ................................................................................................................................................
Mass burn refractory ................................................................................................................................................
Mass burn rotary refractory .....................................................................................................................................
Mass burn rotary waterwall .....................................................................................................................................
Modular starved air ..................................................................................................................................................
Modular excess air ..................................................................................................................................................
Refuse-derived fuel stoker .......................................................................................................................................
Fluidized bed, mixed fuel (wood/refuse-derived fuel) .............................................................................................
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor ...........................................................................................................................
Circulating fluidized bed combustor ........................................................................................................................
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor .............................................................................
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ....................................................................
Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel process conversion ......................
Spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/100 percent coal capable ....................................................
Averaging time
(hrs) b
100
100
100
250
50
50
200
200
100
100
150
200
250
250
4
4
24
24
4
4
24
c 24
4
4
4
24
c 24
c 24
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. Calculated 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:
§ 60.36b Emission guidelines for
municipal waste combustor fugitive ash
emissions.
For approval, a State plan shall
include requirements for municipal
waste combustor fugitive ash emissions
at least as protective as those
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:54 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
requirements listed in § 60.55b of
subpart Eb of this part.
9. Amend § 60.38b by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 60.38b
testing.
*
PO 00000
*
Compliance and performance
*
Frm 00015
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
(b) For approval, a State plan shall
include the alternative performance
testing schedule for dioxin/furan
specified in § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart
Eb of this part, as applicable, for those
designated facilities that achieve both a
dioxin/furan emission level less than or
equal to 10 nanograms per dry standard
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75362
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
cubic meter total mass, corrected to 7
percent oxygen and a mercury emission
level less than or equal to 40
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter total mass, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Amend § 60.39b by:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text;
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B);
d. Revising paragraph (e); and
e. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to
read as follows:
§ 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping
guidelines and compliance schedules.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Not later than December 19, 1996,
each State in which a designated facility
is located shall submit to EPA a plan to
implement and enforce all provisions of
this subpart except those specified
under § 60.33b (a)(4), (b)(3), and (d)(3).
Not later than April 28, 2007, each State
in which a designated facility is located
shall submit to EPA a plan to implement
and enforce all provisions of this
subpart, as amended on [DATE FINAL
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal
Register]. The compliance schedule
specified in this paragraph is in
accordance with section 129(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act and applies instead of the
compliance schedule provided in
§ 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of this part.
(c) For approval, a State plan that is
required to be submitted by December
19, 1996 and is submitted prior to
December 19, 2005 shall include the
compliance schedules specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) The owner or operator of a
designated facility may request that the
Administrator waive the requirement
specified in § 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of
this part for chief facility operators, shift
supervisors, and control room operators
who have obtained provisional
certification from the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers on or before
the initial date of State plan approval.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Not later than August 25, 1998,
each State in which a designated facility
is operating shall submit to EPA a plan
to implement and enforce all provisions
of this subpart specified in § 60.33b
(a)(4), (b)(3), and (d)(3).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) For approval, a revised State plan
submitted not later than April 28, 2007
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
section, shall include compliance
schedules for meeting the revised April
28, 2009 emission limits in § 60.33b(a),
(b), (c), (d), and § 60.34b(a), and the
revised testing provisions in § 60.38b(b).
Compliance with the revised April 28,
2009 emission limits shall be required
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than April 28, 2009.
(h) In the event no plan for
implementing the emission guidelines is
approved by EPA, all designated
facilities meeting the applicability
requirements under § 60.32b shall be in
compliance with all of the guidelines,
including the revised April 28, 2009
emission limits in § 60.33b(a), (b), (c),
(d), and § 60.34b(a), and the revised
testing provisions in § 60.38b(b), no
later than [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER
DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN
THE Federal Register].
Subpart Eb—[Amended]
11. Amend § 60.50b by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (e);
d. Revising paragraph (f);
e. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
f. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and
g. Revising paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
§ 60.50b Applicability and delegation of
authority.
(a) The affected facility to which this
subpart applies is each municipal waste
combustor unit with a combustion
capacity greater than 250 tons per day
of municipal solid waste for which
construction, modification, or
reconstruction is commenced after
September 20, 1994.
(b) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
claim;
*
*
*
*
*
(e) A qualifying small power
production facility, as defined in section
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive
tires or used oil, but not including
refuse-derived fuel) for the production
of electric energy is not subject to this
subpart if the owner or operator of the
facility notifies EPA of this exemption
and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(f) A qualifying cogeneration facility,
as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous
waste (such as automotive tires or used
oil, but not including refuse-derived
fuel) for the production of electric
energy and steam or forms of useful
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or
cooling purposes, is not subject to this
subpart if the owner or operator of the
facility notifies EPA of this exemption
and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(g) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
claim; and
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
claim;
*
*
*
*
*
(n) The following authorities shall be
retained by the Administrator of the
U.S. EPA and not transferred to a State:
(1) Approval of exemption claims in
paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g) and (j) of this
section;
(2) Enforceability under Federal law
of all Federally enforceable, as defined
in § 60.51b, limitations and conditions;
(3) Determination of compliance with
the siting requirements as specified in
§ 60.57b(a);
(4) Acceptance of relationship
between carbon monoxide and oxygen
as part of initial and annual
performance tests as specified in
§ 60.58b(b)(7); and
(5) Approval of other monitoring
systems used to obtain emissions data
when data is not obtained by CEMS as
specified in § 60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12), and
(i)(11).
*
*
*
*
*
12. Amend § 60.51b by revising the
definition of ‘‘Federally enforceable’’
and adding the definitions for
‘‘Administrator’’ and ‘‘EPA’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 60.51b
Definitions.
Administrator means:
(1) For approved and effective State
Section 111(d)/129 plans, the Director of
the State air pollution control agency, or
employee of the State air pollution
control agency that is delegated the
authority to perform the specified task;
(2) For Federal Section 111(d)/129
plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an
employee of the EPA, the Director of the
State air pollution control agency, or
employee of the State air pollution
control agency to whom the authority
has been delegated by the Administrator
of the EPA to perform the specified task;
and
(3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the
EPA, an employee of the EPA, the
Director of the State air pollution
control agency, or employee of the State
air pollution control agency to whom
the authority has been delegated by the
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Administrator of the EPA to perform the
specified task.
*
*
*
*
*
EPA means the Administrator of the
EPA or employee of the EPA that is
delegated to perform the specified task.
Federally enforceable means all
limitations and conditions that are
enforceable by EPA including the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR
part 61, and 40 CFR part 63,
requirements within any applicable
State implementation plan, and any
permit requirements established under
40 CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18
and 40 CFR 51.24.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Amend § 60.52b by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
d. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text;
g. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and
h. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text to read as follows:
§ 60.52b Standards for municipal waste
combustor metals, acid gases, organics,
and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The limits for municipal waste
combustor metals are specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this
section.
(1) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from that affected facility
any gases that contain particulate matter
in excess of the limits specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(i) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after September 20,
1994, and on or before December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 24
milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 9.5
milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
atmosphere from that affected facility
any gases that contain cadmium in
excess of the limits specified in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(i) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after September 20,
1994, and on or before December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 20
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 3.5
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(4) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from the affected facility
any gases that contain lead in excess of
the limits specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i)
or (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after September 20,
1994, and on or before December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 200
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 84
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(5) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from the affected facility
any gases that contain mercury in excess
of the limits specified in paragraph
(a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after September 20,
1994 and on or before December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 80
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter or 15 percent of the potential
mercury emission concentration (85percent reduction by weight), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
stringent.
(ii) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 49
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, or 10 percent of the potential
mercury emission concentration (90-
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75363
percent reduction by weight), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
stringent.
(b) The limits for municipal waste
combustor acid gases are specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
section.
(1) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from that affected facility
any gases that contain sulfur dioxide in
excess of the limits specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(i) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after September 20,
1994 and on or before December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 30 parts per
million by volume or 20 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (80-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7
percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
less stringent. The averaging time is
specified in § 60.58b(e).
(ii) For affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction after December 19,
2005, the emission limit is 19 parts per
million by volume or 10 percent of the
potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (90-percent reduction by
weight or volume), corrected to 7
percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is
less stringent. The averaging time is
specified in § 60.58b(e).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The limits for municipal waste
combustor organics are specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Amend § 60.53b by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); and
d. Revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 60.53b Standards for municipal waste
combustor operating practices.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or
mercury performance test and the 2
weeks preceding the annual dioxin/
furan or mercury performance test, no
municipal waste combustor unit load
limit is applicable if the provisions of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
(2) The municipal waste combustor
unit load limit may be waived in writing
by the Administrator for the purpose of
evaluating system performance, testing
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75364
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
new technology or control technologies,
diagnostic testing, or related activities
for the purpose of improving facility
performance or advancing the state-ofthe-art for controlling facility emissions.
The municipal waste combustor unit
load limit continues to apply, and
remains enforceable, until and unless
the Administrator grants the waiver.
(c) * * *
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or
mercury performance test and the 2
weeks preceding the annual dioxin/
furan or mercury performance test, no
particulate matter control device
temperature limitations are applicable.
(2) The particulate matter control
device temperature limits may be
waived in writing by the Administrator
for the purpose of evaluating system
performance, testing new technology or
control technologies, diagnostic testing,
or related activities for the purpose of
improving facility performance or
advancing the state-of-the-art for
controlling facility emissions. The
temperature limits continue to apply,
and remain enforceable, until and
unless the Administrator grants the
waiver.
15. Amend § 60.54b by revising
paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
§ 60.54b Standards for municipal waste
combustor operator training and
certification.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) If both the certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
are unavailable, a provisionally certified
control room operator on site at the
municipal waste combustion unit may
fulfill the certified operator
requirement. Depending on the length of
time that a certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
are away, the owner or operator of the
affected facility must meet one of three
criteria:
(i) When the certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
are both off site for 12 hours or less, and
no other certified operator is on site, the
provisionally certified control room
operator may perform the duties of the
certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor without notice
to, or approval by, the Administrator.
(ii) When the certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
are off site for more than 12 hours, but
for 2 weeks or less, and no other
certified operator is on site, the
provisionally certified control room
operator may perform the duties of the
certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor without notice
to, or approval by, the Administrator.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
However, the owner or operator of the
affected facility must record the period
when the certified chief facility operator
and certified shift supervisor are off site
and include that information in the
annual report as specified under
§ 60.59b(g)(5).
(iii) When the certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
are off site for more than 2 weeks, and
no other certified operator is on site, the
provisionally certified control room
operator may perform the duties of the
certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor without notice
to, or approval by, the Administrator.
However, the owner or operator of the
affected facility must take two actions:
(A) Notify the Administrator in
writing. In the notice, state what caused
the absence and what actions are being
taken by the owner or operator of the
facility to ensure that a certified chief
facility operator or certified shift
supervisor is on site as expeditiously as
practicable.
(B) Submit a status report and
corrective action summary to the
Administrator every 4 weeks following
the initial notification. If the
Administrator provides notice that the
status report or corrective action
summary is disapproved, the municipal
waste combustion unit may continue
operation for 90 days, but then must
cease operation. If corrective actions are
taken in the 90-day period such that the
Administrator withdraws the
disapproval, municipal waste
combustion unit operation may
continue.
*
*
*
*
*
16. Amend § 60.55b by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 60.55b Standards for municipal waste
combustor fugitive ash emissions.
(a) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under § 60.8
of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere visible emissions of
combustion ash from an ash conveying
system (including conveyor transfer
points) in excess of 5 percent of the
observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3hour period), as determined by EPA
Reference Method 22 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) observations as specified in
§ 60.58b(k), except as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
17. Amend § 60.57b by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(a)(6) to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 60.57b
Siting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall prepare a materials
separation plan, as defined in § 60.51b,
for the affected facility and its service
area, and shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section. The
initial application is defined as
representing a good faith submittal as
determined by EPA.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) As required under § 60.59b(a), the
owner or operator shall submit to EPA
a copy of the notification of the public
meeting, a transcript of the public
meeting, the document summarizing
responses to public comments, and
copies of both the preliminary and final
draft materials separation plans on or
before the time the facility’s application
for a construction permit is submitted
under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part
52, as applicable.
*
*
*
*
*
18. Amend § 60.58b by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(6)(i), and (b)(7);
b. Revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(9),
and (c)(11);
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii),
(d)(1)(vii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv),
and (d)(2)(ix);
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(7)
introductory text, (e)(12)(i)(A),
(e)(12)(i)(B), and (e)(14);
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(5)(i),
(g)(5)(iii), and (g)(7);
f. Revising paragraphs (h)(6)
introductory text, (h)(10)(i)(B), and
(h)(12);
g. Revising paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(B),
(i)(10) introductory text, and (i)(11);
h. Revising paragraph (m)(2); and
i. Adding paragraphs (c)(10) and
(g)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 60.58b
testing.
Compliance and performance
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a continuous
emission monitoring system for
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide
content of the flue gas at each location
where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides emissions, or particulate
matter (if the owner or operator elects to
continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions under paragraph (c)(10) of
this section) are monitored and record
the output of the system and shall
comply with the test procedures and
test methods specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(6) * * *
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method
3B shall be used to determine the
relationship between oxygen and carbon
dioxide at a sampling location. Method
3, 3A, or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–
1981—Part 10 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), as applicable, shall be used to
determine the oxygen concentration at
the same location as the carbon dioxide
monitor.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) The relationship between carbon
dioxide and oxygen concentrations that
is established in accordance with
paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall be
submitted to EPA or the director of a
State air pollution control agency, if so
delegated by EPA, as part of the initial
performance test report and, if
applicable, as part of the annual test
report if the relationship is reestablished
during the annual performance test.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(10) of this section, the procedures
and test methods specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(11) of this
section shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter and opacity under
§ 60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A
or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part
10 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as
applicable, shall be used for gas
analysis.
(3) EPA Reference Method 5 shall be
used for determining compliance with
the particulate matter emission limit.
The minimum sample volume shall be
1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter
holder heating systems in the sample
train shall be set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 160°C. An
oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement
shall be obtained simultaneously with
each Method 5 run.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Following the date that the initial
performance test for particulate matter
is completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of
this part for an affected facility, the
owner or operator shall conduct a
performance test for particulate matter
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9
months and no more than 15 calendar
months following the previous
performance test).
(10) In place of particulate matter
testing with EPA Reference Method 5,
an owner or operator may elect to
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous emission monitoring
system for monitoring particulate matter
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
emissions discharged to the atmosphere
and record the output of the system. The
owner or operator of an affected facility
who elects to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of
conducting performance testing using
EPA Method 5 shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a continuous
emission monitoring system and shall
comply with the requirements specified
in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through
(c)(10)(xiv) of this section.
(i) Notify the Administrator one
month before starting use of the system.
(ii) Notify the Administrator one
month before stopping use of the
system.
(iii) The monitor shall be installed,
evaluated, and operated in accordance
with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(iv) The initial performance
evaluation shall be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial
startup of the affected facility, as
specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of
this part or within 180 days of
notification to the Administrator of use
of the continuous monitoring system if
the owner or operator was previously
determining compliance by Method 5
performance tests, whichever is later.
(v) The owner or operator of an
affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected
to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
The relationship between oxygen and
carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified
in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(vi) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an initial
performance test for particulate matter
emissions as required under § 60.8 of
subpart A of this part. Compliance with
the particulate matter emission limit
shall be determined by using the
continuous emission monitoring system
specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this
section to measure particulate matter
and calculating a 24-hour block
arithmetic average emission
concentration using EPA Reference
Method 19, section 4.1.
(vii) Compliance with the particulate
matter emission limit shall be
determined based on the 24-hour daily
(block) average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system
outlet data.
(viii) At a minimum, valid continuous
monitoring system hourly averages shall
be obtained as specified in paragraphs
(c)(10)(viii)(A) and (c)(10)(viii)(B) of this
section for 75 percent of the operating
hours per day for 95 percent of the
operating days per calendar quarter that
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75365
the affected facility is combusting
municipal solid waste.
(A) At least two data points per hour
shall be used to calculate each 1-hour
arithmetic average.
(B) Each particulate matter 1-hour
arithmetic average shall be corrected to
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
(ix) The 1-hour arithmetic averages
required under paragraph (c)(10)(vii) of
this section shall be expressed in
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis)
and shall be used to calculate the 24hour daily arithmetic average emission
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages shall be calculated using the
data points required under § 60.13(e)(2)
of subpart A of this part.
(x) All valid continuous emission
monitoring system data shall be used in
calculating average emission
concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of paragraph
(c)(10)(viii) of this section are not met.
(xi) The continuous emission
monitoring system shall be operated
according to Performance Specification
11 in appendix B of this part.
(xii) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
Performance Specification 11 in
appendix B of this part, particulate
matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data shall be collected concurrently (or
within a 30-to 60-minute period) by
both the continuous emission monitors
and the test methods specified in
paragraphs (c)(10)(xii)(A) and
(c)(10)(xii)(B) of this section.
(A) For particulate matter, EPA
Reference Method 5 shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as
applicable shall be used.
(xiii) Quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration
drift tests shall be performed in
accordance with procedure 2 in
appendix F of this part.
(xiv) When particulate matter
emissions data are not obtained because
of continuous emission monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained by
using other monitoring systems as
approved by the Administrator or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as
necessary, valid emissions data for a
minimum of 75 percent of the hours per
day that the affected facility is operated
and combusting municipal solid waste
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75366
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
for 95 percent of the days per calendar
quarter that the affected facility is
operated and combusting municipal
solid waste.
(11) Following the date that the initial
performance test for opacity is
completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of
this part for an affected facility, the
owner or operator shall conduct a
performance test for opacity on an
annual basis (no less than 9 calendar
months and no more than 15 calendar
months following the previous
performance test) using the test method
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A,
or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part
10 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as
applicable, shall be used for flue gas
analysis.
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) Following the date of the initial
performance test or the date on which
the initial performance test is required
to be completed under § 60.8 of subpart
A of this part, the owner or operator of
an affected facility shall conduct a
performance test for compliance with
the emission limits for cadmium and
lead on a calendar year basis (no less
than 9 calendar months and no more
than 15 calendar months following the
previous performance test).
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A,
or 3B, or ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part
10 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), as
applicable, shall be used for flue gas
analysis.
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 or
ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), shall be used to determine the
mercury emission concentration. The
minimum sample volume when using
Method 29 for mercury shall be 1.7
cubic meters.
(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 29 or
ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), test run for mercury required
under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(ix) Following the date that the initial
performance test for mercury is
completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of
this part, the owner or operator of an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
affected facility shall conduct a
performance test for mercury emissions
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9
calendar months and no more than 12
calendar months from the previous
performance test), unless the owner or
operator follows the testing schedule
specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(7) At a minimum, valid continuous
monitoring system hourly averages shall
be obtained as specified in paragraphs
(e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) of this section for
75 percent of the operating hours per
day for 95 percent of the operating days
per calendar quarter that the affected
facility is combusting municipal solid
waste.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference
Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or ASTM D6784–
02 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 60.17 of subpart A of this part), shall
be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated by
reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), as applicable, shall be used.
*
*
*
*
*
(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions
data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and/or zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained by
using other monitoring systems as
approved by EPA or EPA Reference
Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of
75 percent of the hours per day that the
affected facility is operated and
combusting municipal solid waste for
95 percent of the days per calendar
quarter that the affected facility is
operated and combusting municipal
solid waste.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A,
or 3B, or ASTM D6784–02 (incorporated
by reference, see § 60.17 of subpart A of
this part), as applicable, shall be used
for flue gas analysis.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(i) For affected facilities, performance
tests shall be conducted on a calendar
year basis (no less than 9 calendar
months and no more than 15 calendar
months following the previous
performance test.)
(ii) For the purpose of evaluating
system performance to establish new
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
operating parameter levels, testing new
technology or control technologies,
diagnostic testing, or related activities
for the purpose of improving facility
performance or advancing the state-ofthe-art for controlling facility emissions,
the owner or operator of an affected
facility that qualifies for the
performance testing schedule specified
in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section,
may test one unit and apply the
operating parameters to similarly
designed and equipped units on site by
meeting the requirements specified in
paragraphs (g)(5)(ii)(A) through
(g)(5)(ii)(D) of this section.
(A) Follow the testing schedule
established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of
this section. For example, each year a
different affected facility at the
municipal waste combustor plant shall
be tested, and the affected facilities at
the plant shall be tested in sequence
(e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as
applicable).
(B) Upon meeting the requirements in
paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section for
one affected facility, the owner or
operator may elect to apply the average
carbon mass feed rate and associated
carbon injection system operating
parameter levels as established in
paragraph (m) of this section to
similarly designed and equipped units
on site.
(C) Upon testing each subsequent unit
in accordance with the testing schedule
established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of
this section, the dioxin/furan and
mercury emissions of the subsequent
unit shall not exceed the dioxin/furan
and mercury emissions measured in the
most recent test of that unit prior to the
revised operating parameter levels.
(D) The owner or operator of an
affected facility that selects to follow the
performance testing schedule specified
in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section
and apply the carbon injection system
operating parameters to similarly
designed and equipped units on site
shall follow the procedures specified in
§ 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting.
(iii) Where all performance tests over
a 2-year period indicate that both
dioxin/furan emissions are less than or
equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter (total mass) and that
mercury emissions are less than or equal
to 25 micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter for all affected facilities located
within a municipal waste combustor
plant, the owner or operator of the
municipal waste combustor plant may
elect to conduct annual performance
tests for one affected facility (i.e., unit)
per year at the municipal waste
combustor plant. At a minimum, a
performance test for dioxin/furan and
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
mercury emissions shall be conducted
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9
calendar months and no more than 15
months following the previous
performance test) for one affected
facility at the municipal waste
combustor plant. Each year a different
affected facility at the municipal waste
combustor plant shall be tested, and the
affected facilities at the plant shall be
tested in sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit 2,
unit 3, as applicable). If each annual
performance test continues to indicate
both a dioxin/furan emission level less
than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter (total mass) and a
mercury emission level less than or
equal to 25 micrograms per dry standard
cubic meter, the owner or operator may
continue conducting a performance test
on only one affected facility per
calendar year. If any annual
performance test indicates either a
dioxin/furan emission level greater than
7 nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (total mass) or a mercury emission
level greater than 25 micrograms per dry
standard cubic meter, performance tests
shall thereafter be conducted annually
on all affected facilities at the plant
until and unless all annual performance
tests for all affected facilities at the plant
over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/
furan emission level less than or equal
to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (total mass) and mercury emission
level less than or equal to 25
micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) The owner or operator of an
affected facility where activated carbon
is used to comply with the dioxin/furan
and mercury emission limits specified
in § 60.52b(c) or the dioxin/furan and
mercury emission limits specified in
paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section shall
follow the procedures specified in
paragraph (m) of this section for
measuring and calculating the carbon
usage rate.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(6) At a minimum, valid continuous
emission monitoring system hourly
averages shall be obtained as specified
in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of
this section for 75 percent of the
operating hours per day for 95 percent
of the operating days per calendar
quarter that the affected facility is
combusting municipal solid waste.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17
of subpart A of this part), as applicable,
shall be used.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) When nitrogen oxides continuous
emissions data are not obtained because
of continuous emission monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained using
other monitoring systems as approved
by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to
provide, as necessary, valid emissions
data for a minimum of 75 percent of the
hours per day for 95 percent of the days
per calendar quarter the unit is operated
and combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17
of subpart A of this part), as applicable,
shall be used.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) At a minimum, valid continuous
emission monitoring system hourly
averages shall be obtained as specified
in paragraphs (i)(10)(i) and (i)(10)(ii) of
this section for 75 percent of the
operating hours per day for 95 percent
of the operating days per calendar
quarter that the affected facility is
combusting municipal solid waste.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) All valid continuous emission
monitoring system data must be used in
calculating the parameters specified
under paragraph (i) of this section even
if the minimum data requirements of
paragraph (i)(10) of this section are not
met. When carbon monoxide
continuous emission data are not
obtained because of continuous
emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained using
other monitoring systems as approved
by EPA or EPA Reference Method 10 to
provide, as necessary, the minimum
valid emission data.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(2) During operation of the affected
facility, the carbon injection system
operating parameter(s) that are the
primary indicator(s) of the carbon mass
feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) shall
be averaged over a block 8-hour period,
and the 8-hour block average must equal
or exceed the level(s) documented
during the performance tests specified
under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii)
of this section, except as specified in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75367
paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(i) During the annual mercury
performance test and the 2 weeks
preceding the annual mercury
performance test, no limit is applicable
for average mass carbon feed rate.
(ii) The limit for average mass carbon
feed rate may be waived in accordance
with permission granted by the
Administrator for the purpose of
evaluating system performance, testing
new technology or control technologies,
diagnostic testing, or related activities
for the purpose of improving facility
performance or advancing the state-ofthe-art for controlling facility emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
19. Amend § 60.59b by:
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i)
introductory text;
b. Revising (d)(2)(ii) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
d. Revising paragraph (d)(6)
introductory text;
e. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(iv);
f. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(v);
g. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
h. Revising paragraph (d)(12)
introductory text;
i. Revising paragraph (g) introductory
text;
j. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii);
k. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
l. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v);
m. Revising paragraph (g)(4);
n. Revising paragraph (h)(1);
o. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E);
p. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E);
q. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi);
r. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
s. Adding paragraph (d)(12)(iv);
t. Adding paragraph (g)(5); and
u. Adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
§ 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The measurements specified in
paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through
(d)(2)(i)(E) of this section shall be
recorded and be available for submittal
to the Administrator or review onsite by
an EPA or State inspector.
*
*
*
*
*
(E) For owners and operators who
elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of
conducting performance testing using
EPA Method 5, all 1-hour average
particulate matter emission
concentrations as specified under
§ 60.58b(d)(10).
(ii) The average concentrations and
percent reductions, as applicable,
specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A)
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75368
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section shall
be computed and recorded, and shall be
available for submittal to the
Administrator or review on-site by an
EPA or State inspector.
*
*
*
*
*
(E) For owners and operators who
elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of
conducting performance testing using
EPA Method 5, all 24-hour daily
arithmetic average particulate matter
emission concentrations as specified
under § 60.58b(d)(10).
(3) Identification of the calendar dates
when any of the average emission
concentrations, percent reductions, or
operating parameters recorded under
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through
(d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section, or the
opacity levels recorded under paragraph
(d)(2)(i)(A) of this section are above the
applicable limits, with reasons for such
exceedances and a description of
corrective actions taken.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Identification of the calendar dates
for which the minimum number of
hours of any of the data specified in
paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(vi) of
this section have not been obtained
including reasons for not obtaining
sufficient data and a description of
corrective actions taken.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit
load data;
(v) Particulate matter control device
temperature data; and
(vi) For owners and operators who
elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of
performance testing by EPA Method 5,
particulate matter emissions data.
(7) Identification of each occurrence
that sulfur dioxide emissions data,
nitrogen oxides emissions data,
particulate matter emissions data (for
owners and operators who elect to
continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5) or operational data (i.e., carbon
monoxide emissions, unit load, and
particulate matter control device
temperature) have been excluded from
the calculation of average emission
concentrations or parameters, and the
reasons for excluding the data.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) The results of daily drift tests and
quarterly accuracy determinations for
particulate matter continuous emission
monitoring systems (for owners and
operators who elect to continuously
monitor particulate matter emissions
instead of conducting performance
testing using EPA Method 5), as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
required under appendix F of this part,
procedure 2.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) The records specified in
paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through (d)(12)(iv)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) Records of when a certified
operator is temporarily off site. Include
two main items:
(A) If the certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
are off site for more than 12 hours, but
for 2 weeks or less, and no other
certified operator is on site, record the
dates that the certified chief facility
operator and certified shift supervisor
were off site.
(B) When all certified chief facility
operators and certified shift supervisors
are off site for more than 2 weeks and
no other certified operator is on site,
keep records of four items:
(1) Time of day that all certified
persons are off site.
(2) The conditions that cause those
people to be off site.
(3) The corrective actions taken by the
owner or operator of the affected facility
to ensure a certified chief facility
operator or certified shift supervisor is
on site as soon as practicable.
(4) Copies of the written reports
submitted every 4 weeks that
summarize the actions taken by the
owner or operator of the affected facility
to ensure that a certified chief facility
operator or certified shift supervisor
will be on site as soon as practicable.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Following the first year of
municipal combustor operation, the
owner or operator of an affected facility
shall submit an annual report that
includes the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this
section, as applicable, no later than
February 1 of each year following the
calendar year in which the data were
collected (once the unit is subject to
permitting requirements under title V of
the Act, the owner or operator of an
affected facility must submit these
reports semiannually).
(1) * * *
(ii) A list of the highest emission level
recorded for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate
matter (for owners and operators who
elect to continuously monitor
particulate matter emissions instead of
conducting performance testing using
EPA Method 5), municipal waste
combustor unit load level, and
particulate matter control device inlet
temperature based on the data recorded
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through
(d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) The total number of days that the
minimum number of hours of data for
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter (for
owners and operators who elect to
continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5), municipal waste combustor unit
load, and particulate matter control
device temperature data were not
obtained based on the data recorded
under paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(v) The total number of hours that
data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter (for
owners and operators who elect to
continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5), municipal waste combustor unit
load, and particulate matter control
device temperature were excluded from
the calculation of average emission
concentrations or parameters based on
the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) A notification of intent to begin
the reduced dioxin/furan performance
testing schedule specified in
§ 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of this section during
the following calendar year and
notification of intent to apply the
average carbon mass feed rate and
associated carbon injection system
operating parameter levels as
established in § 60.58b(m) to similarly
designed and equipped units on site.
(5) Documentation of periods when
all certified chief facility operators and
certified shift supervisors are off site for
more than 12 hours.
(h) * * *
(1) The semiannual report shall
include information recorded under
paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter (for
owners and operators who elect to
continuously monitor particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5), municipal waste combustor unit load
level, particulate matter control device
inlet temperature, and opacity.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Owners and operators who elect
to continuously monitor particulate
matter emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5 must notify the Administrator one
month prior to starting or stopping use
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of the particulate matter continuous
emission monitoring system.
[FR Doc. 05–23968 Filed 12–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM
19DEP2
75369
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75348-75369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23968]
[[Page 75347]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75348]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-OAR-2005-0117; FRL-8008-1]
RIN 2060-AL97
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 19, 1995, EPA adopted new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines for large municipal waste
combustion (MWC) units. The NSPS and emission guidelines were fully
implemented by December 2000. Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires EPA to review, and if appropriate, revise the NSPS and
emission guidelines every 5 years. In this action, EPA is proposing to
revise the emission limits in the NSPS and emission guidelines to
reflect the levels of performance actually achieved by the emission
controls installed to meet the emission limits set forth in the
December 19, 1995, NSPS and emission guidelines.
The MWC NSPS and emission guidelines apply to the combustion of
non-hazardous municipal solid waste. Hazardous waste combustors
(incinerators) are addressed by CAA section 112 standards.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 6, 2006. Because
of the need to resolve the issues raised in this action in a timely
manner, EPA will not grant requests for extensions beyond this date.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by December 30, 2005
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing
on January 6, 2006. If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to verify that a
hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-
2005-0117, by one of the following methods:
Agency Web Site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, will be replaced by an
enhanced Federal wide electronic docket management and comment system
located at https://www.regulations.gov. When that occurs, you will be
redirected to that site to access the docket and submit comments.
Follow the on-line instructions.
E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to a-and-r-
docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA,
Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-0117. Such
deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays),
and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2005-
0117. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting
oral testimony must contact Ms. Pam Garrett at (919) 541-7966 at least
2 days in advance of the hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Garrett in
advance of the hearing with a request to present oral testimony at the
hearing, we will cancel the hearing. The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed action.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Walt Stevenson, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5264, e-mail
stevenson.walt@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of This Document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Do the proposed amendments apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
A. Are revisions to the emission limits being proposed?
B. Are other amendments being proposed?
C. Is an implementation schedule being proposed?
D. Has EPA changed the applicability date of the NSPS?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How were the proposed emission limits developed?
B. How were the proposed operator stand-in provisions developed?
C. Why did EPA add two MWC combustor categories to the list of
MWC combustor types?
[[Page 75349]]
D. How were the additional carbon monoxide (CO) limits
developed?
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period for measuring activated
carbon injection (ACI) rate?
F. Are any other changes being considered for measuring ACI?
G. How did EPA determine the amended performance testing and
monitoring requirements?
H. How did EPA determine the other amendments?
I. How was the implementation schedule developed?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments for Existing Units
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC units equipped with electrostatic
precipitator-based scrubbing systems to replace the ESP with a
fabric filter?
VII. How do the proposed amendments relate to section 112(c)(6) of
the Clean Air Act?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. General Information
A. Do the proposed amendments apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed amendments are MWC units with a design combustion capacity
of greater than 250 tons per day. The NSPS and emission guidelines for
municipal waste combustors affect the following categories of sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC code Examples of potentially regulated
Category NAICS code (optional) entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry, Federal government, and State/local/ 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors or incinerators
tribal governments. 92411 9511 at waste-to-energy 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 exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
proposed rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
the proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.32b of subpart Cb and 40 CFR 60.50b of subpart Eb. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI to only the following address: Mr. Walt Stevenson, c/
o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0117. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
(b) Follow directions. The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
(c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
(d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
(e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
(f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
(g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
(h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the preceding section titled Dates.
Docket. The docket number for the proposed amendments to the large
MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb) and emission guidelines (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cb) is Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0117.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed rule is available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following
signature, EPA posted a copy of the proposed rule on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
II. Background Information
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and emission guidelines for
solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129.
Section 111(b) of the CAA (NSPS program) addresses emissions from new
MWC units and CAA section 111(d) (emission guidelines program)
addresses emissions from existing MWC units. The NSPS are directly
enforceable Federal regulations. The emission guidelines are not
directly enforceable
[[Page 75350]]
but, rather, are implemented by State air pollution control agencies
through sections 111(d)/129 State plans.
In December 1995, EPA adopted NSPS (subpart Eb) and emission
guidelines (subpart Cb) for MWC units with a combustion capacity
greater than 250 tons per day. These MWC units are referred to as large
MWC units. Both the NSPS and emission guidelines require compliance
with emission limitations that reflect the performance of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). The NSPS apply to new MWC units
after the effective date of the NSPS or at start-up, whichever is
later. The emission guidelines apply to existing MWC units and required
compliance by December 2000. These retrofits were completed on time,
and the controls installed to meet the required emission limitations
were highly effective in reducing emissions of all of the CAA section
129 pollutants emitted by large MWC units. Relative to a 1990 baseline,
the emission guidelines reduced organic emissions (dioxin/furan) by
more than 99 percent, metal emissions (cadmium, lead, and mercury) by
more than 93 percent, and acid gas emissions (hydrogen chloride and
sulfur dioxide) by more than 91 percent.
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a 5-year
review of the NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if appropriate, revise
the NSPS and emission guidelines. The EPA has completed that review,
and these proposed amendments reflect the changes EPA believes are
appropriate.
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
Following year 2000 compliance with the emission guidelines, EPA
gathered information on the performance levels actually being achieved
by large MWC units retrofitted to comply with the emission guidelines.
Today's proposed amendments would revise the NSPS and emission
guidelines based on the performance levels being achieved by large MWC
units. The revisions discussed in the following text apply to both the
NSPS and the emission guidelines, unless otherwise specified.
A. Are revisions to the emission limits being proposed?
Yes. The proposed amendments would revise many of the emission
limits in both the NSPS and emission guidelines. Relative to the NSPS,
the most significant changes would be in the lead and cadmium emission
limits. Relative to the emission guidelines, the most significant
changes would be in the dioxin/furan and lead emission limits. Also
associated with the revised emissions limits, are proposed amendments
to change the dimensions (units of measure) of the emission limits for
cadmium, lead, and mercury from milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
to micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm). EPA believes
the proposed emission limits can be achieved with the same emission
control technology currently used by large MWCs. EPA requests comment
on achievability of the proposed limits and whether the proposed limits
adequately consider emission variability. The proposed emission limits
for the NSPS and emission guidelines are summarized in Table 1 of this
preamble.
Table 1.-- Proposed Emission Limits for Large MWC Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed emission Proposed emission
Pollutant limit for existing limit for new MWC
MWC units* units*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF)...... 21 nanograms per dry 13 nanograms per dry
standard cubic standard cubic
meter total mass meter total mass
basis. basis**.
Cadmium (Cd)................ 31 micrograms per 3.5 micrograms per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter. per dry meter.
Lead (Pb)................... 250 micrograms per 84 micrograms per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter. meter.
Mercury (Hg)................ 80 micrograms per 49 micrograms per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter or 85 percent meter or 90 percent
reduction of reduction of
mercury emissions**. mercury emissions.
Particulate Matter (PM)..... 24 milligrams per 9.5 milligrams per
dry standard cubic dry standard cubic
meter. meter.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)..... 26 parts per million 25 parts per million
dry volume or 97 dry volume or 98
percent reduction percent reduction
of hydrogen of hydrogen
chloride emissions. chloride emissions.
Sulfur dioxide (CO2)........ 23 parts per million 19 parts per million
dry volume or 80 dry volume or 90
percent reduction percent reduction
of sulfur dioxide of sulfur dioxide
emissions. emissions.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)....... Varies by combustor 180 parts per
type (see table 1 million dry volume/
to subpart Cb of 150 parts per
part 60). million dry volume
after first year of
operation**.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
**No change proposed.
B. Are other amendments being proposed?
The proposed amendments would also make the following changes based
on information received during implementation of the MWC emission
guidelines and would apply equally to the NSPS and emission guidelines,
unless otherwise specified.
Operating Practices
The proposed amendments would revise the operator stand-in
provisions in Sec. 60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift supervisor is
allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified control room
operator is standing in. A provisionally certified control room
operator could stand in for up to 12 hours without notifying EPA; for
up to 2 weeks if EPA is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if EPA is
notified and the MWC owner demonstrates to EPA that a good faith effort
is being made to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor is on site as soon as practicable.
The proposed amendments would add two additional
classifications of MWC units to the emission guidelines and would add
associated CO limits to assure good combustion practices. The two new
classifications are ``spreader stoker refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-fired/
100 percent coal capable combustor'' and ``semi-suspension RDF-fired
combustor/wet RDF process conversion.''
Operating Parameters
The proposed amendments would revise Sec. 60.58b(m) to
establish an 8-hour block average for measuring activated carbon
injection (ACI) rate. This would make the NSPS and emission guidelines
for large MWC units consistent with the newer (year 2000) section 129
regulations for small MWC units (40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA, BBBB),
which monitors ACI rate using an 8-hour block average.
Performance Testing and Monitoring
The proposed amendments would revise the annual mercury
testing
[[Page 75351]]
requirements to allow for optimization of mercury control operating
parameters by waiving operating parameter limits during the mercury
performance test and during the 2 weeks preceding the mercury
performance test. This is already done for dioxin testing.
The proposed amendments would revise the reduced testing
requirements for exceptionally well-operated MWC units. Exceptionally
well-operated units are those with emissions significantly below the
emission limits. Specifically, EPA proposes to lower the dioxin/furan
criteria and add an associated mercury criteria to qualify for reduced
testing.
The proposed amendments would add flexibility to the
annual compliance testing schedule so that a facility still tests once
per calendar year, but no less than 9 months and no more than 15 months
since the previous test. The revision would provide flexibility to
facilities when facing scheduled and unscheduled outages, adverse local
weather conditions, and other conditions, while still meeting the
intent of the compliance testing requirements.
The proposed amendments would allow the use of parametric
monitoring limits from an exceptionally well-operated MWC unit (i.e.,
unit with emissions significantly below the emission limits) to be
applied to all identical units at the same plant site without
retesting.
The proposed amendments would increase the continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) data collection rates from 90 percent
of operating time on a quarterly calendar basis to 95 percent of
operating time on a quarterly calendar basis.
The proposed amendments would revise the particulate
matter compliance testing requirements to allow the optional use of a
particulate matter CEMS in place of EPA Method 5.
Other Amendments
The proposed amendments would clarify the meaning of the
term ``Administrator'' in the regulations.
Other details to fine tune the regulation are also
proposed.
C. Is an implementation schedule being proposed?
Yes. Under the proposed emission guidelines, and consistent with
CAA section 129, revised State plans containing the revised emission
limits and other requirements in the proposed emission guidelines would
be due within 1 year after promulgation of the revisions. That is,
revised State plans would have to be submitted to EPA 1 year after the
date by which EPA promulgates revised limits.
The proposed emission guidelines then allow MWC units up to 2 years
from the date of approval of a State plan to comply. Consistent with
CAA section 129, EPA, therefore, expects States to require compliance
as expeditiously as practicable. Large MWC units have already installed
the emission control equipment necessary to meet the proposed revised
limits, and EPA, therefore, anticipates that most State plans will
include compliance dates sooner than 3 years following promulgation of
the final rule. In most cases, the only changes necessary are to review
the revisions and adjust the emission monitoring and reporting
accordingly.
In revising the emission limits in a State plan, a State has two
options. First, it could insert the new emission limits in place of the
current emission limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
B, and submit a revised State plan to EPA for approval. If the revised
State plan contains only the new emission limits (i.e., the existing
emission limits are not retained), then the new emission limits must
become effective immediately since the current limits would be removed
from the State plan. A second approach would be for a State plan to
include both the current and the new emission limits. This allows a
phased approach in applying the new limits. That is, the State plan
would make it clear that the existing emission limits remain in force
and apply until the date the new emission limits are effective (as
defined in the State plan).
D. Has EPA changed the applicability date of the NSPS?
No. The applicability date for the NSPS units remains September 20,
1994; however, units for which construction or modification is
commenced after the date of this proposal will be subject to more
stringent emission limits than units on which construction or
modification was completed prior to that date. Under the proposed
amendments, units that commenced construction after September 20, 1994,
and on or before December 19, 2005, or that are modified 6 months or
more after the effective date of any final standards, would continue to
be subject to the NSPS emission limits that were promulgated in 1995
and that remain in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb NSPS. Units that
commence construction after December 19, 2005 would meet the revised
emission limits that are being added to the subpart Eb NSPS.
The EPA is not aware of any MWC units that were modified or
reconstructed after June 19, 1996 (effective date of the December 19,
1995 NSPS), therefore, EPA is proposing to simplify the applicability
text for the NSPS to be MWC units that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994. The EPA
believes the use of one date is the most understandable format. The EPA
requests comment on this approach and whether all dates referenced in
CAA section 129 should remain in the revised NSPS, even if the dates
have passed and have no utility.
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
A. How were the proposed emission limits developed?
The proposed emission limits are based on the performance of MACT.
One set of emission limits is proposed for existing MWC units regulated
under CAA section 111(d) emission guidelines, and another set of
emission limits is proposed for new MWC units regulated under CAA
section 111(b) NSPS. Both sets of limits were developed following the
procedures discussed below.
As background, the current emission limits in the emission
guidelines, as well as the proposed emission limits for the emission
guidelines, are based on the application of either spray dryer/
electrostatic precipitator/activated carbon injection/selective non-
catalytic reduction technology (SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR) or spray dryer/fabric
filter/activated carbon injection/selective non-catalytic reduction
technology (SD/FF/ACI/SNCR). The current emission limits in the NSPS,
as well as the proposed NSPS emission limits, are based on SD/FF/ACI/
SNCR technology alone. In practice, and as allowed by the emission
guidelines, existing MWC units have used a mix of SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR
technology and SD/FF/ACI/SNCR technology to comply with the emission
guidelines.
Following MACT compliance in December 2000, EPA obtained compliance
test reports from all operating large MWC units (167 units at 66
plants) and used those data to evaluate MACT performance. When the MWC
regulations were proposed in 1994, no MWC units were operating with the
full set of controls, and significant engineering judgment was
necessary in selecting the emission limits. The year 2000 compliance
data show that the actual performance of the control technology that
industry installed to meet the 1995 NSPS and
[[Page 75352]]
emission guidelines achieves reductions superior to the 1995 limits.
The EPA used the MACT data in the compliance test reports to develop
the emission limits contained in the proposed amendments. The EPA
believes the proposed emission limits more accurately reflect actual
MACT performance.
The first step in the analysis was to subdivide the database into
two subgroups based on emission control technology. For the emission
guidelines, the data were subcategorized to MWC units equipped with SD/
ESP/ACI/SNCR. For the NSPS, data were subcategorized to MWC units
equipped with SD/FF/ACI/SNCR. The data were subcategorized this way
because the emission guidelines are based on SD/ESP/ACI/SNCR control
and the NSPS are based on SD/FF/ACI/SNCR control. The remaining steps
of the analysis were the same for both data sets.
Next, the data were screened. The screening was based on the
expectation that similar MWC units at a single MWC plant should have
similar emissions. That is, at an MWC plant, MWC units with the same
configuration, firing waste from the same waste pit, and controlled
with the same design of pollution control equipment, would be expected
to have similar emissions. The test data for multiple MWC units at an
MWC plant were compared to identify the difference between the test
results. This was done for all MWC plants. Next, the mean and standard
deviation of the differences were calculated for the entire MWC
database. This mean and standard deviation were then used to screen
test results for each MWC plant. If the test results from multiple MWC
units at a specific MWC plant differed by more than the mean plus one
standard deviation from the full dataset, the test data for that MWC
plant were removed from analysis. This was repeated for each CAA
section 129 pollutant. Less than 14 percent of the data were excluded
during screening.
Next, a statistical analysis of the remaining database was
conducted to identify the best fitting frequency distribution. After
identifying the best fitting frequency distribution, an actually
achievable emission limit was calculated (i.e., the mean performance
plus a variability factor). Where the analysis supported limits more
stringent than the current limits, new limits are proposed. This
procedure was followed in developing the proposed emission limits for
the ``stack test'' pollutants (dioxin/furan, Cd, Pd, Hg, PM, and HCl).
For SO2 and NOX, a different approach was
used. For these pollutants, CEMS, rather than stack tests, are used to
determine compliance. CEMS can generate up to 8,760 hours of data per
year and emissions variability must be carefully addressed in order to
select an appropriate emission limit. Typically, EPA analyzes more than
1,000 hours of CEMS data per source in order to evaluate and address
emissions variability when setting emission limits to be enforced by
CEMS. To develop the proposed SO2 and NOX limits,
EPA used a two-step process. First, the mean performance level for
SO2 and NOX control was determined using the year
2000 MACT compliance data. Next, a variability factor was identified
based on an analysis of SO2 and NOX CEMS data
from four MWC plants. The variability analysis was based on the
evaluation of more than 2,400 hours of SO2 CEMS data and
3,500 hours of NOX CEMS data. The variability factor was
added to the mean performance level from the year 2000 MACT database to
determine new emission limits. Where the analysis supported
SO2 and NOX limits more stringent than the
current limits, new limits are proposed.
EPA requests comment on the data screening procedure used for this
proposal and requests suggestions for alternative data screening
procedures. EPA also requests comment on the appropriateness to screen
out data. The data screening procedure for the proposal is presented in
a data analysis memo contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. How were the proposed operator stand-in provisions developed?
Under the good combustion practices component of the regulations
(Sec. 60.54b(c)(2)), a fully certified MWC plant supervisor or MWC
shift supervisor must be on site during all periods of MWC operation,
except those periods when a provisionally certified control room
operator ``stands in.'' A provisionally certified control room operator
on site can stand in for the duration of the plant or shift
supervisor's shift when the plant or shift supervisor must leave prior
to the end of the shift. In implementing the MACT regulations in the
late 1990s, a number of questions were raised on this issue. State
regulators and MWC owners and operators questioned how long a certified
plant or shift supervisor is allowed to be off site, and how long a
provisionally certified control room operator is allowed to stand in.
Questions were raised about what should be done if a plant supervisor
became sick or was off for a week of training or vacation. The EPA
examined the issue, and in 1998 issued an enforcement guidance
memorandum to reflect EPA's intent in developing the regulation. Under
the enforcement guidance memorandum, a provisionally certified control
room operator can stand in for a certified plant or shift supervisor
when they are off site for (1) periods up to twelve hours without
notifying EPA; (2) periods up to two weeks if EPA is notified; and (3)
periods longer than two weeks if EPA is notified and the MWC owner
demonstrates to EPA that a good faith effort is being made to ensure
that a certified chief facility operator or certified control room
shift supervisor is on site. These stand-in provisions were
incorporated into the small MWC MACT regulations promulgated in 2000.
The EPA is now proposing to amend the large MWC NSPS and emission
guidelines to be consistent with this EPA enforcement guidance
memorandum and the small MWC regulations.
The EPA is aware that later this year the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is planning to publish updated Standards
for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery Facility
Operators (QRO-1-1994). The MWC rules currently require MWC operators
obtain this certification. A number of changes to QRO are planed by the
ASME. At this time it appears the principal affect would be the need
for EPA to revise the MWC rules to use the QRO term ``operator
certification'' in place of the term ``fully certified'' as currently
used in the MWC rules. If the ASME completes the QRO update by the time
the MWC rules are finalized, the new QRO procedures will be
incorporated into the final MWC rule.
C. Why did EPA add two MWC combustor categories to the list of MWC
combustor types?
In the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA identified three distinct
types of RDF-fired MWC units: (1) RDF stoker, (2) pulverized coal/RDF
mixed fuel-fired combustor, and (3) spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed
fuel-fired combustor. Recently, EPA has identified two additional types
of RDF-fired MWC designs that do not fit within the three types of RDF
combustors as defined in the regulations. Since none of the three
previous subcategories of RDF municipal waste combustors correctly
describe the design or operation of these particular units, EPA
recognized a need to add combustor types that would adequately describe
and set CO emission limits for these combustors.
The EPA is proposing to add definitions for ``spreader stoker RDF-
fired combustor/100 percent coal capable'' and ``semi-suspension RDF-
[[Page 75353]]
fired combustor/wet RDF process conversion.'' For these MWC technology
types, the proposed amendments would add good combustion practice-based
CO limits. A spreader/stoker RDF-fired combustor/100 percent coal
capable combustor fires RDF into the combustion zone by a mechanism
that throws the fuel onto the grate from above. Combustion takes place
both in suspension and on the grate. Such a unit is capable of firing
100 percent coal as a replacement for RDF. A semi-suspension RDF-fired
combustor/wet RDF process conversion means a combustion unit that was
converted from wet RDF processing to dry RDF processing. For both of
these technologies, CO emission limits are proposed based on levels
achievable by good combustion practices.
D. How were the additional carbon monoxide (CO) limits developed?
First, EPA determined that both good combustion practices and MACT
had been fully implemented at the two additional MWC types discussed
above. Next, EPA obtained over 5,000 hours of CO CEMS data from each
MWC type and conducted a statistical analysis of the data to identify
the best fitting distribution. After identifying the best fitting
distribution, EPA calculated a statistically achievable emission limit
based on a 24-hour block average for each of the two MWC types. The new
CO limits fall within the range of current good combustion practice-
based CO limits for other MWC combustors that range from 50 to 250
parts per million (ppm).
E. Is EPA proposing an averaging period for measuring activated carbon
injection (ACI) rate?
The proposed amendments would revise Sec. 60.58b(m) to specify an
8-hour block average period for measuring the ACI rate. Section
60.58b(m) requires an owner or operator using ACI to select an ACI
operating parameter that can be used to calculate ACI feed rate (e.g.,
screw feeder speed) during the mercury and dioxin/furan performance
test. The current Sec. 60.58b does not, however, indicate the
averaging time to be used, and the performance test period can vary
from test to test.
To select an averaging period, EPA examined the Hg test sampling
period of twelve MWC units that use ACI. The test duration averaged
about 7 hours. To establish consistency, a fixed 8-hour block averaging
period is being proposed for ongoing measurement of the ACI system
operating parameters used to calculate ACI feed rate.
F. Are any other changes being considered for measuring ACI?
The EPA is considering including in the final regulation a
requirement to monitor the pneumatic injection pressure at the location
where the activated carbon is injected into the flue gases in order to
monitor ACI. This would quickly identify a clogged injection nozzle. If
this were done, the same 8-hour block average would be used for
measuring injection pressure. The EPA specifically requests comments on
the reasonableness of such monitoring.
G. How did EPA determine the amended performance testing and monitoring
requirements?
Annual testing schedule. While implementing the mandatory 12-month
testing schedule under the current regulations, MWC owners and
operators found the testing schedule difficult to comply with. The
current schedule does not provide flexibility to accommodate
unscheduled MWC outages, local weather conditions, and other unexpected
conditions. After an outage, bringing the MWC units back on line,
rescheduling the test, notifying the regulatory agencies, and preparing
for the test can cause delays and prevent testing within the specified
12-month period. Inclement weather can cause similar problems. To
accommodate the need for flexibility while retaining an annual test
schedule, EPA proposes to revise the testing schedule to once per
calendar year, with no less than 9 months and no more than 15 months
between tests.
Optimization Parameters. The proposed amendments would revise the
testing requirements to allow the use of optimized parametric
monitoring data from the most recently tested MWC unit to be applied to
all similar MWC units on site. The use of this approach would be
limited to exceptionally well-run MWC units where dioxin/furan and Hg
tests show levels less than one half the dioxin/furan and Hg standards.
Optimization Testing. The proposed amendments would revise the
operating parameter requirements for the annual testing to waive
parameters during Hg testing. The use of this approach would provide
the same flexibility in Hg testing as currently allowed for dioxin/
furan testing. The standards presently allow the operating parameters
to be waived during the dioxin/furan performance test and during the
two weeks preceding the performance test (Sec. 60.53b(b) and (c)).
Such flexibility is needed in cases where the owner or operator wishes
to use the performance test to establish different site-specific
maximum or minimum values for their operating parameters for Hg
control. Waiving the operating parameters associated with dioxin/furan
control (i.e., load level and temperature at the control device inlet)
during these times allows the source to optimize the performance of the
controls and to perform the tests necessary to show that the emission
limits are met while operating under the revised parameter values. The
EPA requests comments on whether other parameters need such
flexibility. If you suggest additional flexibility, identify the
parameters and explain why the flexibility is needed.
Reduced Testing for Well-operated MWC Units. The EPA is proposing
to amend the NSPS and emission guidelines provisions that allow reduced
frequency for testing of exceptionally well-operated MWC units. Well-
operated MWC units are those with emissions significantly below the
emission limits. Currently, reduced testing is allowed if dioxin/furan
emission levels have been repeatedly shown to be less than half of the
emission limit. The proposed amendments would require both dioxin/furan
and mercury emissions to both be less than half the emission limit to
qualify for reduced testing. By amending the requirements to qualify
for reduced testing, we are providing an incentive for MWC owners or
operators to optimize an MWC unit's carbon injection system and other
operating parameters for exceptional reduction of both mercury and
dioxin/furan emissions.
CEMS Data Availability. The proposed amendments would increase the
CEMS data collection requirement from 90 percent of the operating days
per calendar quarter to 95 percent of the operating days per calendar
quarter. The EPA obtained year 2003 CEMS data from a large MWC plant.
That data included CEMS information on six parameters for each of three
MWC units at the plant (SO2, NOX, opacity, flue
gas temperature at scrubber discharge, CO, and HCl). Overall, the data
contained 72 calendar quarters of CEMS data (3 combustion units x 4
calendar quarters x 6 parameters). All CEMS produced more than 99
percent data availability for all calendar quarters for all parameters
monitored. As demonstrated by the data, well-designed and operated CEMS
reliably collect data at rates higher than required in current
regulations; thus, the proposed amendments would increase the data
availability requirement to reflect current operating practices and
performance.
[[Page 75354]]
PM CEMS. The proposed amendments would allow the use of PM CEMS as
an alternative to PM performance testing by EPA Method 5. Owners or
operators who choose to rely on PM CEMS would be able to discontinue
their annual Method 5 test. The proposed amendments incorporate the use
of PS-11 for PM CEMS and PS-11 QA Procedure 2 to ensure that PM CEMS
are installed and operated properly and produce good quality monitoring
data.
An owner or operator of an MWC unit who wishes to use PM CEMS would
be required to notify EPA one month before starting use of PM CEMS and
one month before stopping use of the PM CEMS. Additionally, EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of dropping the opacity
monitoring requirements for MWC units that use PM CEMS.
The PM emissions limits are based on data from infrequent (normally
annual) stack tests and have been enforced by stack test. The change to
use of PM CEMS for measurement and enforcement of the same emission
limits must be carefully considered in relation to an appropriate
averaging period for data reduction. The EPA considered this issue and
concluded the use of a 24-hr block average was appropriate to address
PM emissions variability and EPA has included the use of a 24-hour
block average in the proposed rule. The 24-hour block average would be
calculated following procedures in Method 19.
PM CEMS have been applied successfully at various sources including
fossil fueled power plants and MWC units in Germany.
Other CEMS. The EPA considered proposing the use of HCl CEMS, Hg
CEMS, and multi-metal CEMS as alternatives to the existing ways of
demonstrating compliance with the HCl, Hg, Cd, and Pb emissions limits.
Although the proposed rule does not include such monitoring provisions,
EPA is considering development of PS and including such provisions in
the final rule as an optional test method. The EPA has not included
such provisions in the proposed rules because it appears the current
practice of continuous monitoring of SO2 and PM in
combination with the continuous monitoring of operating parameters
(boiler load, fuel gas temperature and ACI rate) give a good indication
of acid gas, metals and organic emissions from MWC units. The EPA
specifically requests comment on the reasonableness of including
optional provisions for use of HCl CEMS, Hg CEMS, and multi-metal CEMS
in the final rule.
Relative to HCl monitoring, EPA is aware that State agencies, such
as those in Michigan, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, already require
the use of HCl CEMS for MWC units in their jurisdictions. The EPA is
also aware that PS for HCl CEMS have been developed by the Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In response, EPA will consider such
actions as a request by Michigan, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania to
use HCl CEMS as an alternate test method for determining compliance
with the HCl emission limits in both the NSPS and emission guidelines
for large MWC units located in the states of Michigan, Massachusetts,
and Pennsylvania. The EPA will address this request in the final rule.
The EPA has proposed PS-13 for HCl CEMS and believes that PS can
serve as the basis for PS for HCl CEMS use at MWC units. In addition to
the procedures used in proposed PS-13 for HC1 for initial accuracy
determination using the relative accuracy test, a comparison against a
referenced method, EPA is taking comment on an alternate initial
accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one in section 11 of
PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
Relative to the use of Hg CEMS, the EPA believes that PS-12A for
fossil fuel-fired boilers can provide the basis for using Hg CEMS at
MWC units. The EPA is aware of the use of Hg CEMS use at MWC units in
Germany. Six sites employ Hg CEMS; three MWC units, one hazardous waste
combustor, one sewage sludge combustor, and one sewage sludge/coal-
fired power plant.
EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can be used in many applications,
including MWC units. The EPA has monitored side-by-side evaluations of
multi-metals CEMS with Method 29 at industrial waste incinerators and
found good correlation. The EPA was also approved to the use multi-
metals CEMS as an alternative monitoring method at a hazardous waste
combustor. The EPA believes it is possible to adapt proposed PS-10 or
other EPA performance specifications to allow the use of multi-metal
CEMS at MWC units. In addition to the procedures used in proposed PS-10
for initial accuracy determination using the relative accuracy test, a
comparison against a reference method, EPA is taking comment on an
alternate initial accuracy determination procedure, similar to the one
in section 11 of PS-15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking procedure.
Whether or not EPA includes provisions for use of HCl, Hg, or
multi-metal CEMS in the final NSPS and emission guidelines, at any
time, an owner or operator of an MWC unit may apply for approval of
these monitoring methods in lieu of specified monitoring requirements.
Such requests are authorized according to the general provisions of
part 60 at 40 CFR 60.13(i).
The EPA is also aware of the use of semi-continuous or CEMS for
dioxin/furan as alternatives to the existing ways of showing compliance
with the dioxin/furan emissions limits. One semi-continuous dioxin/
furan sampling system is the Adsorption Method for Sampling of Dioxins
and Furans (AMESA), which operates like an automated Method 23 sampler
and yields average dioxin and furan emissions over a specified period
from 14 to 30 days. Again, the proposed rule does not include
provisions for such monitoring, but EPA is considering including such
provisions in the final regulations as an optional test method for
measuring dioxin/furan emissions. The EPA specifically requests
comments on the reasonableness of including provisions for this type of
dioxin/furan monitoring.
The EPA continues to be interested in dioxin/furan monitoring
technologies, as evidenced by the upcoming Environmental Technology
Verification testing program scheduled for summer 2005. During that
two-week program, at least four dioxin/furan monitoring technologies
will be evaluated, one of which was successfully tested in December
2004 at a MWC unit.
MWC unit owners and operators should note that the use of HCl, Hg,
multi-metal, and dioxin/furan CEMS technology may allow the
discontinuation of various parametric monitoring including flue gas,
temperature, MWC load, and ACI rate.
H. How did EPA determine the other amendments?
Administrator. The NSPS and emission guidelines refer to both
``Administrator'' and ``EPA Administrator.'' Because both terms are
used in the regulation and neither has been defined, it has been
unclear to personnel implementing CAA section 111(d)/129 plans whether
Administrator was to be construed broadly to include the Administrator
of the U.S. EPA and all of his/her designees, including the
Administrator of a State Air Pollution Control Agency consistent with
the definition in the General Provisions, or was intended to refer only
to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA. To clarify the intent, the text
has been revised to ``EPA'' to refer to the EPA Administrator where
appropriate. The term ``Administrator'' now refers to the appropriate
representative (e.g., Director
[[Page 75355]]
of a State Air Pollution Control Agency for section 111(d)/129 State
plans and EPA Administrator (or delegate) for section 111(d)/129
Federal plans). Definitions for the terms ``EPA'' and ``Administrator''
are included in the proposed rule.
I. How was the implementation schedule developed?
A consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia requires EPA to promulgate any revisions of the emission
guidelines or NSPS for large MWC units that result from this technical
review by April 28, 2006. (See Sierra Club v. Whitman, No. 01-1537
(D.D.C.) Consent decree file entered on May 22, 2003.) Consistent with
CAA section 129, EPA is proposing that revisions to State plans be
submitted to EPA one year following adoption of the revisions
(approximately April 28, 2007). Dates in this preamble discussion and
in the proposed rule are estimated and will depend on the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Next, EPA chose to provide up to two additional years for MWC units
to implement the revised guidelines (i.e., units must be in compliance
by the date two years after the date specified for submitting State
plans). Thus, final compliance would occur on or before April 28, 2009
(approximately). As proposed, while revised State plans must specify
compliance no later than three years following adoption of the final
rule (a compliance date of approximately April 28, 2009), consistent
with CAA section 129, EPA expects States to require compliance as
expeditiously as practical, and EPA anticipates that many States will
submit revised State plans that include earlier compliance dates. The
proposed emission limits can be achieved using the same air pollution
control technology that served as the basis of the current emission
limits.
The EPA requests comment on an alternate compliance schedule, as
follows. That schedule would be to allow the same one year for State
plan submittal (approximately April 28, 2007), but allow only one
additional year for MWC units to achieve final compliance
(approximately April 28, 2008), with the option that a State can
request a longer compliance date for specific MWC units, but in no case
longer than four years after the date by which revised State plans are
due (the maximum allowed by CAA section 129). In requesting a longer
site-specific schedule, a State would have to provide a demonstration
why additional time is needed and how much additional time is needed.
Again, EPA requests comment on this alternative schedule.
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments for Existing Units
The EPA projects the proposed amendments will have no additional
impacts to air, water, or energy since the proposed emission limits can
be achieved using the same air pollution control technology that was
used to comply with the current emission limits. Similarly, EPA expects
no additional cost or economic impact for the same reason. Existing
large MWC units will continue to use their existing MACT control
technology to meet the emission limits, and will not incur costs to
retrofit equipment. The same conclusions apply to new MWC units since
EPA expects that new MWC units will be equipped with the same control
technology used to comply with the 1995 NSPS. EPA requests comment on
the projections that revising the emission limits as proposed here will
not lead to any changes in MWC operations, costs, or emissions. For
example, we seek information on whether MWC operations could change
(and the resultant impacts on costs and emissions) to ensure that an
adequate variability margin (some times called a compliance margin)
remains with the proposed limits.
VI. Did EPA consider requiring MWC units equipped with electrostatic
precipitator (ESP)-based scrubbing systems to replace the ESP with a
fabric filter?
Yes. The EPA considered the option of requiring the MWC owner or
operator of MWC units equipped with ESP-based scrubbing systems to
replace the ESP with a fabric filter. The EPA conducted an analysis of
impacts resulting from the implementation of such an option. The
analysis identified 21 MWC units with ESP-based scrubbing systems. All
other MWC units are currently equipped with fabric filter-based
scrubbing systems. As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, ESP
replacement at the 21 identified MWC units would reduce MWC emissions
by about 130 tons per year (tpy). The analysis determined that the
annualized cost of ESP replacement at these units would be about $14.5
million per year. If this cost is evenly assigned to the emissions
reductions listed in Table 2 of this preamble, the cost of these
emission reductions would exceed $100,000 per ton removed. The EPA has
recently completed other rulemakings that have achieved considerable
reductions of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). Because of EPA's
interest in reducing such emissions, the reductions in PM 2.5 emissions
resulting from replacing ESPs with fabric filters were also calculated.
The PM 2.5 reduction would be about 8 tpy. If all costs associated with
ESP replacement were assigned to PM 2.5 reductions, the cost of these
additional reductions in PM 2.5 emissions would be about $900,000 per
ton removed. After considering the above factors in relation to recent
EPA rules, EPA concluded that the cost-reduction ratio for ESP
replacement was excessive, and decided not to require ESP replacement.
For a more detailed discussion of the analysis, see the Docket.
Table 2.--Emission Reduction and Cost for 21 MWC Units With ESP-Based Scrubbing Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of
Current fabric filter
emissions option (with Potential
Pollutant (with ESP FF-based emission
based control control reduction, tpy
system), 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75356]]
VII. How do the proposed amendments relate to section 112(c)(6) of the
Clean Air Act?
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of
sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources accounting
for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such
pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or
112(d)(4). The EPA has identified municipal waste combustors as a
source category that emits five of the seven CAA section 112(c)(6)
pollutants: Hg, dioxin, furans, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and
polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs). (The POM emitted by MWC units is
composed of 16 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable organic
matters (EOM).) In the Federal Register notice Source Category Listing
for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6)
Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA identified
municipal waste combustors as a source category ``subject to
regulation'' for purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6) with respect to the
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants that MWC units emit. MWC units are
solid waste incineration units currently regulated under CAA section
129. For purposes of CAA section 112(c)(6), EPA has determined that
standards promulgated under CAA section 129 are substantively
equivalent to those promulgated under CAA section 112(d). See Id. at
17845; see also 62 FR 33625, 33632 (1997). As discussed in more detail
below, the CAA section 129 standards effectively control emissions of
the five identified CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since
CAA section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from regulating these substantial
sources of the five identified CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants under
CAA section 112(d), EPA cannot further regulate these emissions under
that CAA section. As a result, EPA considers emissions of these five
pollutants from MWC units ``subject to standards'' for purposes of CAA
section 112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA section 129 MWC standards
include numeric emission limitations for the nine pollutants specified
in that section. The combination of good combustion practices (GCP) and
add-on air pollution control equipment (spray dryer, fabric filter or
ESP, ACI, and selective non-catalytic reduction) effectively reduces
emissions of the pollutants for which emission limits are required
under CAA section 129: Hg, dioxin, furans, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2,
HCl, and NOX. Thus, the NSPS and emissions guidelines
specifically require reduction in emissions of three of the CAA section
112(c)(6) pollutants: Hg, dioxin, and furans. As explained below, the
air pollution controls necessary to comply with the requirements of the
MWC NSPS and emission guidelines also effectively reduce emissions of
the following CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants that are emitted from
MWC units: POM and PCBs.
Although the CAA section 129 MWC standards do not have separate,
specific emissions standards for PCBs and POM, emissions of these two
CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants are effectively controlled by the same
control measures used to comply with the numerical emissions limits for
the enumerated CAA section 129 pollutants. Specifically, as byproducts
of combustion, the formation of PCBs and POM is effectively reduced by
the combustion and post-combustion practices required to comply with
the CAA section 129 standards. Any PCBs and POM that do form during
combustion are captured by the combination of spray dryer, PM control,
and ACI system, which are necessary post-combustion MWC controls. The
combination of spray dryer, PM control, and ACI greatly reduces
emissions of these organic pollutants, as well as reducing Hg
emissions. The fact that POM and PCBs are effectively controlled by the
application of MACT is confirmed by POM and PCB emission tests
conducted at one large MWC with MACT controls which showed non-
detectable levels of POM and PCBs. Based on post-MACT compliance tests
at all 167 large MWC units, the MWC MACT regulations reduced Hg
emissions by 95 percent and dioxin/furan emissions by greater than 99
percent from pre-MACT levels. In light of the fact that the MACT
controls also effectively reduce emissions of POM and PCBs, it is,
therefore, reasonable to conclude that POM and PCB emissions are
substantially reduced at all 167 large M
