Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 31938-32004 [2010-10821]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31938
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119; FRL–9148–4]
RIN 2060–AO12
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
SUMMARY: On December 1, 2000, EPA
adopted new source performance
standards and emission guidelines for
commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration units established under
Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air
Act. In 2001, EPA granted a petition for
reconsideration regarding the
definitions of ‘‘commercial and
industrial waste’’ and ‘‘commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration unit.’’
In 2001, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit granted EPA’s voluntary remand,
without vacatur, of the 2000 rule. In
2005, EPA proposed and finalized the
commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration definition rule which
revised the definition of ‘‘solid waste,’’
‘‘commercial and industrial waste,’’ and
‘‘commercial and industrial waste
incineration unit.’’ In 2007, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit vacated and
remanded the 2005 commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration
definition rule.
This action provides EPA’s response
to the 2001 voluntary remand of the
2000 rule and the vacatur and remand
of the commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration definition rule in
2007. In addition, this action includes
the five-year technology review of the
new source performance standards and
emission guidelines required under
Section 129. This action also proposes
other amendments that EPA believes are
necessary to adequately address air
emissions from commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration
units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before July 19, 2010.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before July 6, 2010.
Public Hearing. We will hold a public
hearing concerning this proposed rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
and the interrelated proposed Boiler and
RCRA rules, discussed in this proposal
and published in the proposed rules
section of today’s Federal Register, on
June 21, 2010. Persons requesting to
speak at a public hearing must contact
EPA by June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0119, by one of the
following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: Send your comments via
electronic mail to a-and-r-Docket@epa.
gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0119.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to
(202) 566–9744, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0119. Please include a total of two
copies. We request that a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person
identified below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: Deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0119. Such deliveries are accepted only
during the normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays), and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0119. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket and may be made
available on-line at 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Public Hearing: We will hold a public
hearing concerning the proposed rule on
June 21, 2010. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony at the hearing
should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group, at
(919) 541–4487 by June 14, 2010. The
public hearing will be held in the
Washington, DC area at a location and
time that will be posted at the following
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
airquality/combustion. Please refer to
this Web site to confirm the date of the
public hearing as well. If no one
requests to speak at the public hearing
by June 14, 2010 then the public hearing
will be cancelled and a notification of
cancellation posted on the following
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
airquality/combustion.
Docket: EPA has established a docket
for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the 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, 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, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744 and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Charlene Spells, Natural Resource and
Commerce Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143–03),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
5255; fax number: (919) 541–3470;
e-mail address: spells.charlene@epa.gov
or Ms. Toni Jones, Natural Resource and
Commerce Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143–03),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
0316; fax number: (919) 541–3470; email address: jones.toni@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. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for these
proposed rules?
B. What are the primary sources of
emissions and what are the emissions
and current controls?
C. What is the relationship between this
proposed rule and other combustion
rules?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand
Response
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) FiveYear Review Response
C. EPA’s Approach in Conducting the FiveYear Review
D. Other Proposed Amendments
E. Proposed State Plan Implementation
Schedule for Existing CISWI
F. Proposed Changes to the Applicability
Date of the 2000 NSPS and EG
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to
the Remand and the Proposed CAA
Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review
Response
B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories
C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission
Limits
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor
Alternatives
E. Rationale for Other Proposed
Amendments
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. What are the primary air impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste
impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
E. What are the cost and economic
impacts?
F. What are the benefits?
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Category
211, 212, 486
221
321, 322, 337
325, 326
327
333, 336
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
42, 44, 45
Thistable is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the proposed action. To
determine whether your facility would
be affected by the proposed action, you
should examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart
CCCC and 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart
DDDD. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of the
proposed action to a particular entity,
contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
1 Note that the rule contains definitions of the
subcategories of CISWI units and a list of types of
combustion units that are excluded. For further
discussion, see Section III.D.1 of this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI to only the following
address: Ms. Toni Jones, c/o OAQPS
Document Control Officer (Room C404–
02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to
me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially affected by the
proposed action are those which operate
commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) units. The new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and emission guidelines (EG),
hereinafter referred to as ‘‘standards,’’ for
CISWI affect the following categories of
sources:
Mining, oil and gas exploration operations; pipeline operators.
Utility providers.
Manufacturers of wood products; manufacturers of pulp,
paper and paperboard; manufacturers of furniture and related products.
Manufacturers of chemicals and allied products; manufacturers of plastics and rubber products.
Manufacturers of cement.
Manufacturers of machinery; manufacturers of transportation
equipment.
Wholesale merchants; retail merchants.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments?
PO 00000
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Examples of potentially regulated entities 1
NAICS Code
Any industrial or commercial facility using a solid waste incinerator.
31939
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI
or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31940
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
Follow directions. EPA may ask you to
respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate
your concerns and suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments
by the comment period deadline
identified in the preceding section titled
DATES.
3. Docket
The docket number for the proposed
action regarding the CISWI NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40
CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) is Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0119.
4. Worldwide Web (WWW)
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of the
proposed action is available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer
Network Web site (TTN Web).
Following signature, EPA posted a copy
of the proposed action on the TTN’s
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
II. Background
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
A. What is the statutory authority for
these proposed rules?
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), entitled ‘‘Solid Waste
Combustion,’’ requires EPA to develop
and adopt standards for solid waste
incineration units pursuant to CAA
Sections 111 and 129. Section
129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to
establish performance standards,
including emission limitations, for
‘‘solid waste incineration units’’
generally and, in particular, for ‘‘solid
waste incineration units combusting
commercial or industrial waste’’ (CAA
Section 129(a)(1)(D)). Section 129 of the
CAA defines ‘‘solid waste incineration
unit’’ as ‘‘a distinct operating unit of any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
facility which combusts any solid waste
material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public’’
(Section 129(g)(1)). Section 129 of the
CAA also provides that ‘‘solid waste’’
shall have the meaning established by
EPA pursuant to its authority under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (Section 129(g)(6)).
In Natural Resources Defense Council
v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250 (DC Cir. 2007),
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (the
Court) vacated the CISWI Definitions
Rule, 70 FR 55568 (September 22, 2005),
which EPA issued pursuant to CAA
Section 129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA
defined the term ‘‘commercial or
industrial solid waste incineration unit’’
to mean a combustion unit that
combusts ‘‘commercial or industrial
waste.’’ The rule defined ‘‘commercial or
industrial waste’’ to mean waste
combusted at a unit that does not
recover thermal energy from the
combustion for a useful purpose. Under
these definitions, only those units that
combusted commercial or industrial
waste and were not designed to, or did
not operate to, recover thermal energy
from the combustion, were subject to
Section 129 standards. In vacating the
rule, the Court found that the
definitions in the CISWI Definitions
Rule were inconsistent with the CAA.
Specifically, the Court held that the
term ‘‘solid waste incineration unit’’ in
CAA Section 129(g)(1) ‘‘unambiguously
include[s] among the incineration units
subject to its standards any facility that
combusts any commercial or industrial
solid waste material at all—subject to
the four statutory exceptions identified
[in CAA Section 129(g)(1)].’’ NRDC v.
EPA, 489 F.3d at 1257–58.
In response to the Court’s vacatur of
the CISWI Definitions rule, EPA
initiated a rulemaking to define which
non-hazardous secondary materials are
‘‘solid waste’’ for purposes of subtitle D
(non-hazardous waste) of the RCRA
when burned in a combustion unit. (See
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (74 FR 41, January 2, 2009)
soliciting comment on whether certain
non-hazardous secondary materials
used as alternative fuels or ingredients
are solid wastes within the meaning of
Subtitle D of the RCRA). That definition,
in turn, would determine the
applicability of CAA Section 129(a) to
commercial and industrial combustion
units.
In a parallel action, EPA is proposing
a definition of solid waste pursuant to
Subtitle D of RCRA. That action is
relevant to this proceeding because
some energy recovery units and kilns
combust solid waste as alternative fuels.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Such units that combust solid waste (as
defined pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA)
would be subject to standards under the
CAA Section 129 CISWI rules rather
than under Section 112 rules applicable
to boilers and kilns (e.g. cement kilns).
EPA recognizes that it has imperfect
information on the exact nature of the
non-hazardous secondary materials
which energy recovery units and kilns
combust, including, for example,
information as to the provider(s) of the
non-hazardous secondary materials,
how much processing the nonhazardous secondary materials may
have undergone, if any, and other issues
potentially relevant in a determination
as to whether non-hazardous secondary
materials are solid waste, as the
Administrator has proposed to define
that term under RCRA. We nevertheless
used the information currently available
to EPA to determine which materials are
solid waste, the burning of which would
subject a unit to CAA Section 129, and
which materials are not solid waste.
Energy recovery units and kilns that are
burning non-hazardous secondary
materials that are not solid waste would
be subject to the standard under CAA
Section 112 that is applicable to such
units. We based the standards in this
proposed rule on the sources we
determined would be subject to CISWI
because they combust solid waste as
defined in EPA’s proposed Solid Waste
Definition Rulemaking, which, as noted
above, is being proposed in parallel
with this proposed rule.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA
(NSPS program) address emissions from
new CISWI units and CAA Sections
111(d) and 129(b) (EG program) address
emissions from existing CISWI units.
The NSPS are directly enforceable
Federal regulations and under CAA
Section 129(f)(1) become effective six
months after promulgation. Under CAA
Section 129(f)(2), the EG become
effective and enforceable no later than
three years after EPA approves a state
plan implementing the EG or five years
after the date they are promulgated,
whichever is earlier.
The CAA sets forth a two-stage
approach to regulating emissions from
solid waste incinerator units. The
statute also provides EPA with
substantial discretion to distinguish
among classes, types and sizes of
incinerator units within a category
while setting standards. In the first stage
of setting standards, CAA Section
129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish
technology-based emission standards
that reflect levels of control EPA
determines are achievable for new and
existing units, after considering costs,
non-air quality health and
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
environmental impacts and energy
requirements associated with the
implementation of the standards.
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then
directs EPA to review those standards
and revise them as necessary every five
years. In the second stage, CAA Section
129(h)(3) requires EPA to determine
whether further revisions of the
standards are necessary in order to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. See, e.g., NRDC
and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079–
80 (DC Cir. 2008) (addressing the
similarly required two-stage approach
under CAA Sections 112(d) and (f) and
upholding EPA’s implementation of
same).
In setting forth the methodology EPA
must use to establish the first-stage
technology-based standards, CAA
Section 129(a)(2) provides that
standards ‘‘applicable to solid waste
incineration units promulgated under
Section 111 and this section shall reflect
the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of [certain listed air
pollutants] that the Administrator,
taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction and
any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is achievable
for new and existing units in each
category.’’ This level of control is
referred to as a maximum achievable
control technology, or MACT standard.
In promulgating a MACT standard,
EPA must first calculate the minimum
stringency levels for new and existing
solid waste incineration units in a
category, generally based on levels of
emissions control achieved or required
to be achieved by the subject units. The
minimum level of stringency is called
the MACT ‘‘floor,’’ and CAA Section
129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of
minimum stringency that EPA’s
standards must achieve, based on
whether they regulate new and
reconstructed sources, or existing
sources. For new and reconstructed
sources, CAA Section 129(a)(2) provides
that the ‘‘degree of reduction in
emissions that is deemed achievable
* * * shall not be less stringent than
the emissions control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar
unit, as determined by the
Administrator.’’ Emissions standards for
existing units may be less stringent than
standards for new units, but ‘‘shall not
be less stringent than the average
emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of units in
the category.’’
The MACT floors form the least
stringent regulatory option EPA may
consider in the determination of MACT
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
standards for a source category. EPA
must also determine whether to control
emissions ‘‘beyond-the-floor,’’ after
considering the costs, non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements of such more
stringent control.
In general, all MACT analyses involve
an assessment of the emissions from the
best performing units in a source
category. The assessment can be based
on actual emissions data, knowledge of
the air pollution control in place in
combination with actual emissions data,
or on state regulatory requirements that
may enable EPA to estimate the actual
performance of the regulated units. For
each source category, the assessment
involves a review of actual emissions
data with an appropriate accounting for
emissions variability. Other methods of
estimating emissions can be used
provided that the methods can be
shown to provide reasonable estimates
of the actual emissions performance of
a source or sources. Where there is more
than one method or technology to
control emissions, the analysis may
result in a series of potential regulations
(called regulatory options), one of which
is selected as MACT.
Each regulatory option EPA considers
must be at least as stringent as the
CAA’s minimum stringency ‘‘floor’’
requirements. EPA must examine, but is
not necessarily required to adopt, more
stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ regulatory
options to determine MACT. Unlike the
floor minimum stringency requirements,
EPA must consider various impacts of
the more stringent regulatory options in
determining whether MACT standards
are to reflect ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’
requirements. If EPA concludes that the
more stringent regulatory options have
unreasonable impacts, EPA selects the
‘‘floor-based’’ regulatory option as
MACT. But if EPA concludes that
impacts associated with ‘‘beyond-thefloor’’ levels of control are acceptable in
light of additional emissions reductions
achieved, EPA selects those levels as
MACT.
As stated earlier, the CAA requires
that MACT for new sources be no less
stringent than the emissions control
achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar unit. Under CAA
Section 129(a)(2), EPA determines the
best control currently in use for a given
pollutant and establishes one potential
regulatory option at the emission level
achieved by that control with an
appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. More stringent potential
beyond-the-floor regulatory options
might reflect controls used on other
sources that could be applied to the
source category in question.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31941
For existing sources, the CAA requires
that MACT be no less stringent than the
average emissions limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of
units in a source category. EPA must
determine some measure of the average
emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of units to
form the floor regulatory option. More
stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory
options reflect other or additional
controls capable of achieving better
performance.
B. What are the primary sources of
emissions and what are the emissions
and current controls?
We are proposing to define a CISWI
unit as any combustion unit at a
commercial or industrial facility that is
used to combust solid waste (as defined
under the RCRA). See proposed 40 CFR
60.2265 (NSPS) and 60.2875 (EG). In
this proposed rule, CISWI units include
incinerators designed to discard waste
materials; energy recovery units (e.g.,
units that would be boilers if they did
not burn solid waste) designed for heat
recovery that combust solid waste
materials; kilns and other industrial
units that combust solid waste materials
in the manufacture of a product; and
burn-off ovens that combust residual
materials off racks, parts, drums or
hooks so that those items can be re-used
in various production processes.
Combustion of solid waste causes the
release of a wide array of air pollutants,
some of which exist in the waste feed
material and are released unchanged
during combustion and some of which
are generated as a result of the
combustion process itself. These
pollutants include particulate matter
(PM); metals, including lead (Pb),
cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg); toxic
organics, including chlorinated dibenzop-dioxins/dibenzofurans (dioxin,
furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen
oxides (NOX); and acid gases, including
hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2).
Depending on the type of unit and
currently applicable regulations or
permit conditions, units may or may not
be equipped with add-on control
devices to control emissions. For
example, most of the CISWI units that
operate without heat recovery are not
equipped with add-on controls. Those
that are controlled use wet scrubbers,
dry scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators
(ESPs), or fabric filters, either alone or
in combination. Some energy recovery
units that combust solid waste are not
equipped with add-on controls, but
most are controlled with one or more of
the following: cyclones or multi-clones,
fabric filters, ESPs, wet scrubbers,
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31942
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
venturi scrubbers, selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) or spray
dryers. In addition to add-on controls,
many CISWI units are controlled
through the use of pollution prevention
measures (i.e., waste segregation) and
good combustion control practices.
Waste segregation is the separation of
certain components of the waste stream
in order to reduce the amount of air
pollution emissions associated with that
waste when incinerated. The separated
waste may include paper, cardboard,
plastics, glass, batteries or metals.
Separation of wastes can reduce the
amount of chlorine- and metalcontaining wastes being incinerated,
which results in lower emissions of HCl,
dioxin, furans, Hg, Cd and Pb.
Good combustion control practices
include proper design, construction,
operation and maintenance practices to
destroy or prevent the formation of air
pollutants prior to their release to the
atmosphere. Test data for other types of
combustion units indicate that as
secondary chamber residence time and
temperature increase, emissions
decrease. Proper mixing of flue gases in
the combustion chamber also promotes
complete combustion. Combustion
control is most effective in reducing
dioxin, furans, other organic pollutants,
PM, NOX and CO emissions.
The 2000 CISWI standards and the
proposed revised standards are designed
to reduce air pollutants, including HCl,
CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM, dioxin, furans
(total, or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent
(TEQ)), NOX and SO2, emitted from new
and existing CISWI units. Units in the
incinerator subcategory as defined in
this proposed rule are currently subject
to the 2000 CISWI standards and are
already required to be in compliance
with the NSPS or EG. The 2000 CISWI
NSPS apply to CISWI units in the
incinerator subcategory if construction
of a unit began after November 30, 1999,
or if modification of a unit began after
June 1, 2001. The 2000 CISWI NSPS
apply to units in the incinerator
subcategory and became effective on
June 1, 2001, and apply as of that date
or at start-up of a CISWI incinerator
unit, whichever is later. The 2000
CISWI EG apply to CISWI units in the
incinerator subcategory if construction
of a unit began on or before November
30, 1999, and compliance was required
at the latest by December 2005. This
proposed rule would establish revised
standards for units in the incinerator
subcategory and establish standards for
the other four subcategories of CISWI
units, and the emission limitations in
the proposed revised NSPS and EG
would apply at all times.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
C. What is the relationship between this
proposed rule and other combustion
rules?
This proposed rule addresses the
combustion of solid waste materials (as
defined by the Administrator under the
RCRA) in combustion units at
commercial and industrial facilities. If
an owner or operator of a CISWI unit
ceases combusting solid waste, the
affected unit would no longer be subject
to this regulation under CAA Section
129. A rulemaking under CAA Section
112 is being proposed in a parallel
action that is relevant to this action
because it would apply to boilers and
process heaters located at a major source
that do not combust solid waste. EPA
has also proposed, but not yet finalized,
revised Section 112 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for cement kilns. See 74 FR
21136 (May 6, 2009) (proposing
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart
LLL). Cement kilns burning solid waste
would be subject to this proposed rule,
not the applicable NESHAP.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand
Response
1. What is the history of the CISWI
standards?
On December 1, 2000, EPA published
a notice of final rulemaking establishing
the NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 FR
75338), hereinafter referred to as the
2000 CISWI rule. Thereafter, on August
17, 2001, EPA granted a request for
reconsideration, pursuant to CAA
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
submitted on behalf of the National
Wildlife Federation and the Louisiana
Environmental Action Network, related
to the definition of ‘‘commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration unit’’
and ‘‘commercial or industrial waste’’ in
EPA’s CISWI rulemaking. In granting
the petition for reconsideration, EPA
agreed to undertake further notice and
comment proceedings related to these
definitions. In addition, on January 30,
2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit
challenging EPA’s final CISWI rule. On
September 6, 2001, the Court entered an
order granting EPA’s motion for a
voluntary remand of the CISWI rule,
without vacatur. EPA’s request for a
voluntary remand of the final CISWI
rule was taken to allow the EPA to
address concerns related to EPA’s
procedures for establishing MACT floors
for CISWI units in light of the Court’s
decision in Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2001) (Cement Kiln). Neither EPA’s
granting of the petition for
reconsideration, nor the Court’s order
granting a voluntary remand, stayed,
vacated or otherwise influenced the
effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule.
Specifically, CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B)
provides that ‘‘reconsideration shall not
postpone the effectiveness of the rule,’’
except that ‘‘[t]he effectiveness of the
rule may be stayed during such
reconsideration * * * by the
Administrator or the court for a period
not to exceed three months.’’ Neither
EPA nor the Court stayed the
effectiveness of the final CISWI
regulations in connection with the
reconsideration petition. In addition,
the District of Columbia Circuit granted
EPA’s motion for a remand without
vacatur; therefore, the Court’s remand
order had no impact on the
implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule.
On February 17, 2004, EPA published
a proposed rule soliciting comments on
the definitions of ‘‘solid waste,’’
‘‘commercial and industrial waste,’’ and
‘‘commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration unit.’’ On September 22,
2005, EPA published in the Federal
Register the final rule reflecting our
decisions with respect to the CISWI
Definitions Rule. The rule was
challenged and, on June 8, 2007, the
Court vacated and remanded the CISWI
Definitions Rule. In vacating the rule,
the Court found that CAA Section 129
unambiguously includes among the
incineration units subject to its
standards any facility that combusts any
solid waste material at all, subject to
four statutory exceptions. While the
Court vacated the CISWI Definitions
Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remains in
effect.
This action provides EPA’s response
to the voluntary remand of the 2000
CISWI rule and to the 2007 vacatur and
remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule.
In addition, this action addresses the
five-year technology review that is
required under CAA Section 129(a)(5).
2. What was EPA’s MACT floor
methodology in the 2000 CISWI
rulemaking and how has the
methodology been changed to respond
to the voluntary remand?
In 2000, the methodology that EPA
followed to establish the MACT floors
included identification of a ‘‘MACT
floor technology’’ and calculation of
MACT floors using emission
information from all units, not only the
best performing units, that employed
the MACT floor control technology. EPA
recognized that this methodology was
rejected by the Court in the Cement Kiln
case, which was decided after EPA
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
promulgated the 2000 CISWI standards.
In light of the court decision, EPA
requested a voluntary remand of the
CISWI standards to re-evaluate those
standards in light of the Cement Kiln
decision in order to correct the
methodology. See Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d
855 (Finding that EPA is permitted to
account for variability by setting floors
at a level that reasonably estimates the
performance of the best controlled
similar unit (or units) under the worst
reasonably foreseeable circumstances,
but not the worst foreseeable
circumstances faced by any unit in the
source category).
Accordingly, this action does not use
the MACT floor methodology from
2000. Instead, we used emissions test
data to calculate the MACT floors.2 For
existing units, we ranked individual
CISWI units based on actual
performance and established MACT
floors based on the average of the best
performing 12 percent of sources for
each pollutant and subcategory, with an
appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. That is, the overall 3-run test
average values for existing units for each
pollutant were compiled and ranked to
identify the best performing 12 percent
of sources for each pollutant within
each subcategory. Once identified, the
individual test run data for these units
were compiled and analyzed for
variability.
As discussed in more detail in Section
IV.C of this preamble, for the variability
analysis, we first conducted a statistical
analyses to determine whether the data
used for the MACT floor calculation had
a normal or log-normal distribution
followed by calculation of the average
and the 99th percent upper limit (UL).3
The UL represents a value that 99
percent of the data in the MACT floor
data population would fall below, and
therefore accounts for variability
between the individual test runs in the
MACT floor data set. The UL is
calculated by the following equation
that is appropriate for small data sets:
2 EPA did receive some additional emissions data
earlier this year, but due to the court-ordered
deadline, we did not have time to review and
evaluate that data. We intend to review the data
submitted earlier this year from a quality assurance
and completeness perspective and incorporate that
data into the final standards, as appropriate. To the
extent EPA receives additional emissions data
during the comment period, EPA will assess that
data as it develops the final emission standards.
3 The procedure is the same as used for the
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
(HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). While the HMIWI
preamble referred to this measure as the upper
confidence limit (UCL), it used the same equation.
In this proposal, we refer to the measure as the UL,
which is a more appropriate statistical terminology
for this calculation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
UL = x + t(0.99,n) * s
Where:
x = average of the data.
t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.
n = number of data points in the population.
s = standard deviation.
The summary statistics and analyses
are presented in the docket and further
described in Section IV.C of this
preamble. The calculated UL values for
existing sources (which are based on
emissions data from the best performing
12 percent of sources and evaluate
variability) were selected as the
proposed MACT floor emission limits
for the nine regulated pollutants in each
subcategory. This statistical approach is
consistent with the methodology used
in the October 6, 2009, Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
(HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). EPA
conducted this MACT floor analysis for
each pollutant for each of the five CISWI
subcategories we are establishing in this
proposed rule: Incinerators; energy
recovery units; waste-burning kilns;
burn-off ovens; and small, remote
incinerators.
To determine the MACT floor for new
sources, we used a UL calculation
similar to that for existing sources,
except the best performing unit’s data
within a subcategory was used to
calculate the MACT floor emission limit
for each pollutant instead of the average
of the best performing 12 percent of
units. In summary, the approach ranks
individual CISWI units based on actual
performance and establishes MACT
floors based on the best performing
source for each pollutant and
subcategory, with an appropriate
accounting of emissions variability. In
other words, the UL was determined for
the data set of individual test runs for
the single best performing source for
each regulated pollutant from each
subcategory.
EPA also solicits comment on
whether EPA should use an alternate
statistical interval, the 99 percent upper
prediction limit (UPL) instead of the UL.
In general, a prediction interval (e.g., a
UPL) is useful in determining what
future values are likely to be, based
upon present or past background
samples taken. The 99 percent UPL
represents the value that one can expect
the mean of future 3-run performance
tests from the best-performing 12
percent of sources to fall below with 99
percent confidence, based upon the
results of the independent sample of
observations from the same best
performing sources. The 99 percent UPL
value based on the test run data for
those units in the best-performing 12
percent could be calculated using one of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31943
the following spreadsheet equations
depending on the distribution of data:
Normal distribution: 99% UPL =
AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12%) +
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) × TINV(2 ×
probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) ×
SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed upper
prediction limit with a probability of 0.01,
sample size of n and number of runs whose
average will be reported to EPA for
compliance of m = 3.
Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL =
EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log Values of Test
Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log
Values of Test Runs in Top 12%) × TINV(2
× probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) ×
SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]}, for a one-tailed upper
prediction limit with a probability of 0.01,
sample size of n and number of runs whose
average will be reported to EPA for
compliance of m = 3.
In addition to proposing standards for
the nine pollutants discussed above, we
are also proposing opacity standards for
new and existing sources in the five
subcategories as discussed below.
Test method measurement
imprecision can also be a component of
data variability. At very low emissions
levels as encountered in the data used
to support this rule, the inherent
imprecision in the pollutant
measurement method has a large
influence on the reliability of the data
underlying the regulatory floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit. Of
particular concern are those data that
are reported near or below a test
method’s pollutant detection capability.
In our guidance for reporting pollutant
emissions used to support this rule, we
specified the criteria for determining
test-specific method detection levels.
Those criteria insure that there is about
a 1 percent probability of an error in
deciding that the pollutant measured at
the method detection level is present,
when in fact, it was absent. Such a
probability is also called a false positive
or the alpha, Type I, error. Another view
of this probability is that one is 99
percent certain of the presence of the
pollutant measured at the method
detection level. Because of matrix
effects, laboratory techniques, sample
size and other factors, method detection
levels normally vary from test to test.
We requested sources to identify (i.e.,
flag) data which were measured below
the method detection level and to report
those values as equal to the test-specific
method detection level.
Variability of data due to
measurement imprecision is inherently
and reasonably addressed in calculating
the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions
limit when the database represents
multiple tests for which all of the data
are measured significantly above the
method detection level. That is less true
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31944
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
when the database includes emissions
occurring below method detection
capabilities and are reported as the
method detection level values. The
database is then truncated at the lower
end of the measurement range (i.e., no
values reported below the method
detection level) and we believe that a
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit
based on a truncated database or
otherwise including values at or near
the method detection level may not
adequately account for data
measurement variability. We did not
adjust the calculated floor for the data
used for this proposal; although, we
believe that accounting for measurement
imprecision should be an important
consideration in calculating the floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit. We
request comment on approaches
suitable to account for measurement
variability in establishing the floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit when
based on measurements at or near the
method detection level.
As noted above, the confidence level
that a value measured at the detection
level is greater than zero is about 99
percent. The expected measurement
imprecision for an emissions value
occurring at or near the method
detection level is about 40 to 50 percent.
Pollutant measurement imprecision
decreases to a consistent relative 10 to
15 percent for values measured at a
level about three times the method
detection level.4 One approach that we
believe could be applied to account for
measurement variability would require
defining a method detection level that is
representative of the data used in
establishing the floor or beyond-thefloor emissions limits and also
minimizes the influence of an outlier
test-specific method detection level
value. The first step in this approach
would be to identify the highest testspecific method detection level reported
in a data set that is also equal to or less
than the floor or beyond-the-floor
emissions limit calculated for the data
set. This approach has the advantage of
relying on the data collected to develop
the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions
limit while to some degree minimizing
4 American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Reference Method Accuracy and Precision
(ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February
2001.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
the effect of a test(s) with an
inordinately high method detection
level (e.g., the sample volume was too
small, the laboratory technique was
insufficiently sensitive or the procedure
for determining the detection level was
other than that specified).
The second step would be to
determine the value equal to three times
the representative method detection
level and compare it to the calculated
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions
limit. If three times the representative
method detection level was less than the
calculated floor or beyond-the-floor
emissions limit, we would conclude
that measurement variability is
adequately addressed and we would not
adjust the calculated floor or beyondthe-floor emissions limit. If, on the other
hand, the value equal to three times the
representative method detection level
was greater than the calculated floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit, we
would conclude that the calculated floor
or beyond-the-floor emissions limit does
not account entirely for measurement
variability. We then would use the value
equal to three times the method
detection level in place of the calculated
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit
to ensure that the floor or beyond-thefloor emissions limit accounts for
measurement variability. We request
comment on this approach.
As stated above, EPA’s solid waste
definition rule proposes to define which
non-hazardous secondary materials that
are used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units are solid wastes under
Subtitle D of RCRA. In addition to the
primary proposed approach set forth in
the Solid Waste Definition rule, the rule
solicits comments on an alternative
approach for determining which
secondary materials are solid waste
under Subtitle D of RCRA, when
combusted. The MACT analysis
discussed above considers only those
commercial or industrial units that are
CISWI units (i.e., that are units that
combust ‘‘solid waste’’ as that term is
defined by the Administrator under
RCRA). Based on the MACT analysis
described above, we calculated emission
standards under both the primary
proposed approach and the alternative
approach identified in the proposed
Solid Waste Definition rule. The only
two subcategories for which the number
of units changed under the alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
approach set forth in the solid waste
definition rule were the energy recovery
units and waste-burning kilns
subcategories. Because the number of
units in these two subcategories is
different under the alternative approach,
the NSPS and EG did change. Based on
the information available to EPA, the
number of units in the other
subcategories (i.e., incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small, remote incinerators)
remained the same under both the
proposed and alternative approaches,
and the NSPS and EG, therefore, did not
change under the alternative approach.
Table 1 of this preamble shows a
comparison of the existing source
MACT limits from the 2000 CISWI rule
and those developed for the five
subcategories in this action based on the
proposed definition of solid waste. EPA
did not establish subcategories in the
2000 CISWI rule and, for that reason, a
direct comparison with the standards
proposed today with the 2000 standards
is only possible for the incinerators
subcategory. As stated above, we are
proposing to subcategorize CISWI units
for reasons described in Section IV.B of
this preamble. The five subcategories
are:
• Incinerators, which are those units
that are currently regulated by the 2000
CISWI rule, are units that are used to
dispose of solid waste materials.
• Energy recovery units that combust
solid waste materials as a percentage of
their fuel mixture. Energy recovery units
include units that would be boilers or
process heaters if they did not combust
solid waste.
• Waste-burning kilns means a kiln
that is heated, in whole or in part, by
combusting solid waste (as that term is
defined by the Administrator under
RCRA).
• Burn-off ovens that are used to
clean residual solid waste materials off
of various metal parts which are then
reused.
• Small, remote incinerators that
combust less than one ton of waste per
day and are farther than 50 miles
driving distance to the closest
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.
The proposed MACT floor emission
limits for existing sources in each
subcategory are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
31945
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF EXISTING SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR 2000 CISWI RULE AND THE PROPOSED MACT
FLOOR LIMITS
[Based on the primary proposed definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
Proposed CISWI subcategories
Incinerators
(2000 CISWI
limit)
Pollutant (units) 1
HCl (ppmv) ...................................
CO (ppmv) ...................................
Pb (mg/dscm) ...............................
Cd (mg/dscm) ..............................
Hg (mg/dscm) ..............................
PM, filterable (mg/dscm) ..............
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) .....
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) .....
NOX (ppmv) .................................
SO2 (ppmv) ..................................
Opacity (%) ..................................
Incinerators
62
157
0.04
0.004
0.47
70
(no limit)
0.41
388
20
10
29
2.2
0.0026
0.0013
0.0028
13
0.031
0.0025
34
2.5
1
Energy
recovery units
Waste-burning
kilns
1.5
150
0.002
0.00041
0.00096
9.2
0.75
0.059
130
4.1
1
Burn-off ovens
1.5
710
0.0027
0.0003
0.024
60
2.1
0.17
1,100
410
4
130
80
0.041
0.0045
0.014
33
310
25
120
11
2
Small, remote
incinerators
150
78
1.4
0.26
0.0029
240
1,600
130
210
44
13
1 All
emission limits are measured at 7% oxygen.
ppmv = parts per million by volume.
mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
After establishing the MACT floors for
each subcategory and pollutant, EPA
also assessed options more stringent
than the MACT floors. For reasons
described in the rationale section (IV) of
the preamble, we are not proposing
limits more stringent than the MACT
floor. However, we are proposing to
amend the requirements to qualify for
reduced testing and, thereby, we are
providing an incentive for owners or
operators to optimize a unit’s carbon
injection system and other operating
parameters to further reduce both
mercury and dioxin/furan emissions.
As stated above, the approach for new
sources was similar to that used with
the existing sources, except the best
performing unit’s data within a
subcategory was used to calculate the
MACT floor emission limit instead of
the average of the best performing 12
percent of units. In summary, the
approach ranks individual CISWI units
based on actual performance and
establishes MACT floors based on the
best performing source for each
pollutant and subcategory, with an
appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. The new source MACT floor
emission limits for each CISWI
subcategory are shown in Table 2 of this
preamble.
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF NEW SOURCE MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR 2000 CISWI RULE AND THE PROPOSED MACT
FLOOR LIMITS
[Based on the primary definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
Proposed CISWI subcategories
Incinerators
(2000 limit)
Pollutant (units) 1
HCl (ppmv) ...................................
CO (ppmv) ...................................
Pb (mg/dscm) ...............................
Cd (mg/dscm) ..............................
Hg (mg/dscm) ..............................
PM, filterable (mg/dscm) ..............
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) .....
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) .....
NOX (ppmv) .................................
SO2 (ppmv) ..................................
Opacity (%) ..................................
1 All
62
157
0.04
0.004
0.47
70
(no limit)
0.41
388
20
10
0.074
1.4
0.0013
0.00066
0.00013
0.0077
0.0093
0.00073
19
1.5
1
Energy
recovery units
Waste-burning
kilns
0.17
3.0
0.0012
0.00012
0.00013
4.4
0.034
0.0027
75
4.1
1
Burn-off ovens
1.5
36
0.00078
0.00030
0.024
1.8
0.00035
0.000028
140
3.6
1
18
74
0.029
0.0032
0.0033
28
0.011
0.00086
16
1.5
2
Small, remote
incinerators
150
4.0
1.4
0.057
0.0013
240
1,200
94
210
43
13
emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
3. How is the solid waste definition
addressed in this proposed rule?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Incinerators
EPA is proposing to define the nonhazardous secondary materials that are
solid waste in a parallel notice under
RCRA and the RCRA proposal also
identifies an ‘‘alternative approach’’ for
consideration and comment. The
concurrently proposed RCRA solid
waste definition is integral in defining
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
the CISWI source category. As stated
above, the emission limits presented in
Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble are
based on subcategories established
considering sources that are CISWI units
under the ‘‘proposed approach’’ for
defining when non-hazardous
secondary materials are solid waste, as
discussed in a parallel proposal under
RCRA. As stated above, the ‘‘alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
approach’’ identified for consideration
and comment in the RCRA notice would
result in a different population of units
being covered by the standards for two
of the CISWI subcategories. We
calculated MACT floors using emission
rates for units that would be CISWI
units under the ‘‘alternative approach’’
(i.e., for units in the energy recovery
units and waste-burning kilns
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31946
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
subcategories) and the MACT standard
setting procedures previously described.
Table 3 of this preamble reflects the
potential MACT floor limits for the
subcategories (i.e., energy recovery unit
and waste-burning kiln) that would be
affected considering the ‘‘alternative
approach’’ for defining solid waste. The
MACT floor limits for the remaining
three subcategories would not be
impacted by the ‘‘alternative approach’’
and are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of
this preamble.
TABLE 3—POTENTIAL NEW AND EXISTING MACT FLOOR LIMITS FOR THE ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS AND WASTE-BURNING KILN SUBCATEGORIES USING THE ‘‘ALTERNATIVE APPROACH’’ UNDER CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT IN THE
CONCURRENTLY PROPOSED RCRA RULE
Proposed MACT floor for existing
units
HCl (ppmv) ...............................................................................................
CO (ppmv) ...............................................................................................
Pb (mg/dscm) ..........................................................................................
Cd (mg/dscm) ..........................................................................................
Hg (mg/dscm) ..........................................................................................
PM, filterable (mg/dscm) ..........................................................................
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) .................................................................
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) .................................................................
NOX (ppmv) .............................................................................................
SO2 (ppmv) ..............................................................................................
Opacity (%) ..............................................................................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
1 All
Proposed MACT floor for new
units
Energy
recovery units
Pollutant
(units) 1
Energy
recovery units
Waste-burning
kilns
30
290
0.15
0.013
0.0085
69
95
7.5
440
1,500
1
3.6
760
0.0061
0.00070
0.03
71
2.2
0.18
1,100
410
4
0.036
3
0.000023
0.0000011
0.00013
3.4
0.0017
0.00014
63
0.040
1
Waste-burning
kilns
3.6
36
0.00078
0.00070
0.00081
1.8
0.00035
0.000028
140
3.6
1
emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) FiveYear Review Response
Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires
EPA to conduct a review of the
standards at five-year intervals and, in
accordance with CAA Sections 129 and
111, revise the standards. We do not
interpret CAA Section 129(a)(5),
together with CAA Section 111, as
requiring EPA to recalculate MACT
floors in connection with this periodic
review. See, e.g., 71 FR 27324, 27327–
28 (May 10, 2006) ‘‘Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing
Sources: Large Municipal Waste
Combustors; Final Rule’’; see also, NRDC
and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083–
84 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (upholding EPA’s
interpretation that the periodic review
requirement in CAA Section 112(d)(6)
does not impose an obligation to
recalculate MACT floors).
Rather, in conducting such periodic
reviews, EPA attempts to assess the
performance of and variability
associated with control measures
affecting emissions performance at
sources in the subject source category
(including the installed emissions
control equipment), along with recent
developments in practices, processes
and control technologies, and
determines whether it is appropriate to
revise the standards. This is the same
general approach taken by EPA in
periodically reviewing CAA Section 111
standards, as CAA Section 111 contains
a similar review and revise provision.
Specifically, CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
requires EPA, except in specified
circumstances, to review NSPS
promulgated under CAA Section 111
every eight years and to revise the
standards if EPA determines that it is
‘‘appropriate’’ to do so, 42 U.S.C.
7411(b)(1)(B). In light of the explicit
reference in CAA Section 129(a)(5) to
Section 111, which contains direct
guidance on how to review and revise
standards previously promulgated, EPA
reasonably interprets CAA Section
129(a)(5) to provide that EPA must
similarly review and, if appropriate,
revise CAA Section 129 standards.
Section 129 provides guidance on the
criteria to be used in determining
whether it is appropriate to revise a
CAA Section 129 standard. Section
129(a)(3) states that standards under
CAA Sections 111 and 129 ‘‘shall be
based on methods and technologies for
removal or destruction of pollutants
before, during and after combustion.’’ It
can be reasonably inferred from the
reference to ‘‘technologies’’ that EPA is
to consider advances in technology,
both as to their effectiveness and their
costs, as well as the availability of new
technologies, in determining whether it
is ‘‘appropriate’’ to revise a CAA Section
129 standard. This inference is further
supported by the fact that the standards
under review are based, in part, on an
assessment of the performance of
control technologies currently being
used by sources in a category or
subcategory.
This approach is also consistent with
the approach used in establishing and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
updating NSPS under CAA Section 111.
Consistent with the definition of
‘‘standard of performance’’ in CAA
Section 111(a)(1), standards of
performance promulgated under CAA
Section 111 are based on ‘‘the best
system of emission reductions’’ which
generally equates to some type of
control technology. Where EPA
determines that it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to
revise CAA Section 111 standards, CAA
Section 111(b)(1)(B) directs that this be
done ‘‘following the procedure required
by this subsection for promulgation of
such standards.’’ In updating CAA
Section 111 standards in accordance
with CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B), EPA has
consistently taken the approach of
evaluating advances in existing control
technologies, both as to performance
and cost, as well as the availability of
new technologies and then, on the basis
of this evaluation, determined whether
it is appropriate to revise the standard.
See, for example, 71 FR 9866 (Feb. 27,
2006) (updating the boilers NSPS) and
71 FR 38482 (July 6, 2006) (updating the
stationary combustion turbines NSPS).
In these reviews, EPA takes into
account, among other things, the
currently installed equipment and its
performance and operational variability.
As appropriate, we also consider new
technologies and control measures that
have been demonstrated to reliably
control emissions from the source
category.
The approach is similar to the one
that Congress spelled out in CAA
Section 112(d)(6), which is also entitled
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Review and revision.’’ Section 112(d)(6)
directs EPA to every eight years ‘‘review,
and revise as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices,
processes and control technologies)’’
emission standards promulgated
pursuant to CAA Section 112. There are
a number of significant similarities
between what is required under CAA
Section 129, which addresses emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and
other pollutants from solid waste
incineration units, and CAA Section
112, which addresses HAP emissions
generally. For example, under both CAA
Section 112(d)(3) and CAA Section
129(a)(2) initial standards applicable to
existing sources ‘‘shall not be less
stringent than the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units in the
category.’’ Also, as stated above, both
sections require that standards be
reviewed at specified intervals of time.
Finally, both sections contain a
provision addressing ‘‘residual risk’’
(CAA Sections 112(f) and 129(h)(3)). As
a result, EPA believes that CAA Section
112(d)(6) is relevant in ascertaining
Congress’ intent regarding how EPA is
to proceed in implementing CAA
Section 129(a)(5).
Like its counterpart CAA Section
112(d)(6), Section 129(a)(5) does not
state that EPA must conduct a MACT
floor analysis every five years when
reviewing standards promulgated under
CAA Sections 129(a)(2) and 111. Had
Congress intended EPA to conduct a
new floor analysis every five years, it
would have said so expressly by directly
incorporating such requirements into
CAA Section 129(a)(5), for example, by
referring directly to CAA Section
129(a)(2), rather than just to ‘‘this
section’’ and CAA Section 111. It did not
do so, however, and, in fact, CAA
Section 129 encompasses more than just
MACT standards under CAA Section
129(a)(2)—it also includes risk-based
standards under CAA Section 129(h)(3),
which are not determined by an
additional MACT analysis. Reading
CAA Section 129(a)(5) to require
recalculation of the MACT floor would
be both inconsistent with Congress’
express direction that EPA should revise
CAA Section 129 standards in
accordance with CAA Section 111,
which plainly provides that such
revision should occur only if we
determine that it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to do
so. It would also result in effectively
reading the reference to CAA Section
111 out of the CAA, a circumstance that
Congress could not have intended.
Required recalculation of floors would
completely eviscerate EPA’s ability to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
base revisions to CAA Section 129
standards on a determination that it is
‘‘appropriate’’ to revise such standards,
as EPA’s only discretion would be in
deciding whether to establish a standard
that is more stringent than the
recalculated floor. EPA believes that
depriving the Agency of any meaningful
discretion in this manner is at odds with
what Congress intended.
Further, required recalculation of
floors would have the inexorable effect
of driving existing sources to the level
of performance exhibited by new
sources on a five-year cycle, a result that
is unprecedented and that should not be
presumed to have been intended by
Congress in the absence of a clear
statement to that effect. There is no such
clear statement. It is reasonable to
assume that if the floor must be
recalculated on a five-year cycle, some,
if not most or all, of the sources that
form the basis for the floor calculation,
will be sources that were previously
subject to standards applicable to new
sources. As a result, over time, existing
sources which had not made any
changes in their operations, would
eventually be subject to essentially the
same level of regulation as new sources.
Such a result would be unprecedented,
particularly in the context of a standard
that is established under both CAA
Sections 129 and 111. Under CAA
Section 111, an existing source only
becomes a new source and thus subject
to a new source standard when it is
either modified (CAA Section 111(a)(2))
or reconstructed (40 CFR 60.15). Given
this context, it is not reasonable to
assume that Congress intended for
existing sources subject to CAA Section
129 standards to be treated as new
sources over time where their
circumstances have not changed.
We believe that a reasonable
interpretation of CAA Section 129(a)(5)
is that Congress preserved EPA’s
discretion in reviewing CAA Section
129 standards to revise them when the
EPA determines it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to do
so and that the Court’s recent ruling
regarding CAA Section 112(d)(6)
supports this view (see NRDC and LEAN
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir.
2008). In that case, petitioners had
‘‘argued that EPA was obliged to
completely recalculate the maximum
achievable control technology—in other
words, to start from scratch.’’ NRDC and
LEAN, 529 F.3d at 1084. The Court held:
‘‘We do not think the words ‘review, and
revise as necessary’ can be construed
reasonably as imposing any such
obligation.’’ The Court’s ruling in NRDC
and LEAN is consistent with our
interpretation of CAA Section 129(a)(5)
as providing a broad range of discretion
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31947
in terms of whether to revise MACT
standards adopted under CAA Sections
129(a)(2) and 111.
C. EPA’s Approach in Conducting the
Five-Year Review
This action responds to the vacatur
and remand of the CISWI Definition
Rule and the voluntary remand of the
2000 CISWI NSPS and EG, and, in this
response, EPA is proposing new
standards based on a MACT
methodology that is consistent with the
CAA and District of Columbia Circuit
Court precedent. The MACT levels
proposed herein reflect floor levels
determined by actual current emissions
data from CISWI units, and, therefore,
reflect the current performance of the
best performing unit or units that will
be subject to the CISWI standards.
Consequently, we believe that our
obligation to conduct a five-year review
based on implementation of the 2000
CISWI rule will also be fulfilled upon
finalization of the CISWI standards. Our
conclusion is supported by the fact that
the revised MACT standards included
in this proposed remand response are
based on the available performance data
for the currently operating CISWI units,
including those units that are subject to
the 2000 CISWI rule and those units that
will be subject to the CISWI standards
for the first time based on the proposed
Solid Waste Definition rule under
RCRA. In establishing MACT floors
based on currently available emissions
information, we address the technology
review’s goals of assessing the
performance efficiency of the installed
equipment and ensuring that the
emission limits reflect the performance
of the technologies required by the
MACT standards. In addition, in
establishing the proposed standards, we
considered whether new technologies
and processes and improvements in
practices have been demonstrated at
sources subject to the 2000 CISWI rule
and at sources that will be subject to
these proposed standards for the first
time based on the proposed definition of
solid waste. Accordingly, the remand
response in this proposed action fulfills
EPA’s obligations regarding the five-year
review of the CISWI standards.
D. Other Proposed Amendments
This proposed action makes
additional changes to the 2000 CISWI
rule, including changes to the units
excluded from regulation under the
2000 CISWI rule; the removal of the
exemption for periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction; changes to
the testing, monitoring and reporting
requirements; and changes to the
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31948
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
electronic data submittal requirements.
A summary of these changes follows.
1. Definitions and Units Excluded From
Regulation
We are revising the definition of
CISWI unit to reflect the Court decision
that all units burning solid waste as
defined under RCRA are to be covered
by regulation under CAA Section 129.
We are also adding a definition of ‘‘solid
waste incineration unit’’ and removing
the definition of ‘‘commercial and
industrial waste’’. We also included for
the first time definitions of the five
subcategories of CISWI units that will be
regulated under the proposed rules.
The 2000 CISWI rule excluded from
regulation combustion units at
commercial or industrial facilities that
recovered energy for a useful purpose,
and also excluded multiple other types
of units that may combust solid waste
including: Pathological waste
incinerators; agricultural waste
incinerators; incinerators regulated by
the CAA Section 129 municipal waste
combustor (MWC) or HMIWI standards;
incinerators with a capacity less than 35
tons per day that combust more than 30
percent MSW; qualifying small power
producers; qualifying cogeneration
units; materials recovery units; air
curtain incinerators combusting ‘‘clean
wood’’ waste; cyclonic barrel burners;
rack, part and drum reclamation units;
cement kilns; sewage sludge
incinerators (SSI); chemical recovery
units; and laboratory analysis units.
Qualifying small power producers,
qualifying cogeneration units and
metals recovery units are expressly
exempt from coverage pursuant to CAA
exclusions from the definition of ‘‘solid
waste incineration unit’’ set forth in
Section 129(g)(1). Units that are
required to have a permit under section
3005 or the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(i.e., hazardous waste combustion units)
are also exempt from Section 129 rules
per CAA Section 129(g)(1). Air curtain
incinerators at commercial or industrial
facilities combusting ‘‘clean wood’’
waste are also excluded from the
definition of solid waste incineration
unit set forth in CAA Section 129(g)(1),
but that section provides that such units
must comply with opacity limits.
Solid waste incineration units that are
included within the scope of other CAA
Section 129 categories include MWCs,
pathological waste incinerators (EPA
intends to regulate these units under
other solid waste incineration (OSWI)
standards), SSI (EPA currently intends
to issue a regulation setting emission
standards for these units by December
16, 2010), and HMIWI, and these solid
waste incineration units will remain
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
exempt from the CISWI standards. All
other solid waste incineration units at
commercial and industrial facilities
would be subject to the proposed CISWI
standards. Accordingly, the proposed
revisions to the CISWI rules would
remove the exemptions for: Agricultural
waste incinerators; cyclonic barrel
burners; cement kilns; rack, part and
drum reclamation units (i.e. burn-off
ovens); chemical recovery units; and
laboratory analysis units. As stated
above, we are proposing to create
subcategories for waste-burning kilns,
energy recovery units and burn-off
ovens and subject them to this proposed
rule in light of the CISWI Definitions
Rule vacatur. We note that other Section
129 standards may contain an
exemption for cement kilns. Those
exemptions do not excuse waste
burning kilns from compliance with
these proposed standards. As those
other Section 129 rules are amended, we
will clarify that cement kilns that meet
the definition of waste-burning kiln and
other CISWI units that may be expressly
exempt from those standards are subject
to CISWI standards if they combust
solid waste.
CISWI units burning agricultural
materials that meet the definition of
solid waste would be part of the
appropriate standards under this
proposed rule. If the unit recovers
energy, it would be subject to the CISWI
energy recovery unit subcategory, and
our inventory includes one such unit. If
the unit does not recover energy, it
would be included in either the
incinerators subcategory or the small,
remote incinerators subcategory. We are
not aware of any circumstances in
which waste-burning kilns or burn off
ovens would combust agricultural
materials. Cyclonic burn barrels, which
may be used to combust agricultural
materials, would be included in either
the incinerators subcategory or the small
remote incinerators subcategory.
2. Performance Testing and Monitoring
Amendments
The proposed amendments would
require all CISWI units to demonstrate
initial compliance with the revised
emission limits. The proposed
amendments would require, for existing
CISWI units, annual inspections of
scrubbers, fabric filters and other air
pollution control devices that are used
to meet the emission limits. In addition,
a Method 22 of appendix A–7 visible
emissions test of the ash handling
operations is required to be conducted
during the annual compliance test for
all subcategories except waste-burning
kilns, which do not have ash handling
systems. Furthermore, for any existing
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
CISWI unit that operates a fabric filter
air pollution control device, we are
proposing that a bag leak detection
system be installed to monitor the
device. The proposed amendments
continue to require parametric
monitoring of all other add-on air
pollution control devices, such as wet
scrubbers and activated carbon
injection. CISWI units that install SNCR
technology to reduce NOX emissions
would be required to monitor the
reagent (e.g., ammonia or urea) injection
rate and secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to the CISWI
unit).
The proposed amendments would
also require subcategory-specific
monitoring requirements in addition to
the aforementioned inspection, bag leak
detection and parametric monitoring
requirements applicable to all CISWI
units. Existing incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small, remote incinerators
would have annual emissions testing for
opacity, HCl and PM. Existing kilns
would monitor Hg emissions using a Hg
continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS) and would perform
annual testing for CO, NOX, SO2, PM,
HCl and opacity. Existing energy
recovery units would monitor CO using
a CO CEMS. We seek comment on the
extent to which existing units in
subcategories other than energy
recovery should be required to use CO
CEMS. Annual performance testing for
CO, NOX, SO2, PM, HCl, dioxins/furans
and opacity is also required for these
units. The proposed amendments
provide reduced annual testing
requirements for PM, HCl and opacity
when testing results are shown to be
well below the limits. If the energy
recovery unit has a design capacity less
than 250 MMBtu/hr and is not equipped
with a wet scrubber control device, then
a continuous opacity monitor would be
required or, as an alternative, a PM
CEMS could be employed (see below).
If the energy recovery unit has a design
capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/hr, the
proposed requirements would require
monitoring of PM emissions using a PM
CEMS. We seek comment on the extent
to which subcategories other than
energy recovery units should be
required to use PM CEMS.
For new CISWI units, the proposed
amendments would require the same
monitoring requirements proposed for
existing units, but would also require
CO CEMS for all subcategories.
For all subcategories of existing
CISWI units, use of CO CEMS would be
an approved alternative and specific
language with requirements for CO
CEMS is included in the proposed
amendments. For new and existing
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
CISWI units, use of PM, NOX, SO2, HCl,
multi-metals and Hg CEMS and
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring
and dioxin monitoring (continuous
sampling with periodic sample analysis)
also would be approved alternatives and
specific language for those alternatives
is included in the proposed
amendments.
3. Electronic Data Submittal
The EPA must have performance test
data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA Section 112 and 129 standards, as
well as for many other purposes
including compliance determinations,
emissions factor development and
annual emissions rate determinations.
In conducting these required reviews,
we have found it ineffective and time
consuming not only for us but also for
regulatory agencies and source owners
and operators to locate, collect and
submit emissions test data because of
varied locations for data storage and
varied data storage methods. One
improvement that has occurred in
recent years is the availability of stack
test reports in electronic format as a
replacement for cumbersome paper
copies.
In this action, we are taking a step to
improve data accessibility. Owners and
operators of CISWI units will be
required to submit to an EPA electronic
database an electronic copy of reports of
certain performance tests required
under this rule. Data entry will be
through an electronic emissions test
report structure called the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) that will be used
by the staff as part of the emissions
testing project. The ERT was developed
with input from stack testing companies
who generally collect and compile
performance test data electronically and
offices within state and local agencies
which perform field test assessments.
The ERT is currently available, and
access to direct data submittal to EPA’s
electronic emissions database
(WebFIRE) will become available by
December 31, 2011.
The requirement to submit source test
data electronically to EPA will not
require any additional performance
testing and will apply to those
performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by ERT. The
ERT contains a specific electronic data
entry form for most of the commonly
used EPA reference methods. The Web
site listed below contains a listing of the
pollutants and test methods supported
by ERT. In addition, when a facility
submits performance test data to
WebFIRE, there will be no additional
requirements for emissions test data
compilation. Moreover, we believe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
industry will benefit from development
of improved emissions factors, fewer
follow-up information requests and
better regulation development as
discussed below. The information to be
reported is already required for the
existing test methods and is necessary to
evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
One major advantage of submitting
source test data through the ERT is that
it provides a standardized method to
compile and store much of the
documentation required to be reported
by this rule while clearly stating what
testing information we require. Another
important benefit of submitting these
data to EPA at the time the source test
is conducted is that it will substantially
reduce the effort involved in data
collection activities in the future.
Specifically, because EPA would
already have data for this source
category as a result of the electronic
reporting provisions described here,
there would likely be fewer or less
substantial data collection requests (e.g.,
CAA Section 114 letters) in the future
for this source category. This results in
a reduced burden on both affected
facilities (in terms of reduced manpower
to respond to data collection requests)
and EPA (in terms of preparing and
distributing data collection requests).
State/local/tribal agencies may also
benefit in that their review may be more
streamlined and accurate as the states
will not have to re-enter the data to
assess the calculations and verify the
data entry. Finally, another benefit of
submitting these data to WebFIRE
electronically is that these data will
improve greatly the overall quality of
the existing and new emissions factors
by supplementing the pool of emissions
test data upon which the emissions
factor is based and by ensuring that data
are more representative of current
industry operational procedures. A
common complaint we hear from
industry and regulators is that emissions
factors are outdated or not
representative of a particular source
category. Receiving and incorporating
data for most performance tests will
ensure that emissions factors, when
updated, represent accurately the most
current operational practices. In
summary, receiving test data already
collected for other purposes and using
them in the emissions factors
development program will save
industry, state/local/tribal agencies and
EPA time and money and work to
improve the quality of emissions
inventories and related regulatory
decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic
database that will be used is EPA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31949
WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible
through EPA’s TTN. The WebFIRE Web
site was constructed to store emissions
test data for use in developing emissions
factors. A description of the WebFIRE
database can be found at https://
cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/
index.cfm?action=fire.main. The ERT
will be able to transmit the electronic
report through EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) network for storage in
the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is
not the only electronic interface that can
be used to submit source test data to the
CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes
submittal of data very straightforward
and easy. A description of the ERT can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
4. Changes to Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction Provisions
The 2000 CISWI standards did not
apply during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction. The
proposed rule would revise the 2000
CISWI rule such that the standards
would apply at all times, including
during startup, shutdown or
malfunction events. As further
explained in Section IV.E.4 of this
preamble, the revision is the result of a
court decision that invalidated certain
regulations related to startup, shutdown
and malfunction in the General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. The full
rationale for these decisions is
presented in Section IV.E.3 of this
preamble.
E. Proposed State Plan Implementation
Schedule for Existing CISWI
Under the proposed amendments to
the EG and consistent with CAA Section
129, revised state plans containing the
revised existing source emission limits
and other requirements in the proposed
amendments would be due within one
year after promulgation of the
amendments. That is, states would have
to submit revised plans to EPA one year
after the date on which EPA
promulgates revised standards.
The proposed amendments to the EG
would then allow existing CISWI to
demonstrate compliance with the
amended standards as expeditiously as
practicable after approval of a state plan,
but no later than three years from the
date of approval of a state plan or five
years after promulgation of the revised
standards, whichever is earlier.
Consistent with CAA Section 129, EPA
expects states to require compliance as
expeditiously as practicable. However,
because we believe that many CISWI
units will find it necessary to retrofit
existing emission control equipment
and/or install additional emission
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31950
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
control equipment in order to meet the
proposed revised limits, EPA anticipates
that states may choose to provide the
three year compliance period allowed
by CAA Section 129(f)(2).
In revising the standards in a state
plan, a state would have two options.
First, it could include both the 2000
CISWI standards and the new standards
in its revised state plan, which would
allow a phased approach in applying
the new limits. That is, the state plan
would make it clear that the standards
in the 2000 CISWI rule remain in force
for units in the incinerators subcategory
and apply until the date the revised
existing source standards are effective
(as defined in the state plan).5 States
whose existing CISWI units in the
incinerators subcategory do not need to
improve their performance to meet the
revised standards may want to consider
a second approach where the state
would replace the 2000 CISWI rule
standards with the standards in the final
rule, follow the procedures in 40 CFR
part 60, subpart B, and submit a revised
state plan to EPA for approval. If the
revised state plan contains only the
revised standards (i.e., the 2000 CISWI
rule standards are not retained), then
the revised standards must become
effective immediately for those units in
the incinerators subcategory that are
subject to the 2000 CISWI rule since the
2000 CISWI rule standards would be
removed from the state plan.
EPA will revise the existing Federal
plan to incorporate any changes to
existing source emission limits and
other requirements that EPA ultimately
promulgates. The Federal plan applies
to CISWI units in any state without an
approved state plan. The proposed
amendments to the EG would allow
existing CISWI units subject to the
Federal plan up to five years after
promulgation of the revised standards to
demonstrate compliance with the
amended standards, as required by CAA
Section 129(b)(3).
F. Proposed Changes To the
Applicability Date of the 2000 NSPS
and EG
CISWI units in the incinerators
subcategory would be treated differently
under the amended standards, as
proposed, than they were under the
2000 CISWI rule in terms of whether
they are ‘‘existing’’ or ‘‘new’’ sources.
Consistent with the CAA Section 129
definition of ‘‘new’’ sources, there would
be new dates defining what units are
‘‘new’’ sources. Units in the incinerators
subcategory that are currently subject to
the NSPS would become ‘‘existing’’
sources under the proposed amended
standards and would be required to
meet the revised EG for the incinerators
subcategory by the applicable
compliance date for the revised
guidelines. However, those units would
continue to be NSPS units subject to the
2000 CISWI rule until they become
‘‘existing’’ sources under the amended
standards. CISWI units in the five
subcategories that commence
construction after the date of this
proposal, or for which a modification is
commenced on or after the date six
months after promulgation of the
amended standards, would be ‘‘new’’
units subject to more stringent NSPS
emission limits. Units for which
construction or modification is
commenced prior to those dates would
be existing units subject to the proposed
EG, except that units in the incinerators
subcategory would remain subject to the
2000 CISWI rule until the compliance
date of the proposed CISWI EG as
discussed above. CISWI solid waste
incineration units in the subcategories
other than the incinerators subcategory
will not in any case be subject to the
standards in the 2000 CISWI rule.
Thus, under these proposed
amendments, units in the incinerators
subcategory that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999,
and on or before June 4, 2010, or that
are reconstructed or modified prior to
the date six months after promulgation
of any revised final standards, would be
subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS until
the applicable compliance date for the
revised EG, at which time those units
would become ‘‘existing’’ sources.
Similarly, units in the incinerators
subcategory subject to the EG under the
2000 CISWI rule would need to meet the
revised EG by the applicable
compliance date for the revised
guidelines. CISWI units that commence
construction after June 4, 2010 or that
are reconstructed or modified six
months or more after the date of
promulgation of any revised standards
would have to meet the revised NSPS
emission limits being added to the
subpart CCCC NSPS within six months
after the promulgation date of the
amendments or upon startup, whichever
is later.
5 All sources currently subject to the 2000 CISWI
EG or NSPS will become existing sources in the
incinerators subcategory once the final revised
CISWI standards are in place. See section III.F
below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response
To the Remand and the Proposed CAA
Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review
Response
1. Rationale for the Proposed Response
To the Remand Pursuant to CAA
Section 129(a)(2)
The proposed revised standards
represent EPA’s position concerning
what is necessary to satisfy our initial
duties under CAA Section 129(a)(2) to
have set MACT limits for CISWI and we
are establishing the MACT standards in
response to the voluntary remand that
EPA requested in 2001 and the Court’s
remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule.
As explained further below, we are
subcategorizing CISWI units for the first
time in light of the new population of
units subject to the rule. Specifically,
we are proposing a total of five
subcategories. Below, we propose
MACT standards for each subcategory of
new and existing CISWI units.
See sections II.A. and III.B above for
a detailed discussion of EPA’s authority
to establish CAA Section 129(a)(2)
standards for CISWI units.
2. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) FiveYear Review Response
As stated above, EPA interprets CAA
Section 129(a)(5) to provide EPA with
broad discretion to revise MACT
standards for incinerators. As we
explained, we do not interpret CAA
Section 129(a)(5), as requiring that EPA
in each round of review, recalculate
MACT floors, and we regard the Court’s
recent ruling in NRDC and LEAN v.
EPA, in which the Court held that the
similar review requirement in CAA
Section 112(d)(6) does not require a
MACT floor recalculation, as supporting
our view. This action does not reflect an
independent MACT floor reassessment
performed under CAA Section 129(a)(5).
However, since these proposed
standards do reflect the emissions levels
currently achieved in practice by the
best performing CISWI units and we
have no other information that would
cause us to reach different conclusions
were a CAA Section 129(a)(5) review to
be conducted in isolation, we believe
that this rulemaking responding to the
Court’s remand will necessarily
discharge our duty under CAA Section
129(a)(5) to review and revise the
current standards.
In performing future five-year reviews
of the CISWI standards, we do not
intend to recalculate new MACT floors,
but will instead propose to revise the
emission limits consistent with our
interpretation as presented above in
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
section III.B. We believe this approach
reflects the most reasonable
interpretation of the review requirement
of CAA Section 129(a)(5), and is
consistent with how we have
interpreted the similar review
requirement of CAA Section 112(d)(6),
regarding MACT standards promulgated
under CAA Section 112.
This action’s proposed remand
response fulfills our obligations
regarding the five-year review of the
CISWI standards because the revised
MACT floor determinations and
emission limits associated with the
remand response are based on
performance data for currently operating
CISWI units and accounts for all nontechnology factors that affect CISWI unit
performance. The proposed remand
response also addresses whether new
technologies and processes and
improvements in practices have been
demonstrated at CISWI units subject to
the 2000 CISWI rule. Furthermore, this
action also proposes monitoring
requirements for control devices that
may be used to comply with the
proposed standards by units in the
subcategories that were not subject to
the 2000 CISWI rule, but would be
subject to these proposed standards.
These controls include activated carbon
injection, selective non-catalytic
reduction and electrostatic precipitators.
Our information indicates that these
technologies are currently being used by
some of the units that would be subject
to this proposal, or have been applied to
units in similar source categories, such
as municipal waste combustors. We also
reviewed CEMS requirements being
proposed in standards for the non-waste
burning counterparts to the wasteburning kiln and energy recovery unit
subcategories, and believe that these can
be applied to similar units that would
be regulated under the proposed CISWI
standards.
B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories
As discussed earlier in section III.A.2.
of this preamble, the population of
existing units that would be subject to
this proposed regulation has been
expanded from the 2000 CISWI rule.
The combustion survey Information
Collection Request (ICR) responses
show that our population of 176 CISWI
units now includes combustion units
with various fundamental differences in
relation to units that were regulated as
CISWI in the 2000 CISWI rule. We are
proposing to subcategorize CISWI units
based on technical and other differences
in the processes, such as combustor
design, draft type and availability of
utilities. These proposed subcategories
for CISWI have been established based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
on fundamental differences in the types
and sizes of units that will be subject to
the standards.
Incinerators: Incinerators, which are
the units currently regulated by the
2000 CISWI rule, are used to dispose of
solid waste materials, and emissions are
a function of the types of materials
burned. Incinerators are designed
without integral heat recovery (but may
include waste heat recovery). While
there are different designs, they all serve
the same purpose: Reduction in the
volume of solid waste materials.
Incinerators can be operated on a batch
or continuous basis. The same types of
add-on controls, including fabric filters,
wet scrubbers, SNCR and activated
carbon injection, can be applied to most
incinerators. Although the composition
of the materials combusted is highly
variable and is a key factor in the profile
of emissions, we determined it was not
appropriate to further subcategorize
incinerators because the sources in this
category are sufficiently similar such
that the incinerators can achieve the
same level of performance for the nine
regulated pollutants.
Energy-recovery units: Energy
recovery units combust solid waste
materials as a percentage of their fuel
mixture and are designed to recover
thermal energy in the form of steam or
hot water. Energy recovery units include
units that would be considered boilers
and process heaters if they did not
combust solid waste. Energy recovery
units are generally larger than
incinerators. They typically fire a
mixture of solid waste and other fuels,
whereas incinerators burn
predominantly solid waste, although
sometimes a small amount of
supplemental fuel is fired in an
incinerator to maintain combustion
temperature. Energy recovery units are
also different from incinerators in terms
of how the fuel is fed into the
combustion chamber, the combustion
chamber design (which typically
includes integral heat recovery) and
other operational characteristics. These
differences can result in emission
profiles for energy recovery units that
are different from incinerators but
similar to boilers. Combustion of waste
materials in these units impacts the
emission profile to some degree,
although emissions from these units
often resemble emissions from boilers
that combust traditional fuels.
Waste-burning kilns: Waste-burning
kilns are fundamentally different than
any other unit being regulated under
CISWI. Kilns of all types are physically
larger than an incinerator with a
comparable heat input. Kiln design and
operation are also different. For
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31951
example, the design is typically a
rotating cylindrical kiln with a fuel
burner on one end and raw materials
being fed in the other (cold) end. Fuel
(particularly solids such as tires) may
also in some cases be fed at a mid-kiln
point. Some kilns also have a large
preheater tower with a precalciner that
is an additional firing point for both
fossil and waste fuels. The temperature
profile of kilns is critical in order to
produce a saleable product. Another key
distinction is that for cement kilns, the
source of most of the pollutants is
typically the raw materials, not the
fuels, and emissions from the raw
materials and the solid wastes and fuels
are comingled and emitted together. As
a result, waste-burning kilns have a very
different emissions profile than other
CISWI subcategories and that difference
can influence the design of applicable
controls.
Burn-off ovens: These units typically
are very small (<1 MMBtu/hr), batchoperated, combustion units that are
used to clean residual materials off of
various metal parts, which are then
reused. The amount of waste combusted
in these units is generally small (pounds
per year in some cases) and the
configuration of the stacks that serve
these units precludes the use of some
EPA test methods for measuring
emissions and could affect the ability to
install certain control devices.
Small, remote, incinerators: These are
batch-operated units that combust less
than one ton of waste per day and are
farther than 50 miles driving distance to
the closest MSW landfill. To the extent
that these are located in Alaska, a major
difference in these types of units is the
inability to operate a wet scrubber in the
northern climates and the lack of
availability of wastewater handling and
treatment utilities. We believe this
would impact their ability to meet
emission limits for pollutants controlled
by wet scrubbers. In addition, because
of the remote location, these units do
not have lower-cost alternative waste
disposal options (i.e., landfills) nearby
and emissions associated with
transporting the solid waste could be
significant.
C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission
Limits
EPA must consider available
emissions test data to determine the
MACT floor. We based the floor
calculations on available emissions
data.6 We did receive some additional
data earlier this year, but as noted
above, due to the court-ordered
6 In calculating the floors for this proposed rule,
we included units combusting manure.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31952
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
deadline, we did not have sufficient
time to review and evaluate that data.
We intend to review and evaluate the
data submitted earlier this year and any
data received during the comment
period, and we intend to include those
data in our final analysis, as
appropriate.
For existing sources, we calculated
the MACT floor for each subcategory of
sources by ranking the emission test
results from units within the
subcategory from lowest emissions to
highest emissions (for each pollutant)
and then taking the numerical average
of the test results from the best
performing (lowest emitting) 12 percent
of sources. That is, the overall 3-run test
average values for each existing unit for
each pollutant were compiled and
ranked from lowest to highest to
identify the best performing 12 percent
of sources within the subcategory for
each pollutant (i.e., on a pollutant-bypollutant basis).7 Because the number of
units in different subcategories may be
different, the number of units that
represent the best performing 12 percent
of different subcategories may be
different. Also, mathematically, the
number of units that represent the best
performing 12 percent of the units in a
subcategory will not always be an
integer. To ensure that each MACT
standard is based on at least 12 percent
of the units in a subcategory, EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to
always round up to the nearest integer
when 12 percent of a given subcategory
is not an integer. For example, if 12
percent of a subcategory is 4.1, the
standards will be based on the best
performing five units even though
rounding conventions would normally
lead to rounding down to four units.
Another example from this proposal is
in the incinerator subcategory, which
includes 28 units. Twelve percent of 28
is 3.36 units and we established the
standards based on the best performing
four units.
Once the best 12 percent of units are
identified for each source category and
pollutant, the individual test run data
for these units were compiled and a
statistical analysis was conducted to
calculate the average and account for
variability and, thereby, determine the
MACT floor emission limit. The first
step in the statistical analysis includes
a determination of whether the data
used for each MACT floor calculation
were normally or log-normally
distributed, followed by calculation of
the average and 99th percent upper
limit (UL).8 If the data were normally
distributed (e.g., similar to a typical bell
curve), then the equation to calculate
UL was applied to the data. If the data
were not normally distributed (for
example if the data were asymmetric or
skewed to the right or left), then the
type of distribution (e.g., log-normal)
was determined and a data
transformation was performed to
normalize the data prior to computing
the UL. When the data distribution was
found to be log-normal, the data were
transformed by taking the natural log of
the data prior to calculating the UL
value. Two statistical measures,
skewness and kurtosis, were examined
to determine if the data were normally
or log-normally distributed. Additional
discussion of the distribution analysis
and the data distributions used to
develop each MACT floor limit are
documented in the memorandum
‘‘MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial
and Commercial Solid Waste
Incinerators Source Category’’ in the
docket.
The 99th percent UL represents a
value that 99 percent of the data in the
MACT floor data population would fall
below, and therefore, accounts for the
run-to-run and test-to-test variability
observed in the MACT floor data set. It
was calculated by the following
equation that is appropriate for small
data sets:
UL = x + t(0.99,n) * s
Where:
x = average of the data.
t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.
n = number of data points in the population.
s = standard deviation.
A detailed discussion of the MACT
floor methodology is presented in the
memorandum ‘‘MACT Floor Analysis
for the Industrial and Commercial Solid
Waste Incinerators Source Category’’ in
the docket. The calculated existing
source UL values (which are based on
the emissions data from the best
performing 12 percent of sources and
account for variability) were selected as
the proposed MACT floor emission
limits for the nine regulated pollutants
in each subcategory. In establishing the
limits, the UL values were rounded up
to two significant figures. For example,
a value of 1.42 would be rounded to 1.5
(as has been done for other CAA Section
129 rules) because a limit of 1.4 would
be lower than the calculated MACT
floor value.
The UL computation assumes that the
data available represents the entire
population of data from the best
performing CISWI units used to
establish the proposed standards. This
statistical approach and use of the UL is
consistent with the methodology used
in the October 6, 2009, HMIWI rule (74
FR 51368).
The summary results of the UL
analysis and the MACT floor emission
limits for existing units are presented in
Tables 4 through 6 of this preamble for
each subcategory.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—PM, HG, CD AND PB
PM
(mg/dscm)
Subcategory
Parameter
Incinerators ...................................
No. of sources in subcategory = ..
No. in MACT floor = .....................
Avg of top 12% ............................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......
Proposed Limit = ..........................
No. of sources in subcategory = ..
No. in MACT floor = .....................
Avg of top 12% ............................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......
Proposed Limit = ..........................
No. of sources in subcategory = ..
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Energy recovery units ...................
Waste-burning kilns ......................
7 The pollutant-by-pollutant approach is the same
approach used for other CAA Section 129 standards
and the rationale for this approach can be found in
the preamble for the final HMIWI NSPS and EG (74
FR 51368, 51380 (October 6, 2009)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Hg
(mg/dscm)
28
4
4.01
12.76
13
40
5
4.249
9.179
9.2
53
8 The procedure is the same as used for the
HMIWI rule (74 FR 51367, October 6, 2009). While
the HMIWI preamble referred to this measure as the
upper confidence limit (UCL), it used the same
equation. In this proposal, we refer to the measure
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cd
(mg/dscm)
28
4
0.000359
0.00278
0.0028
40
5
0.000053
0.000960
0.00096
53
28
4
0.000362
0.00124
0.0013
40
5
0.000157
0.000409
0.00041
53
Pb (mg/dscm)
28
4
0.00125
0.00258
0.0026
40
5
0.000967
0.00197
0.002
53
as the UL, which is a more appropriate statistical
terminology for this calculation.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31953
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—PM, HG, CD AND PB—Continued
Subcategory
PM
(mg/dscm)
Parameter
Burn-off ovens ...............................
Small, remote incinerators ............
No. in MACT floor = .....................
Avg of top 12% ............................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......
Proposed Limit = ..........................
No. of sources in subcategory = ..
No. in MACT floor = .....................
Avg of top 12% ............................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......
Proposed Limit = ..........................
No. of sources in subcategory = ..
No. in MACT floor = .....................
Avg of top 12% ............................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ......
Proposed Limit = ..........................
Hg
(mg/dscm)
7
5.36
59.97
60
36
5
9.25
32.14
33
19
3
102.93
238.85
240
Cd
(mg/dscm)
7
0.003649
0.0240
0.024
36
5
0.00267
0.0135
0.014
19
3
0.0017
0.00289
0.0029
Pb (mg/dscm)
7
0.000112
0.000293
0.0003
36
5
0.00123
0.00448
0.0045
19
3
0.0589
0.256
0.26
7
0.00105
0.00261
0.0027
36
5
0.0125
0.0408
0.041
19
3
0.5627
1.4012
1.4
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—HCl, NOX AND SO2
HCl
(ppmdv)
Subcategory
Parameter
Incinerators ..................................................
No. of sources in subcategory = .................
No. in MACT floor = ....................................
Avg of top 12% ............................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = .....................
Proposed Limit = .........................................
No. of sources in subcategory = .................
No. in MACT floor = ....................................
Avg of top 12% ............................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = .....................
Proposed Limit = .........................................
No. of sources in subcategory = .................
No. in MACT floor = ....................................
Avg of top 12% ............................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = .....................
Proposed Limit = .........................................
No. of sources in subcategory = .................
No. in MACT floor = ....................................
Avg of top 12% ............................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = .....................
Proposed Limit = .........................................
No. of sources in subcategory = .................
No. in MACT floor = ....................................
Avg of top 12% ............................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = .....................
Proposed Limit = .........................................
Energy recovery units ..................................
Waste-burning kilns .....................................
Burn-off ovens .............................................
Small, remote incinerators ...........................
SO2
(ppmdv)
NOX
(ppmdv)
28
4
0.1812
28.05
29
40
5
0.2415
1.42
1.5
53
7
0.5503
1.435
1.5
36
5
27.10
124.8
130
19
3
66.5
143.7
150
28
4
14.7
33.09
34
40
5
64.24
124.55
130
53
7
525.24
1,080.3
1,100
36
5
51.63
110.23
120
19
3
91.83
207
210
28
4
0.73
2.48
2.5
40
5
1.67
4.01
4.1
53
7
34.05
409.67
410
36
5
0.88
10.48
11
19
3
12.18
43.35
44
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—CO AND DIOXIN/FURANS
CO
(ppmdv)
Subcategory
Parameter
Incinerators ............................................
No. of sources in subcategory = ...........
No. in MACT floor = ..............................
Avg of top 12% .....................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ...............
Proposed Limit = ...................................
No. of sources in subcategory = ...........
No. in MACT floor = ..............................
Avg of top 12% .....................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ...............
Proposed Limit = ...................................
No. of sources in subcategory = ...........
No. in MACT floor = ..............................
Avg of top 12% .....................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ...............
Proposed Limit = ...................................
No. of sources in subcategory = ...........
No. in MACT floor = ..............................
Avg of top 12% .....................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Energy recovery units ............................
Waste-burning kilns ...............................
Burn-off ovens ........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Dioxin/Furan (total
mass basis)
(ng/dscm)
28
4
0.860
2.17
2.2
40
5
39.096
146.8
150
53
7
147.33
701.18
710
36
5
28.58
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
28
4
0.0113
0.0304
0.031
40
5
0.09824
0.748
0.75
53
7
0.02958
2.03
2.1
36
5
0.0455
04JNP4
Dioxin/Furan (total
TEQ basis)
(ng/dscm) a
28
4
0.55877
27.75
0.0025
40
5
9.8831
7431.9
0.059
53
7
0.000935
7,959
0.17
36
5
b
31954
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR EXISTING UNITS—CO AND DIOXIN/FURANS—Continued
Subcategory
Small, remote incinerators .....................
Dioxin/Furan (total
mass basis)
(ng/dscm)
CO
(ppmdv)
Parameter
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ...............
Proposed Limit = ...................................
No. of sources in subcategory = ...........
No. in MACT floor = ..............................
Avg of top 12% .....................................
99% UL of top% (test runs) = ...............
Proposed Limit = ...................................
79.36
80
19
3
17.42
77.48
78
Dioxin/Furan (total
TEQ basis)
(ng/dscm) a
303.8
310
19
3
473.4
1,502
1,600
b
25
19
3
b
b
130
a —Dioxin/furan TEQ UL values often were greater than the total mass basis UL values, which would result in a TEQ limit greater than the total
mass basis. Therefore, paired total mass basis/TEQ data were analyzed and found that TEQ is 0.078 times the amount of the total mass basis.
The dioxin/furan TEQ limits were therefore calculated based on 0.078 times the total mass basis limit.
b —Dioxin/furan TEQ data were not reported for this subcategory.
Using the UL approach described
above for the dioxins/furans TEQ data
sometimes resulted in a UL that was
greater than that calculated for the
associated total mass basis dioxins/
furans for the subcategory, due to
comparatively large standard deviations
of the TEQ data versus those of the total
mass basis data set. Dioxins/furans TEQ
values should correlate to the total mass
basis value at a ratio of less than 1 (a
1-to-1 ratio is the theoretical maximum
and would indicate that all the dioxins/
furans emitted would consist of the
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
(TCDD) congener). We reviewed
available data to see what the ratio was
for test reports where the total mass and
TEQ data were simultaneously reported.
Because it is impossible for the same
concentration data to be higher on a
TEQ basis than a total mass basis, TEQ
to total mass basis ratios greater than 1
were omitted. Ratios greater than 0.5
were also screened out of the paired
data because EPA is unaware of any
combustion units ever having a TEQ to
total mass basis ratio as high as 0.5.
After screening the paired data, the
resulting ratios were on average 0.078
times that of the total mass basis.
Therefore, to be consistent in
establishing the dioxins/furans TEQ
limits and to prevent any instances
where the TEQ limit exceeds the
associated total mass basis limit, we
selected MACT floor limits based on the
total mass basis limit multiplied by
0.078. EPA requests comment on this
approach for establishing the dioxins/
furans TEQ basis limits.
New source MACT floors are based on
the best performing single source for
each regulated pollutant, with an
appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. In other words, the best
performing unit was identified by
ranking the units from lowest to highest
for each subcategory and pollutant and
selecting the unit with the lowest 3-run
test average emission test data for each
pollutant. The UL was determined for
the individual 3-run test run data set for
the best performing source for each
regulated pollutant. Tables 7 through 9
of this preamble present the analysis
summaries and the new source MACT
floor limits.
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER AND METALS FOR NEW SOURCES
PM
(mg/dscm)
Subcategory
Parameter
Incinerators ...................................
Avg of top performer ....................
99% UL of top (test runs) = .........
Proposed limit = ...........................
Avg of top performer ....................
99% UL of top (test runs) = .........
Proposed limit = ...........................
Avg of top performer ....................
99% UL of top (test runs) = .........
Proposed limit = ...........................
Avg of top performer ....................
99% UL of top (test runs) = .........
Proposed limit = ...........................
Avg of top performer ....................
99% UL of top (test runs) = .........
Proposed limit = ...........................
Energy recovery units ...................
Waste-burning kilns ......................
Burn-off ovens ...............................
Small, remote incinerators ............
Hg
(mg/dscm)
0.0056
0.00766
0.0077
3.270
4.37
4.4
0.9287
1.80
1.8
6.676
27.48
28
83.53
268.9
240b
Cd
(mg/dscm)
0.0001
0.000123
0.00013
0.000032
0.00013
0.00013
0.00101
0.0002
0.000654
0.00066
0.000085
0.000115
0.00012
0.000038
a
a
0.024
0.0007
0.00329
0.0033
0.001
0.00126
0.0013
0.0003
0.0008
0.00316
0.0032
0.011
0.0564
0.057
Pb
(mg/dscm)
0.0007
0.00126
0.0013
0.000454
0.001189
0.0012
0.000386
0.00077
0.00078
0.0050
0.02859
0.029
0.448
1.3877
1.4b
a —Only
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
b —The
one run data point, therefore UL cannot be calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—HCl, NOX, SO2
HCL
(ppmdv)
Subcategory
Parameter
Incinerators ............................................
Avg of top performer .............................
99% UL of top (test runs) = ..................
Proposed limit = ....................................
Avg of top performer .............................
99% UL of top (test runs) = ..................
Energy recovery units ............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
NOX
(ppmdv)
0.0413
0.0732
0.074
0.06813
0.169
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
9.033
18.99
19
52.57
74.52
04JNP4
SO2
(ppmdv)
0.223
1.47
1.5
1.049
4.44
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
31955
TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—HCl, NOX, SO2—Continued
Subcategory
HCL
(ppmdv)
Parameter
Waste-burning kilns ...............................
Burn-off ovens ........................................
Small, remote incinerators .....................
Proposed limit = ....................................
Avg of top performer .............................
99% UL of top (test runs) = ..................
Proposed limit = ....................................
Avg of top performer .............................
99% UL of top (test runs) = ..................
Proposed limit = ....................................
Avg of top performer .............................
99% UL of top (test runs) = ..................
Proposed limit = ....................................
NOX
(ppmdv)
0.17
0.13
SO2
(ppmdv)
75
108.3
134.65
140
13.16
15.43
16
73.66
367.23
210a
b
1.5
7.106
17.56
18
45.437
244.01
150(a)
4.1a
1.43
3.58
3.6
0.000
0
1.5c
4.793
42.49
43
a —The
NSPS UL limit exceeds the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
one run data point, therefore UL cannot be calculated. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
c —Zero value calculated for the subcategory, which will not allow for data variability. The lowest unit with non-zero data was used to calculate
this limit.
b —Only
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR RESULTS FOR NEW UNITS—CO AND DIOXINS/FURANS
Subcategory
Incinerators ....................
Dioxin/Furan
(Total mass
basis)
(ng/dscm)
CO
(ppmdv)
Parameter
Avg of top performer
99% UL of top (test runs) =
Proposed limit =
Avg of top performer
99% UL of top (test runs) =
Proposed limit =
Avg of top performer
99% UL of top (test runs) =
Proposed limit =
Avg of top performer
99% UL of top (test runs) =
Proposed limit =
Avg of top performer
99% UL of top (test runs) =
Proposed limit =
Energy recovery units ....
Waste-burning kilns .......
Burn-off ovens ...............
Small, remote incinerators ...........................
0.600
1.39
1.4
0.650
2.95
3.0
16.22
35.23
36
17.51
73.87
74
0.447
3.96
4.0
0.0023
0.00927
0.0093
0.0161
0.0334
0.034
0.00011
0.000348
0.00035
0.0013
0.0101
0.011
366.3
1,103.3
1,200
Dioxin/Furan
(Total TEQ
basis)
(ng/dscm)a
0.0102
0.035
0.00073
0.0005
0.00181
0.0027
0.000000
0.000000
0.000028
B
B
0.00086
B
B
94
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
a —Dioxin/furan TEQ UL values often were greater than the total mass basis UL values, which would result in a TEQ limit greater than the total
mass basis. Therefore, paired total mass basis/TEQ data were analyzed and found that TEQ is 0.078 times the amount of the total mass basis.
The dioxin/furan TEQ limits were therefore calculated based on 0.078 times the total mass basis limit.
b —Dioxin/furan TEQ data were not reported for this subcategory.
As noted in the tables above, there
were some instances where there were
fewer test runs available for the best
performing unit so that the UL could not
be calculated. There were also some
cases where the calculated UL produced
a result that was greater than the
existing MACT floor limit for that
pollutant in that subcategory. Since the
limit for new sources cannot be less
stringent than that of existing sources,
EPA selected the existing source MACT
floor limit as the new source MACT
floor limit in these instances. There was
also one case where the best-performing
source in the burn-off oven subcategory
reported zero for each test run for SO2.
This yields a calculated UL of zero
(since the mean and standard deviation
are zero), which does not give any
allowance for variability. To address
this, EPA used test data for the next
best-performing source (i.e., the lowest
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
emitting source with non-zero test data).
EPA solicits comment on this approach
for setting this limit.
EPA also solicits comment on
whether the EPA should use an
alternate one-sided statistical interval,
the 99 percent UPL instead of the UL.
In general, a prediction interval (e.g., a
UPL) is useful in determining what
future values are likely to be, based
upon present or past background
samples taken. The 99 percent UPL
represents the value which one can
expect the mean of future 3-run
performance tests from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources to fall
below with 99 percent confidence,
based upon the results of the
independent sample of observations
from the same best performing sources.
The 99 percent UPL value based on the
test run data for those units in the bestperforming 12 percent can be calculated
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
using one of the following spreadsheet
equations depending on the distribution
of the data:
Normal distribution: 99% UPL =
AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12%) +
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) × TINV(2 ×
probability, n¥1 degrees of freedom) ×
SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed upper
prediction limit with a probability of 0.01,
sample size of n, and number of test runs
whose average will be reported to EPA for
compliance of m = 3.
Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP
{AVERAGE(Natural Log Values of Test Runs
in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values
of Test Runs in Top 12%) × TINV(2 ×
probability, n¥1 degrees of freedom) ×
SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))]}, for a one-tailed upper
prediction limit with a probability of 0.01,
sample size of n, and number of test runs
whose average will be reported to EPA for
compliance of m = 3.
In addition to the nine regulated
pollutants, EPA is also proposing
opacity standards for new and existing
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31956
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CISWI. We considered how to
appropriately account for variability,
given the differences in opacity testing
versus testing for the nine regulated
pollutants. Because opacity can be
affected by the amount, type and
particle characteristics of PM in the gas
stream, as well as process operation, we
believe that opacity is an appropriate
surrogate for PM emissions. Therefore,
using a ratio of PM to opacity would be
an appropriate method for determining
the opacity that would be associated
with a given PM concentration. Using
the data available for CISWI units, we
identified the best-performing unit with
respect to PM for which we have
opacity data, and that unit has a ratio of
opacity to PM of 0.053. This ratio was
then multiplied by each of the MACT
floor PM limits, which were determined
accounting for variability, for each
subcategory to establish an opacity
limit. We are requesting comment on
whether this is a reasonable approach to
establishing opacity limits while
accounting for data variability, and
request any additional opacity
information that we may utilize to
establish an opacity limit. We are also
requesting comment on the
appropriateness of setting opacity limits
for this source category.
As explained above, concurrent with
this proposal, EPA is also proposing to
define the term ‘‘solid waste’’ for nonhazardous secondary materials. That
proposal describes two alternative
definitions of solid waste, and EPA has
in this proposed rule for CISWI units
calculated MACT standards based on
each solid waste definition. EPA is
proposing MACT emissions standards
based on the primary proposed
definition of solid waste. In addition,
EPA has determined the MACT
emissions standards that would apply if
the alternative proposed definition of
solid waste was finalized, and we are
taking comment on those standards.
For purposes of the MACT standards
based on the primary proposed
definition of solid waste, we have
considered certain secondary materials
(including pulp and paper sludge, wood
residuals, and some tire-derived fuel)
not to be solid waste, based on available
information. Therefore, units
combusting those materials have not
been included in the proposed CISWI
MACT calculations (i.e., the
calculations based on the primary
proposed definition of solid waste). EPA
solicits comment on that conclusion for
these and other secondary materials,
and will take into account any relevant
information that may warrant revising
the proposed CISWI MACT floors.
Comments relating to the proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
definition of solid waste should be
submitted to the EPA docket for that
rulemaking, because EPA will not be
addressing any such comments in the
final CISWI rule.
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor
Alternatives
As discussed above, EPA may adopt
emissions limitations and requirements
that are more stringent than the MACT
floor (i.e., beyond-the-floor). Unlike the
MACT floor methodology, EPA must
consider costs, non-air quality health
and environmental impacts and energy
requirement when considering beyondthe-floor alternatives.
In developing this proposal, EPA
considered for existing units the
proposed CISWI NSPS emission limits
as a basis for the beyond-the-floor
analysis for each subcategory. The
CISWI NSPS limits are the MACT limits
applicable to new CISWI units that are
established through analysis of the best
performing single source for each
regulated pollutant (see earlier
discussion in Section IV.C above). There
are separate NSPS limits for each of the
five CISWI subcategories: Incinerators;
energy recovery units; waste-burning
kilns; burn-off ovens; and small, remote
incinerators. We request public
comments on all aspects of the beyondthe-floor analysis, including whether
there are combinations of control
approaches that would cost-effectively
reduce emissions of the Section
129(a)(4) pollutants. We specifically
request that the commenter provide
cost, technical and other relevant
information in support of any beyondthe-floor alternatives. EPA will evaluate
the comments and any other additional
information and may adopt beyond-thefloor options for the final rule if any that
are identified are determined to be
reasonable.
The beyond-the-floor analysis for each
subcategory is based on an evaluation of
the types of control approaches that
would be necessary to achieve the NSPS
level of control for the same
subcategory. Specifically, for purposes
of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we
evaluated the different combinations of
available emission control techniques,
including additional add-on controls,
that existing units would have to
employ were we to require additional
emissions reductions beyond the floor
levels set forth above. We are unaware
of any control approaches other than
those discussed below that would result
in emissions reductions from CISWI
units.
As part of our impacts analysis
(discussed in section V. below), we
evaluated whether existing facilities
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would choose to cease burning solid
waste in incineration units after
promulgation of the final CISWI
standards. We have determined that
most facilities with units in the
incinerators, small remote incinerators
or burn-off ovens subcategories will
choose to cease operations once the
proposed MACT floor limits are
promulgated and that all units in these
three subcategories will cease
combusting waste if beyond-the-floor
levels are adopted. We considered this
fact in evaluating the beyond-the-floor
options for these three subcategories
and specifically in our consideration of
the costs associated with the beyondthe-floor options, which we found
unreasonable.
We analyzed the beyond-the-floor
options on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis for each subcategory. We discuss
below the possible beyond-the-floor
controls and why we rejected them.
• For PM, Cd and Pb, units would
add a fabric filter if there were none
already, or improve the fabric filter if
the unit is already equipped with one
but could not meet the beyond-the-floor
limit. Units could also be required to
add an additional PM control device if
existing fabric filters could not be
modified to comply with the beyondthe-floor limit.
• For HCl and SO2, units would add
a packed-bed wet scrubber if there were
none already, or if a wet scrubber
already existed on the unit, upgrade to
a larger pump to increase the liquid to
gas ratio. If the unit was equipped with
lime injection or a spray dryer, the
beyond-the-floor technology was to add
more lime for SO2 control. If more
control was needed for SO2, but not
HCl, and the unit has a wet scrubber
already, they would add caustic to the
scrubber liquor. Units could also be
required to add an additional SO2
control device if the existing scrubber
could not be modified to comply with
the beyond-the-floor limit. The floor
limits established above for wasteburning kilns are already at the
quantification limits of the test method
and we are not aware of alternative
methods to quantify additional
reductions in HCl emissions. In
addition, we are not aware of any
control technologies available that
would reduce HCl emission from
existing waste-burning kilns to levels
below the floor levels. Therefore, we
could not evaluate a beyond-the-floor
option for HCl emissions from wasteburning kilns.
• For Hg and CDD/CDF, activated
carbon would be added and the carbon
addition rate would be adjusted to meet
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the amount of reduction necessary to
meet the proposed limit.
• For NOX, no beyond-the-floor
options are demonstrated to be
achievable, as discussed below.
• For CO, the beyond-the-floor option
consists of afterburner retrofits, tuneups, advanced combustion controls or
catalytic oxidation for each subcategory
except for waste-burning kilns and
energy recovery units. No beyond-thefloor options are available for these two
subcategories, as discussed below.
CO. For CO, we evaluated afterburner
retrofits, tune-ups, advanced
combustion controls or an oxidation
catalyst for incinerators, small remote
incinerators and burn-off ovens as being
potential beyond-the-floor control
technologies that could be applied to
these units. Afterburner retrofits are
applicable to units that have a
secondary combustion chamber or an
afterburner chamber installed on the
device. Waste-burning kilns and energy
recovery units are not designed with
secondary chambers or afterburners, so
this particular control cannot be applied
to these two subcategories.
For waste burning kilns, a significant
amount of CO emissions can result from
the presence of organic compounds in
the raw materials and not only from
incomplete combustion, so good
combustion controls and practices are
not as effective. Oxidation catalysts
have not been applied to waste-burning
kilns and may not be as effective on
waste-burning kilns as they are on other
sources due to plugging problems. The
only effective beyond-the-floor control
we could identify for waste-burning
kilns would be a regenerative thermal
oxidizer (RTO). In the analysis for the
proposed Portland Cement NESHAP,
EPA notes that the additional costs and
energy requirements associated with an
RTO are significant, with an additional
annualized cost of $3.8 million per year
(see 74 FR 21153). Under the most cost
effective scenario (existing unit emitting
at 710 ppmv and a 98 percent CO
reduction) the cost per ton of additional
CO removal would be approximately
$1,500. However, at the CO levels for
most facilities, the cost per ton could be
much higher. In addition, RTO have
significant additional energy
requirements, and themselves create
secondary emissions of CO, NOX, SO2
and PM due to their electrical demands
(see 74 FR 21153). Given the cost and
adverse environmental and energy
impacts, we determined that RTO was
not a reasonable beyond-the-floor
alternative to control CO emissions from
waste-burning kilns.
For energy recovery units, we
analyzed a beyond-the-floor CO limit of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
3 ppm. In comparison, the proposed
MACT floor emission limit is 150 ppm.
Therefore, the beyond-the-floor CO
emission limit is approximately 98
percent less than the MACT floor
emission limit. We are unaware of any
technology that is able to continuously
meet a 3 ppm CO limit for all existing
energy recovery units. Variances in fuel
composition and condition will have an
effect on CO emissions in addition to
the controls in place, so this limit may
be achievable for the best source based
on their particular unit design and fuel
inputs, but not demonstrated to be
achievable for any other existing units
without unreasonable costs associated
with modification of the units. As a
comparison, the proposed boiler
NESHAP limit varies by combustor
design, but for biomass boilers, which
burn fuels and have combustor designs
that are similar in characteristics to
some CISWI energy recovery units, the
limits are in the order of 200 to 700
ppm. Given the lack of available
controls that are demonstrated to
achieve the beyond-the-floor emission
limits at existing units and the costs
associated with making the necessary
modifications at existing units, we are
not proposing beyond-the-floor limits
for CO for energy recovery units.
NOX. For NOX, we evaluated SNCR as
the likely control technology that
sources would apply to achieve the
beyond-the-floor limits. The control
option would be to add SNCR if there
were none installed to meet the MACT
floor, or to increase the reagent injection
rate if the unit was already equipped
with SNCR technology. We also
considered whether selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) could be utilized by
sources to achieve the beyond-the-floor
limits. SNCR is a proven technology for
waste-combustion units, with typical
effectiveness of 30 to 50 percent. These
reductions are within the reach of the
levels estimated to meet the MACT floor
emission limits. However, to achieve
lower reductions (i.e., greater than 50
percent) than the beyond-the-floor
limits would require, SNCR may need to
be applied in conjunction with
combustion controls (Air Pollution
Control Technology Fact Sheet, SNCR,
EPA–452/F–03–031). Feasibility of these
combustion controls, such as low NOX
burners or combustion chamber
modifications, are unit-specific and are
likely not applicable to all existing
units; therefore, compliance with the
beyond-the-floor would likely require
significant modification at considerable
cost for some existing units. In contrast,
new sources can be designed so that the
combustion chamber and air flow
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31957
characteristics reduce NOX formation,
which, in combination with SNCR
controls, would be able to meet the new
source NOX limits. SCR is typically
utilized in combustion units such as
industrial boilers and process heaters,
gas turbines and reciprocating internal
combustion engines (Air Pollution
Control Technology Fact Sheet, SCR,
EPA–452/F–03–032). We are not aware
of any successful applications of SCR
technology to waste-combustion units,
however. This may be due to difficulties
operating SCRs in operations where
there is significant PM or sulfur loading
in the gas stream. These two gas stream
constituents can reduce catalyst activity,
and lower the resulting effectiveness of
the SCR, through catalyst poisoning and
blinding/plugging of active sites by
ammonia sulfur salts (formed from
sulfur in the flue gas with the ammonia
reagent) and PM (Air Pollution Control
Technology Fact Sheet, SCR, EPA–452/
F–03–032). Therefore, we determined
that available controls were not
demonstrated adequately for existing
CISWI units in any of the five
subcategories to meet the beyond-thefloor NOX emission limits.
HCl and SO2. We expect that wasteburning kilns would install scrubbers to
meet the proposed MACT floor emission
limits for HCl, and the proposed EG and
NSPS limits for HCl are the same. As
discussed above, the HCl floor level for
waste-burning kilns is near the
quantification limits of the available test
methods, and we are not aware of
alternative methods to quantify beyondthe-floor reductions.
The scrubbers needed to meet the
CISWI MACT floor limits for HCl would
also meet the CISWI MACT floor levels
for SO2. However, we are not certain
that it is feasible for existing wasteburning kilns to utilize additional
caustic in their scrubbers, or in their
existing flue gas desulfurization devices,
to be able to consistently meet the 3.6
ppm beyond-the-floor emission limit for
SO2. There are limits to the amounts of
additional caustic or lime that are
technically feasible and the SO2 content
of the flue gas will vary depending on
the fuel and the sulfur content of
process raw materials that are charged
to the waste-burning kiln. The only
option for achieving additional SO2
control is to add an additional SO2
scrubbing device in series with the
scrubber required to comply with the
MACT floor limit. While we did not
quantify the costs, we concluded, based
on our review of the cost information,
that this level of control would pose
unreasonable costs that would result in
units ceasing to combust wastes in
kilns. Therefore, we determined that
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31958
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
additional controls were not
demonstrated to continuously meet the
beyond-the-floor SO2 emission limits at
existing waste-burning kilns. We
examined beyond-the-floor options for
the other subcategories as discussed
below.
PM. In our analysis, we estimate that
waste-burning kilns would install fabric
filter controls or improve existing fabric
filters to meet the proposed CISWI
MACT floor limits for PM and metals.
To meet the metals floor limits, highly
efficient fabric filters, and possibly
membrane bags, would be needed.
These controls are the best technology
available to control PM, and we have
not identified any additional controls
that are available that would enable
existing waste-burning kilns to
continuously meet the beyond-the-floor
PM emission limit equivalent to the
proposed CISWI NSPS limit (which is
considerably lower than the CISWI
floor). We analyzed beyond-the-floor
controls for the other four subcategories
as discussed below.
As with waste-burning kilns, we
estimate that existing units in the energy
recovery units subcategory would install
fabric filter controls or improve existing
fabric filters to meet the proposed
CISWI MACT floor limits for PM and
metals. As with waste-burning kilns, the
fabric filters would need to be highly
efficient to meet the metals floor limits,
and likely would need to be membrane
bags. As stated above, membrane fabric
filters are the best technology available
to control PM and metals. As such, the
fabric filters that we believe will be
necessary to control the metals will
likely achieve a level of performance
that is better than the MACT floor limit
for PM, resulting in additional PM
reductions beyond the existing source
floor level of control. For this reason, we
believe that the PM emissions
reductions associated with going
beyond-the-floor to the new source floor
limits is less than the 200 tons per year
estimated based on an evaluation of the
difference in PM emissions under the
proposed existing source floor and the
proposed new source floor.
Furthermore, to achieve PM and metals
emissions reductions greater than those
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
achieved using the fabric filters that will
be required to meet the MACT floor
emission limits, existing sources would
likely need to install an additional
particulate control device, such as a
cartridge filtration system, which would
require additional capital and operating
expense, as well as require additional
energy to power the fans for adequate
draft. While we did not quantify the
costs, we concluded, based on our
review of the cost information, that this
level of control would pose
unreasonable costs.
We analyzed beyond-the-floor
controls for the other three
subcategories as discussed below.
Emissions Reduction Analysis
Results. We analyzed the emissions
reductions that would be achieved if the
beyond-the-floor levels were adopted as
MACT for those pollutants and
subcategories for which additional
control techniques were identified that
could achieve beyond-the-floor
emission limits. We estimate that the
beyond-the-floor levels for existing
CISWI units would achieve additional
emission reductions (relative to the
MACT floor) of 326 tons per year (0.01
tons Cd, 3.5 CO, 113 HCl, 0.07 Pb, 0.03
Hg, ¥0.1 NOX, 208 PM, 1.6 SO2 and
0.0001 dioxins/furans).
Analysis Results for Incinerator,
Small Remote Incinerator and Burn-Off
Ovens Subcategories
As was done in the cost analysis for
the MACT floor emission limits, we also
considered whether units would cease
to combust waste and choose an
alternative waste disposal method rather
than add controls to comply with the
beyond-the-floor limits. Based on the
high costs of controls relative to the
costs of alternative waste disposal
methods, we concluded that all units
within the incinerators, burn-off ovens
and small remote incinerators
subcategories would shut down rather
than comply with the beyond-the-floor
limits. Facilities with incinerator units
and small remote incinerator units
would use alternative landfill disposal
and facilities with burn-off ovens would
use abrasive blasting. In comparison, for
the MACT floor impacts analysis, we
determined there were 17 total units
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within these three subcategories that
would remain open and comply with
the MACT floor emission limits. The
emission reductions above account for
the secondary impacts of landfill gas
flare emissions that would result from
the incremental waste that is diverted to
landfills from existing CISWI units.
Once these secondary impacts of the
landfill gas flaring are accounted for, the
emissions reduction is approximately
zero for the incinerator, small remote
incinerator and burn-off oven
subcategories, mainly due to the
increase in emissions from flaring the
landfill gases generated by the
additional diverted waste, compared to
the modest additional stack emissions
reductions from shutting these units
down.
The cost of the additional emissions
reductions associated with going from
the MACT floor to the beyond-the-floor
level vary by pollutant and subcategory.
For the incinerator, small remote
incinerator and burn-off oven
subcategories, the incremental
annualized costs of control or
alternative waste disposal is
approximately $690,000. As mentioned
above, because of the increase in landfill
gases, this additional cost would result
in no additional emissions reductions
for these source categories. The beyondthe-floor limits for these source
categories would be achieved at
considerable cost, would result in
closure of additional units that would
not close under the floor alternative,
and would result in no additional
emissions reduction; therefore, we have
determined it is not reasonable to go
beyond-the-floor for these source
categories.
Analysis Results for Energy Recovery
Units and Waste-Burning Kilns. For the
energy recovery units and wasteburning kilns, we analyzed the
additional emissions reductions and
additional control and monitoring costs
of going beyond-the-floor by pollutant
groups according to the controls
described above. Table 10 of this
preamble lists the incremental costs and
pollutant emissions reductions relative
to the MACT floor level of control.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31959
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—INCREMENTAL COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS EXPECTED FOR EXISTING UNITS TO COMPLY WITH
BEYOND-THE-FLOOR EMISSION LIMITS (RELATIVE TO THE MACT FLOOR)
Additional
annual costs
($/yr)
Pollutants
Subcategory
PM, Cd, Pb ......................................................
Hg, CDD/CDF ..................................................
Energy recovery unit .......................................
Energy recovery unit .......................................
Waste-burning kiln ...........................................
Energy recovery unit .......................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
HCl, SO2 ..........................................................
As discussed earlier, we believe that
the additional emissions reduction for
PM, Cd, and Pb are likely to be much
lower than this analysis suggests,
because sources will require some of the
best PM control devices to meet the
MACT floor level of control for metals,
and will likely exceed the level of
performance for PM needed to meet the
MACT floor emission limit. Therefore,
we have concluded that the incremental
costs of additional control above the
MACT floor emission limits are not
reasonable relative to the level of
emission reduction achieved.
New Units. No beyond-the-floor
option was analyzed for new units
because we are not aware of any
technologies or methods to achieve
emission limits more stringent than the
MACT floor limits for new units. As an
example, we have discussed potential
problems associated with additional
SNCR reagent earlier in this section of
the preamble. Incremental additions of
activated carbon have not been proven
to achieve further reductions above the
projected flue gas concentration
estimated to achieve the limits for new
sources. Furthermore, we already
estimate no new CISWI sources will be
constructed due to the costs associated
with the MACT floor limits in the
proposed NSPS. For this reason, we do
not think it is reasonable to further add
to the costs associated with the
proposed NSPS.
In light of the technical feasibility,
costs, energy and non-air quality health
and environmental impacts discussed
above, we have determined it is not
reasonable to establish beyond-the-floor
limits for existing and new CISWI units.
We also calculated potential beyondthe-floor emissions reductions for the
‘‘alternative approach’’ identified for
consideration and comment in a parallel
proposal under RCRA, which could
potentially result in an additional
13,014 tons per year of projected
emissions reductions (0.9 Cd, 3.5 CO, 7
HCl, 16.4 Pb, 1.3 Hg, ¥0.1 NOX, 12,984
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PM, 1.6 SO2 and 0.001 dioxins/furans).
These are the reductions that would be
achieved if we adopted the NSPS limits
for the alternative approach as the
beyond-the-floor limit for existing
sources. We considered the same
technical considerations and used the
same emissions reductions and cost
calculation methodologies described
above for the proposed approach, which
result in very similar cost effectiveness
values as presented in Table 10 of this
preamble. However, we note that several
of the MACT floor limits for energy
recovery units and waste-burning kilns
under the alternative approach are not
as stringent as those for the proposed
approach, and the additional emission
reductions that can be achieved by
going beyond the floor for the
alternative approach are much greater
than the emission reductions available
by going beyond the floor under the
primary approach. Therefore, in the case
of the alternative approach, there may
be intermediate levels of control that
would be reasonable. Additional
information on floor and beyond-thefloor costs is discussed in ‘‘Compliance
Cost Analyses for Existing CISWI Units’’
found in the CISWI docket.
E. Rationale for Other Proposed
Amendments
In addition to the proposed emission
limits, the following amendments are
being proposed in this action.
1. Definitions and Removal of
Exemptions
We are revising the definition of
CISWI unit to reflect the Court decision
that all units burning solid waste as
defined by the Administrator under
RCRA are to be covered by regulation
under CAA Section 129. We are also
adding a definition of ‘‘solid waste
incineration unit’’ and we are removing
the definition of ‘‘commercial and
industrial waste.’’ We are also proposing
definitions of the five subcategories of
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2,082,013
18,562,287
126,944,291
15,985,182
Additional
emissions
reductions
(ton/year)
202
0.03
0.00002
77
Incremental
cost effectiveness
(additional
costs/additional emissions reductions, $/ton)
10,307
618,742,900
>1 Billion
207,599
CISWI units that will be regulated under
the proposed rules.
In the 2000 CISWI rule, there were 15
types of units that were exempted from
regulation under CISWI. We are
proposing to remove some of the
exemptions contained in the 2000
CISWI rule and we are maintaining the
statutory exemptions and the
exemptions for units included in the
scope of other CAA Section 129
standards as discussed below. We
believe that the proposed rule is drafted
in such a way to avoid the situation
where a unit subject to standards under
another Section 129(a)(1) standard,
would also be subject to this rule. We
request comment on the proposed
exemptions that address units included
in the scope of other CAA Section 129
standards.
To address the vacatur of the CISWI
Definitions rule, EPA is proposing to
regulate any combustion unit burning
any solid waste, as that term is defined
by the Administrator under RCRA, at a
commercial or industrial facility. The
2000 CISWI rule specifically exempted
six types of units that may be CISWI
units under this proposed rule:
agricultural waste incineration units;
cyclonic barrel burners; burn-off ovens;
cement kilns; chemical recovery units;
and laboratory analysis units. These six
types of units would be regulated under
the revised proposed CISWI standards if
they burn solid waste at a commercial
or industrial facility.
The exemptions that would be
retained in the proposed rule are either
statutory exemptions provided under
CAA Section 129, or are for waste
combustion units regulated under other
Section 129 NSPS or EG. In particular,
CAA Section 129(g)(1) specifically
exempts:
‘‘* * * incinerators or other units required
to have a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ‘solid
waste incineration unit’ does not include (A)
materials recovery facilities (including
primary and secondary smelters) which
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31960
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
combust waste for the primary purpose of
recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power
production facilities, as defined in section
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)),
which burn homogeneous waste (such as
units which burn tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the
production of electric energy or in the case
of qualifying cogeneration facilities which
burn homogeneous waste for the production
of electric energy and steam or forms of
useful energy (such as heat) which are used
for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling
purposes * * *’’
Therefore, the proposed CISWI rule
retains exemptions for materials
recovery facilities, qualifying small
power production facilities, qualifying
cogeneration facilities and hazardous
waste combustors required to have a
permit under Section 3005 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
EPA is also proposing to exempt from
CISWI the waste combustion units that
are currently included in the scope of
another effective NSPS or EG or that
EPA currently intends to regulate in an
NSPS or EG. Those waste combustion
units are: MWC units; medical waste
incineration units; sewage treatment
plants; sewage sludge incineration
units; and OSWI units, which include
pathological waste incineration units
and institutional incinerators. There are
existing standards for MWC units,
medical waste combustion units and
sewage treatment plants, but no
standards are currently in place for
pathological waste incineration units or
SSI units. Regulations are currently
being developed for SSI under proposed
NSPS and EG of part 60. EPA also
currently intends to regulate
pathological waste incineration units in
the revised ‘‘Other Solid Waste
Incineration (OSWI)’’ standards under
development. EPA’s intent in the CISWI
rule is to exclude units that are properly
regulated as OSWI units. However,
additional solid waste incineration units
may exist that are OSWI units, which
EPA has not identified in this proposed
rule. EPA solicits comment on the scope
of the proposed exemptions for units
subject to CAA Section 129 standards.
We are also proposing the removal of
the 2000 CISWI rule exemption for units
burning greater than 30 percent MSW
and with the capacity to burn less than
35 tons per day of MSW or refuse
derived fuel. We are proposing to
remove this exemption to ensure that
any CISWI unit combusting any solid
waste is subject to these standards.
Therefore, commercial and industrial
units that were previously exempt
pursuant to this provision would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
required to meet the emission limits and
operating requirements of the proposed
rule.
The 2000 CISWI rule also defined
CISWI units such that industrial and
commercial waste combustion units
recovering energy (e.g. units that would
be boilers and process heaters if they
did not combust solid waste) were not
subject to regulation as CISWI units.
This definition is not consistent with
the statute and, as discussed above, the
definitions are being revised to address
the CISWI Definitions Rule vacatur so
that any unit at a commercial or
industrial facility combusting any solid
waste, as defined by the Administrator
under RCRA, will be subject to the
CISWI NSPS or EG. Therefore, the
proposed definitions would no longer
make a distinction between those units
that recover energy and those units that
do not recover energy. As discussed
earlier, those energy recovery units that
burn solid waste but were previously
subject to the boilers rule are now
CISWI units and are addressed under
the energy recovery units subcategory.
Cement kilns and rack, part and drum
reclamation units (i.e. burn-off ovens)
were exempt from the 2000 CISWI
standards and, as stated above, we are
proposing to create subcategories for
those units and subject them to this
proposed rule in light of the CISWI
Definitions Rule vacatur. We note that
other Section 129 standards may
contain an exemption for cement kilns.
Those exemptions do not excuse waste
burning kilns as defined in this
proposed rule from compliance with the
proposed CISWI standards. As those
other Section 129 rules are amended, we
will clarify that cement kilns that meet
the proposed definition of wasteburning kiln are exempt from those
standards because they are subject to the
CISWI standards.
For one type of unit that is exempt by
statute from the definition of solid waste
incineration unit, air curtain
incinerators combusting ‘‘clean wood’’,
we are requesting comment on the
requirement for those units to obtain
title V permits.
In addition, we are considering
amending the exemption provisions at
40 CFR 60.2020 and 60.2555 to remove
all references to units that are statutorily
exempt from the definition of solid
waste incineration unit. If we took such
action, we would develop a new section
to retain the notification requirements
contained in those sections and
applicable to such statutorily exempt
units. We request comment on this
proposed approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Performance Testing and Monitoring
Requirements
We are proposing some adjustments
to the performance testing and
monitoring requirements that were
promulgated in 2000. For existing
CISWI units, we are proposing retaining
the current performance testing and
monitoring requirements of the rule and
adding the following requirements:
• Annual inspections of scrubbers,
fabric filters and other air pollution
control devices that may be used to
meet the emission limits.
• Annual visual emissions test of ash
handling procedures (for all
subcategories except waste-burning
kilns).
• Control device parameter
monitoring for activated carbon
injection, electrostatic precipitators and
SNCR controls.
• For energy recovery units: CO
CEMS monitoring, continuous opacity
monitoring (COMS) for units that are
not equipped with wet scrubbers and
PM CEMS for units greater than 250
MMBtu/hr capacity.
• For waste-burning kilns, Hg CEMS
monitoring.
• Monitoring of bypass stack use if
installed at an affected unit.
These proposed requirements were
selected to provide additional assurance
that sources continue to operate at the
levels established during their initial
performance test. For the waste-burning
kiln and energy recovery unit
subcategories, the proposed CEMS
requirements are consistent with the
CAA Section 112(d) standards proposed
for their non-waste burning
counterparts, but adjusted to reflect the
pollutants subject to CAA Section 129
regulations. For example, the proposed
Portland Cement NESHAP (74 FR
21136) requires monitoring of Hg with
a Hg CEMS. Likewise, the energy
recovery unit monitoring requirements
are similar to the Boiler NESHAP being
proposed concurrently with the CISWI
proposal. In doing so, we are not only
reflecting the improvements in
monitoring technology and practices for
these subcategories made since 2000,
but are also providing consistency in
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting, where appropriate. Likewise,
the visual emissions test of ash handling
procedures and annual control device
inspections have been adopted for
HMIWI, another CAA Section 129
source category. HMIWI standards (74
FR 51367) contain these requirements to
ensure that the ash, which may contain
metals, is not emitted to the atmosphere
through fugitive emissions and that
control devices are maintained properly.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The large and small MWC standards
also have similar fugitive ash
monitoring requirements. We propose to
require the fugitive ash monitoring
provisions that are contained in the
HMIWI and MWC rules.
The proposed amendments would
allow sources to use the results of
emissions tests conducted within the
previous two years to demonstrate
initial compliance with the revised
emission limits as long as the sources
certify that the previous test results are
representative of current operations.
Such tests must have been conducted
using the test methods specified in the
CISWI rules and must be the most
recent tests performed on the unit.
Those sources, whose previous
emissions tests do not demonstrate
compliance with one or more of the
revised emission limits, would be
required to conduct another emissions
test for those pollutants. This allowance
to use previous tests would minimize
the burden to affected sources,
especially since most sources performed
recent emissions tests in support of the
development of the CISWI standards
(i.e., the CISWI Phase 2 ICR) and sources
subject to the 2000 CISWI EG already
test for HCl, PM and opacity on an
annual basis. We seek comment on the
appropriateness of the use of previously
conducted performance tests.
The proposed amendments also
would allow for reduced testing of PM,
HCl, and opacity as were allowed in the
rule promulgated in 2000, but we are
proposing amending these reduced
testing allowances to provide a
compliance margin of 75 percent of the
standard to be able to qualify for testing
for these pollutants once every three
years. The reduced testing allowance
and compliance margin provides
flexibility and incentive to sources that
operate well within the emissions
standard, and to provide more timely
follow-through, on assuring that sources
that are marginally in compliance, will
remain in compliance.
Additional requirements also are
proposed for new CISWI. For new
sources, we are proposing retaining the
current requirements and adding the
requirements for existing units as listed
above, plus requiring CO CEMS for all
subcategories of CISWI. These CEMS
would be relatively simple to install for
a new CISWI unit, and would help
ensure that the sources are operated
well using good combustion practices.
Low CO levels are an indicator of
complete combustion and that the unit
is being operated in a manner that
minimizes not only CO emissions, but
also emissions of other pollutants.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
We also are clarifying that the rule
allows for the following optional CEMS
use: CO CEMS, NOX CEMS, and SO2
CEMS for existing sources; and NOX
CEMS, SO2 CEMS, PM CEMS, HCl
CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS,
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring
and integrated sorbent trap dioxin
monitoring for existing and new
sources. Some of the subcategories may
have CO CEMS, NOX CEMS, or SO2
CEMS already to meet other regulatory
or permit requirements and we propose
to would allow them to continue to use
these monitors to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the CISWI
standards. The optional use of HCl
CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, integrated
sorbent trap Hg monitoring and
integrated sorbent trap dioxin
monitoring will be available on the date
a final performance specification for
these monitoring systems is published
in the Federal Register or the date of
approval of a site-specific monitoring
plan. The proposed monitoring
provisions are discussed in more detail
below.
Monitoring Provisions for SNCR. The
proposed amendments would require
monitoring of secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to the CISWI
unit, since certain subcategories may
not have a secondary chamber or
afterburner) and reagent (e.g., ammonia
or urea) injection rate for CISWI that
install SNCR as a method of reducing
NOX emissions. These are easily
measured parameters that will ensure
the SNCR continues to be well operated
and able to achieve the desired
emissions reductions.
Monitoring Provisions for Activated
Carbon Injection (Hg sorbent injection).
The proposed amendments would
require monitoring of activated carbon
sorbent injection rate to ensure that the
minimum sorbent injection rate
measured during the compliance test is
continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for ESP. The
proposed amendments would require
monitoring of the voltage and amperage
of the collection plates to ensure that
the ESP operating parameters measured
during the compliance test are
maintained on a continuous basis.
CO CEMS. The proposed amendments
would require the use of CO CEMS for
new sources and allow the use of CO
CEMS on existing sources, except
energy recovery units, where a CO
CEMS is also required for existing
sources. Owners and operators who use
CO CEMS would be able to discontinue
their annual CO compliance test. The
continuous monitoring of CO emissions
is an effective way of ensuring that the
combustion unit is operating properly.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31961
The proposed amendments incorporate
the use of performance specification
(PS)–4B (Specifications and Test
Procedures for Carbon Monoxide and
Oxygen Continuous Monitoring Systems
in Stationary Sources) of appendix B of
40 CFR part 60.
The proposed CO emission limits are
based on data from infrequent (normally
annual) stack tests and compliance
would be demonstrated by stack tests.
The change to use of CO CEMS for
measurement and enforcement of the
same emission limits must be carefully
considered in relation to an appropriate
averaging period for data reduction. In
past EPA rulemakings for incineration
units, EPA has selected averaging times
between four hours and 24 hours based
on statistical analysis of long-term
CEMS data for a particular subcategory.
Because sufficient CO CEMS data are
unavailable for CISWI to perform such
an analysis and determine an emission
level that would correspond to a shorter
averaging period, EPA concluded that
the use of a 24-hour block average was
appropriate to address potential changes
in CO emissions. The 24-hour block
average would be calculated following
procedures in EPA Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of 40 CFR part 60.
Facilities electing to use CO CEMS as an
optional method would be required to
notify EPA one month before starting
use of CO CEMS and one month before
stopping use of the CO CEMS. In
addition, EPA specifically requests
comment on whether continuous
monitoring of CO emissions should be
required for all existing CISWI.
PM CEMS. The proposed amendments
would allow the use of PM CEMS as an
alternative testing and monitoring
method (except for energy recovery
units with a heat input capacity greater
than 250 MMBtu/hr which are required
to use them). Owners or operators who
are required to use, or choose to rely on,
PM CEMS would be able to discontinue
their annual PM compliance test. In
addition, because units that demonstrate
compliance with the PM emission limits
with a PM CEMS would also be meeting
the opacity standard, compliance
demonstration with PM CEMS would be
considered a substitute for opacity
testing or opacity monitoring. Owners
and operators who use PM CEMS also
would be able to discontinue their
monitoring of minimum wet scrubber
pressure drop, horsepower or amperage.
These parameter monitoring
requirements were designed to ensure
the scrubber continues to operate in a
manner that reduces PM emissions and
would not be necessary if PM is directly
measured on a continuous basis. The
proposed amendments incorporate the
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31962
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
use of PS–11 (Specifications and Test
Procedures for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems at Stationary Sources) of
appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for PM
CEMS and PS–11 QA Procedure 2 to
ensure that PM CEMS are installed and
operated properly and produce good
quality monitoring data.
The proposed PM emission limits are
based on data from infrequent (normally
annual) stack tests and compliance
would generally be demonstrated by
stack tests. The use of PM CEMS for
measurement and enforcement of the
same emission limits must be carefully
considered in relation to an appropriate
averaging period for data reduction.
Because PM CEMS data are unavailable
for CISWI, EPA concluded that the use
of a 24-hour block average was
appropriate to address potential changes
in PM emissions that cannot be
accounted for with short term stack test
data. The 24-hour block average would
be calculated following procedures in
EPA Method 19 of appendix A–7 of 40
CFR part 60. An owner or operator of a
CISWI unit who wishes to use PM
CEMS would be required to notify EPA
one month before starting use of PM
CEMS and one month before stopping
use of the PM CEMS.
Opacity Monitors (COMS). EPA is
proposing that energy recovery units
that do not rely on a wet scrubber to
control emissions continuously monitor
opacity. EPA’s understanding is that
moist gas streams affect the accuracy of
COMS systems; therefore these systems
would not be applicable to units using
wet scrubbers. If the energy recovery
unit is required to monitor PM with a
PM CEMS, or an owner or operator
wishes to use PM CEMS, then they
would not be required to also operate a
COMS. Other source categories with
COMS requirements require one hour
block averages, which is what we are
proposing for CISWI units. The
proposed amendments incorporate the
use of performance specification 1 of
appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for COMS.
While the proposed amendments
require PM CEMS for very large energy
recovery units (those over 250 MMBtu/
hr), EPA is also requesting comment on
the utility and practicality of requiring
PM CEMS on energy recovery units of
100 MMBTU/hour design capacity or
greater, as well as on waste-burning
kilns and large incinerators. EPA
specifically solicits comment on
appropriate size thresholds for requiring
PM CEMS on incinerators.
Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems.
EPA also is proposing the optional use
of NOX CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS,
multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring
and integrated sorbent trap dioxin
monitoring as alternatives to the
existing monitoring methods for
demonstrating compliance with the
NOX, SO2, HCl, metals (Pb, Cd and Hg)
and dioxin/furans emissions limits.
Because CEMS data for CISWI are
unavailable for all subcategories for
NOX, SO2, HCl and metals, EPA
concluded that the use of a 24-hour
block average was appropriate to
address potential changes in emissions
of NOX, SO2, HCl and metals that cannot
be accounted for with short term stack
test data. EPA has concluded that the
use of 24-hour block averages would be
appropriate to address emissions
variability and EPA has included the
use of 24-hour block averages in the
proposed rule. The 24-hour block
averages would be calculated following
procedures in EPA Method 19 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The
proposed amendments incorporate the
use of performance specification 2 of
appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 for NOX
CEMS. Although final performance
specifications are not yet available for
HCl CEMS and multi-metals CEMS, EPA
is considering development of
performance specifications. The
proposed rule specifies that these
options will be available to a facility on
the date a final performance
specification is published in the Federal
Register.
The use of HCl CEMS would allow
the discontinuation of HCl sorbent flow
rate monitoring, scrubber liquor pH
monitoring and the annual testing
requirements for HCl. EPA has proposed
PS–13 (Specifications and Test
Procedures for Hydrochloric Acid
Continuous Monitoring Systems in
Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40
CFR part 60 and expects that
performance specification can serve as
the basis for a performance specification
for HCl CEMS use at CISWI. The
procedures used in proposed PS–13 for
the initial accuracy determination use
the relative accuracy test, a comparison
against a reference method. EPA is
taking comment on an alternate initial
accuracy determination procedure,
similar to the one in section 11 of PS–
15 (performance specification for
Extractive FTIR Continuous Emissions
Monitor Systems in Stationary Sources)
of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 using
the dynamic or analyte spiking
procedure.
EPA believes multi-metals CEMS can
be used in many applications, including
CISWI. EPA has monitored side-by-side
evaluations of multi-metals CEMS with
EPA Method 29 of appendix A–8 of 40
CFR part 60 at industrial waste
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
incinerators and found good correlation.
EPA also approved the use of multimetals CEMS as an alternative
monitoring method at hazardous waste
combustors. EPA believes it is possible
to adapt proposed PS–10 (Specifications
and Test Procedures for Multi-metals
Continuous Monitoring Systems in
Stationary Sources) of appendix B of 40
CFR part 60 or other EPA performance
specifications to allow the use of multimetals CEMS at CISWI. We request
comment on the appropriateness of
using multi-metals CEMS instead of
initial performance tests coupled with
PM CEMS and other surrogates. The
procedures used in proposed PS–10 for
the initial accuracy determination use
the relative accuracy test, a comparison
against a reference method. EPA is
taking comment on an alternate initial
accuracy determination procedure,
similar to the one in section 11 of PS–
15 using the dynamic or analyte spiking
procedure.
The proposed requirements for using
Hg CEMS (performance specification
12A—Specifications and Test
Procedures for Total Vapor Phase
Mercury Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources) or integrated sorbent trap Hg
monitoring system (performance
specification 12B—Specifications and
Test Procedures for Total Vapor Phase
Mercury Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems from Stationary
Sources Using a Sorbent Trap
Monitoring System or appendix K of
Part 75) for waste-burning kilns, and the
options of using Hg CEMS or an
integrated sorbent trap Hg monitoring
system for other CISWI, would take
effect on the date of approval of a sitespecific monitoring plan. An owner or
operator of a CISWI unit who wishes to
use Hg CEMS would be required to
notify EPA one month before starting
use of Hg CEMS and one month before
stopping use of the Hg CEMS. The use
of multi-metals CEMS or Hg CEMS
would allow the discontinuation of wet
scrubber outlet flue gas temperature
monitoring. Mercury sorbent flow rate
monitoring could not be eliminated in
favor of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg
CEMS because it also is an indicator of
dioxin, furans control.
The integrated sorbent trap
monitoring of Hg would entail use of a
continuous automated sampling system
with analysis of the samples at set
intervals using any suitable
determinative technique that can meet
appropriate criteria. The option to use a
continuous automated sampling system
would take effect on the date of
approval of a site-specific monitoring
plan. As with Hg and multi-metal
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CEMS, Hg sorbent flow rate monitoring
could not be eliminated in favor of
integrated sorbent trap monitoring of Hg
because it also is an indicator of dioxin,
furans control. Additionally, there is no
annual Hg test that could be eliminated,
because the proposed rule does not
require such a test.
The integrated sorbent trap
monitoring of dioxin would entail use of
a continuous automated sampling
system and analysis of the sample
according to EPA Reference Method 23
of appendix A–7 of 40 CFR part 60. The
option to use a continuous automated
sampling system would take effect on
the date a final performance
specification is published in the Federal
Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan. Integrated
sorbent trap monitoring of dioxin would
allow the discontinuation of fabric filter
inlet temperature monitoring. Dioxin/
furan sorbent flow rate monitoring
could not be eliminated in favor of
integrated sorbent trap monitoring of
dioxin because it also is an indicator of
Hg control. Additionally, there is no
annual dioxin/furans test that could be
eliminated, because the proposed rule
does not require such a test.
If integrated sorbent trap monitoring
of dioxin as well as multi-metals CEMS,
Hg CEMS, or integrated sorbent trap Hg
monitoring are used, Hg sorbent flow
rate monitoring and dioxin/furans
sorbent flow rate monitoring (in both
cases activated carbon is the sorbent)
31963
could be eliminated. These parameter
monitoring requirements were designed
to ensure that controls continue to be
operated in a manner to reduce dioxin/
furans, metals and mercury emissions,
and corresponding monitoring is not
needed if all of these pollutants are
directly measured on an ongoing basis.
EPA requests comment on other
parameter monitoring requirements that
could be eliminated upon use of any or
all of the optional CEMS discussed
above. Table 11 of this preamble
presents a summary of the CISWI
operating parameters, the pollutants
influenced by each parameter and
alternative monitoring options for each
parameter.
TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF CISWI OPERATING PARAMETERS, POLLUTANTS INFLUENCED BY EACH PARAMETER AND
ALTERNATIVE MONITORING OPTIONS FOR EACH PARAMETER
Operating parameter/monitoring requirement
(control device type)
Pollutants influenced by operating
parameter
Maximum charge (feed) rate ...................................................
Minimum dioxin, furans sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon
injection).
All ...........................
dioxin, furans .........
Minimum Hg sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon injection) ...
Minimum HCl sorbent flow rate (Dry scrubbers, spray dryers
or duct sorbent injection).
Minimum scrubber pressure drop/horsepower amperage
(Wet scrubber).
Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate (Wet scrubber) ................
Hg.
HCl .........................
HCl CEMS.
PM, Cd, Pb, Hg .....
PM CEMS.
HCl, PM, Cd, Pb,
Hg, dioxin, furans.
HCl .........................
PM, Cd, Pb, Hg .....
NOX .......................
HCl CEMS, PM CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, ISTDMS and
ISTMMS.
HCl CEMS.
PM CEMS.
NOX CEMS.
All ...........................
PM .........................
None.
None.
Minimum scrubber liquor pH (Wet scrubber) ..........................
Voltage and amperage of collection plates (ESP) ..................
Reagent flow rate and secondary chamber temperature
(SNCR).
Air pollution control device inspections ...................................
Time of visible emissions from ash handling ..........................
Table 12 of this preamble presents a
summary of the CISWI test methods and
Alternative monitoring options
None.
Integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring system (ISTDMS)
and multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS or integrated sorbent
trap mercury monitoring system (ISTMMS).
approved alternative compliance
methods.
TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF CISWI TEST METHODS AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVE METHODS
Test method(s) 1
Approved alternative method(s)
Comments
PM ...............................
Method 5, Method 29
PM CEMS .......................................................
CO ...............................
Method 10 ..................
CO CEMS .......................................................
HCl ...............................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Pollutant/parameter
26 or Method
HCl CEMS .......................................................
Cd ................................
Pb ................................
Hg ................................
Method
26A.
Method
Method
Method
29.
PM CEMS are optional for all sources in lieu
of annual PM test (required for energy recovery units with design capacity greater
than 250 MMBtu/hr).
CO CEMS are optional for existing sources in
lieu of annual CO test; CO CEMS are required for new sources.
HCl CEMS are optional for all sources in lieu
of annual HCl test.
29 ..................
29 ..................
30B, Method
Dioxin, furans ..............
Method 23 ..................
Opacity ........................
Method 22 ..................
Multi-metals CEMS.
Multi-metals CEMS.
Multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS (PS–12A), or
integrated sorbent trap mercury monitoring
system (PS–12 B or appendix K of Part
75).
integrated sorbent trap dioxin monitoring system.
Bag leak detection system or PM CEMS .......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Bag leak detection systems are required for
units equipped with fabric filters.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31964
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF CISWI TEST METHODS AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVE METHODS—Continued
Pollutant/parameter
Test method(s) 1
Approved alternative method(s)
Flue and exhaust gas
analysis.
Opacity from ash handling.
Method 3, 3A, or 3B ...
ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Part 10 ....................
Method 22 ..................
None ................................................................
1, EPA
Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
This proposal contains minimum data
availability requirements for CEMS;
generally, valid emissions data are
required for a minimum of 85 percent of
the hours per day, 90 percent of the
hours per calendar quarter, and 95
percent of the hours per calendar year
that the affected facility is operating and
combusting solid waste (as that term is
defined by the Administrator under
RCRA). We seek comment on whether
or not the rule should require valid
emissions data from CEMS for all times
that an affected facility is operated and
on approaches to provide that data, e.g.,
redundant CEMS, prescribed missing
data procedures, owner- or operatordeveloped missing data procedures, or
parametric monitoring.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Comments
3. Have the startup, shutdown and
malfunction provisions changed?
This action also revises the provisions
of the 2000 CISWI rule as it applies to
periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction. This proposed revision
affects all CISWI units, including units
that were regulated by the 2000 CISWI
rule and those units that are subject to
this proposed rule. The revision of these
provisions is a result of a Court decision
that invalidated certain regulations
related to startup, shutdown and
malfunction in the General Provisions of
Part 63 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). While the Court’s
ruling did not specifically address the
legality of source category-specific SSM
provisions adopted in the 2000 CISWI
rule, the decision calls into question the
legality of those provisions. As such,
EPA is proposing to remove the
exemption for SSM periods contained in
the 2000 CISWI rule and the proposed
emission standards summarized in this
preamble would apply at all times.
We are not proposing a separate
emission standard for the source
categories at issue here that applies
during periods of startup and shutdown.
We determined that CISWI units will be
able to meet the emission limits during
periods of startup because most units
use natural gas or clean distillate oil to
start the unit and add waste once the
unit has reached combustion
temperatures. Emissions from burning
natural gas or distillate fuel oil would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
generally be significantly lower than
from burning solid wastes. Emissions
during periods of shutdown are also
generally significantly lower than
emissions during normal operations
because the materials in the incinerator
will be almost fully combusted before
shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the
approach for establishing MACT floors
for CISWI units ranked individual
CISWI units based on actual
performance for each pollutant and
subcategory, with an appropriate
accounting of emissions variability.
Because we accounted for emissions
variability and established appropriate
averaging times to determine
compliance with the standards, we
believe we have adequately addressed
any minor variability that may
potentially occur during startup or
shutdown.
Periods of startup, normal operations
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
However, by contrast, malfunction is
defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent and not
reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a
process to operate in a normal or usual
manner * * *.’’ (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has
determined that malfunctions should
not be viewed as a distinct operating
mode and, therefore, any emissions that
occur at such times do not need to be
factored into development of CAA
Section 129 standards, which, once
promulgated, apply at all times. It is
reasonable to interpret Section 129 as
not requiring EPA to account for
malfunctions in setting emissions
standards. For example, we note that
CAA Section 129 uses the concept of
‘‘best performing’’ sources in defining
MACT, the level of stringency that
major source standards must meet.
Applying the concept of ‘‘best
performing’’ to a source that is
malfunctioning presents difficulties.
The goal of best performing sources is
to operate in such a way as to avoid
malfunctions of their units. Moreover,
even if malfunctions were considered a
distinct operating mode, we believe it
would be impracticable to take
malfunctions into account in setting
CAA Section 129 standards for CISWI
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
units. As noted above, by definition,
malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events and it would be
difficult to set a standard that takes into
account the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all
sources. Finally, malfunctions can vary
in frequency, degree and duration,
further complicating standard setting.
For a source that fails to comply with
the applicable CAA Section 129
standards as a result of a malfunction
event, EPA would determine an
appropriate response based on, among
other things, the good faith efforts of the
source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including
preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain
and rectify excess emissions. EPA
would also consider whether the
source’s failure to comply with the CAA
Section 129 standard was, in fact,
‘‘sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable’’ and was not instead
‘‘caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation.’’ (40 CFR 60.2
(definition of malfunction)).
4. Delegation of Authority To
Implement and Enforce These
Provisions
We are proposing clarifications to the
authorities that can be delegated or
transferred to state, local and tribal air
pollution control agencies in this
rulemaking. In the past, there has been
some confusion about what authorities
can be delegated and exercised by state,
local and tribal air pollution control
agencies and which authorities must be
retained by EPA. In some cases, state,
local and tribal air pollution control
agencies were making decisions, such as
allowing waivers of some provisions of
this subpart that cannot be delegated to
those agencies. There is a list of
authorities that must be retained by EPA
in 40 CFR 60.2530. To this list, we
propose to add the approval of
alternative opacity emission limits
referenced in 60.2105 which, in turn
refer to general provisions in 60.11(e)
and the approval of performance test
and data reduction waivers under 40
CFR 60.8(b). These authorities may
affect the stringency of the emissions
standards or limitations which can only
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
be amended by Federal rulemaking,
thus they cannot be transferred to State,
local or tribal air pollution control
agencies. We are also adding 40 CFR
60.2542 to make the provisions
regarding the implementation and
enforcement authorities in both subparts
CCCC and DDDD consistent. We are
seeking comment on whether these or
other authorities should be retained by
EPA or delegated to State, local or tribal
air pollution control agencies.
5. State Plans
We are proposing regulatory language
to clarify how states and eligible tribes
can fulfill their obligation under CAA
Section 129(b)(2) in lieu of submitting a
state plan for review and approval. We
are adding 40 CFR 60.2541 that will
clarify how states and eligible tribes can
fulfill the obligation under Section
129(b)(2) by submitting an acceptable,
as specified in 40 CFR 60.2541, written
request for delegation of the Federal
plan. Proposed 40 CFR 60.2541 lists
specific requirements, such as a
demonstration of adequate resources
and legal authority to implement and
enforce the Federal plan that must be
met in order to receive delegation of the
Federal plan. We are seeking comment
on this provision.
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential
emissions reductions from existing
sources that may be realized through
implementation of the proposed
emission limits. However, we realize
that some CISWI owners and operators
are likely to determine that alternatives
to waste incineration are viable, such as
sending the waste to a landfill or MWC,
if available. In fact, sources operating
incinerators, burn-off ovens and small,
remote incinerators, where energy
recovery is not a goal, may find it most
cost-effective to discontinue use of their
CISWI unit altogether. Therefore, we
have estimated emissions reductions
attributable to existing sources
complying with the proposed limits, as
well as those reductions that would
occur if the facilities with incinerators,
burn-off ovens and small, remote
incinerators decide to discontinue the
use of their CISWI unit and use
alternative waste disposal options.
For units combusting wastes for
energy production, such as energy
recovery units and waste-burning kilns,
31965
the decision to combust or not to
combust waste will depend on several
factors. One factor is the cost to replace
the energy provided by the waste
material with a traditional fuel, such as
natural gas. Another factor would be
whether the owner or operator is
purchasing the waste or obtaining it at
no cost from other generators, or if they
are generating the waste on-site and will
have to dispose of the materials in
another fashion, such as landfills.
Lastly, these units would have to
compare the control requirements
needed to meet the CISWI emission
limits with those needed if they stop
burning solid waste and are then subject
to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned
before, we have attempted to align the
monitoring requirements for similar
non-waste burning sources as closely as
possible in an effort to make them
consistent and to help sources make the
cross-walk between waste and nonwaste regulatory requirements as simple
as possible.
The emissions reductions that would
be achieved under this proposed rule
using the concurrently proposed
definition of solid waste under RCRA
are presented in Table 13 of this
preamble.
TABLE 13—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR MACT COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR EXISTING
CISWI USING THE ‘‘PRIMARY APPROACH’’ EMISSION LIMITS CONCURRENTLY PROPOSED UNDER RCRA
Reductions
achieved through
meeting MACT
(ton/yr)
Reductions
achieved assuming incinerators,
small, remote incinerators and
burn-off ovens
use alternative
disposal
(ton/yr) a
HCl ...................................................................................................................................................................
CO ....................................................................................................................................................................
Pb .....................................................................................................................................................................
Cd ....................................................................................................................................................................
Hg ....................................................................................................................................................................
PM (filterable) ..................................................................................................................................................
Dioxin, furans ...................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..................................................................................................................................................................
SO2 ..................................................................................................................................................................
525
23,610
5.9
5.4
0.13
1,720
0.0002
1,260
2,640
558
23,570
6.0
5.4
0.14
1,760
0.00025
1,450
2,660
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................
29,770
30,000
Pollutant
a The
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted energy recovery
unit fuel.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
there is an ‘‘alternative approach’’
identified for consideration and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
comment in a concurrent notice under
RCRA. The potential emissions
reductions based on this ‘‘alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
approach’’ are presented in Table 14 of
this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31966
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14—POTENTIAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR MACT COMPLIANCE AND ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR EXISTING CISWI USING POTENTIAL EMISSION LIMITS BASED ON THE ‘‘ALTERNATIVE APPROACH’’ IDENTIFIED FOR CONSIDERATION AND COMMENT IN A CONCURRENT NOTICE UNDER RCRA
Reductions
achieved through
meeting MACT
(ton/yr)
Reductions
achieved assuming incinerators,
small, remote incinerators and
burn-off ovens
use alternative
disposal
(ton/yr) a
HCl ...................................................................................................................................................................
CO ....................................................................................................................................................................
Pb .....................................................................................................................................................................
Cd ....................................................................................................................................................................
Hg ....................................................................................................................................................................
PM (filterable) ..................................................................................................................................................
Dioxin, furans ...................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..................................................................................................................................................................
SO2 ..................................................................................................................................................................
395
128,120
3.4
4.2
1.2
19,280
0.00003
341
184
429
128,070
3.4
4.3
1.2
19,320
0.00009
522
205
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................
148,330
148,560
Pollutant
a The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted energy recovery
unit fuel.
Based on the results of our analysis
for existing units and our experiences
with other CAA Section 129 regulations,
we do not anticipate that any new
CISWI units will be constructed. As
discussed earlier, many existing CISWI
owners and operators may find that
alternate disposal options are preferable
to compliance with the proposed
standards. Our experience with
regulations for municipal waste
combustors, HMIWI and, in fact, CISWI
has shown that negative growth in the
source category historically occurs upon
implementation of CAA Section 129
standards. Since CISWI rules were
promulgated in 2000 and have been in
effect for existing sources since 2005,
many existing units have closed. At
promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated
122 units in the CISWI population. In
comparison, the incinerator subcategory
in this proposal, which would contain
any such units subject to the 2000
CISWI rule, has 28 units. EPA is not
aware of any construction of new units
since 2000, so we do not believe there
are any units that are currently subject
to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. The revised
CISWI rule is more stringent, so we
expect this trend to continue. We would
also expect the same to be true for the
subcategories of units that would be
newly affected by the proposed revised
CISWI rules. Industrial or commercial
operations considering waste disposal
options for their facilities will likely
choose not to construct new CISWI
units and to use alternative waste
disposal methods or alternative fuels
that will not subject them to the CISWI
rule. For example, tire-derived fuel from
which the metal has been removed is
not considered solid waste under the
proposed definition of solid waste.
Consequently, new cement kiln owners
will assess their regulatory requirements
under CISWI for burning whole tires or
tire-derived fuel that does not have
metals removed against the costs
associated with removing the metal and
complying with the applicable NESHAP
instead of the CISWI rule. Our research
suggests that metal removal is routinely
practiced and would most likely be a
viable option for new kiln owners so
that they would not be subject to the
CISWI regulations. Likewise, new
sources could engineer their process to
minimize waste generation in the first
place, or to separate wastes so that the
materials sent to a combustion unit
would not meet the definition of solid
waste to begin with. For waste that is
generated, cost analyses have found that
alternative waste disposal is generally
available and less expensive. However,
we request comment on whether new
sources will likely be constructed. In
case a facility deems waste combustion
a suitable option and constructs a new
CISWI unit, we have developed model
CISWI unit emissions reduction
estimates for each subcategory using the
existing unit baseline and the new
source emission limits. Table 15 of this
preamble presents the model plant
emissions reductions that would be
expected for new sources.
TABLE 15—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ON A MODEL PLANT BASIS
Emission reduction for CISWI subcategory model Units (ton/yr unless otherwise
noted)
Pollutant
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Incinerator
HCl ...................................................................................
CO ....................................................................................
Pb .....................................................................................
Cd .....................................................................................
Hg .....................................................................................
PM (filterable) ...................................................................
Dioxin/furan (total mass)1 ................................................
NOX ..................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Burn-off oven
0.9
1.0
0.04
0.009
0.003
3.4
0.0
9.6
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
Small, remote
incinerator
0.0
0.3
0.0002
0.001
0.000002
0.0
0.003
0.0
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Energy
recovery unit
13.3
597
0.1
0.005
0.002
46.3
0.01
133.9
Waste-burning
kiln
0.1
1,844
0.02
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.001
1,242
31967
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 15—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ON A MODEL PLANT BASIS—Continued
Emission reduction for CISWI subcategory model Units (ton/yr unless otherwise
noted)
Pollutant
Incinerator
Burn-off oven
6.8
21.8
0.1
1.67
SO2 ...................................................................................
Total .................................................................................
1
0.0
0.3
Energy
recovery unit
60.2
851
Waste-burning
kiln
115
3,202
Dioxin/furan estimates are given in lb/yr.
B. What are the water and solid waste
impacts?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Small, remote
incinerator
We anticipate affected sources will
need to apply additional controls to
meet the proposed emission limits.
These controls may utilize water, such
as wet scrubbers, which would need to
be treated. We estimate an annual
requirement of 68 million gallons per
year of additional wastewater would be
generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbent
use.
Likewise, the addition of PM controls
or improvements to controls already in
place will increase the amount of
particulate collected that will require
disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon
injection may be utilized by some
sources, which will result in additional
solid waste needing disposal. The
annual amounts of solid waste that
would require disposal are anticipated
to be approximately 1,760 tons/yr from
PM capture and 10,860 tons/yr from
activated carbon injection.
Perhaps the largest impact on solid
waste would come from owners and
operators who decide to discontinue the
use of their CISWI unit and instead send
waste to the landfill or MWC for
disposal. Based on tipping fees and
availability, we would expect most, if
not all, of this diverted waste to be sent
to a local landfill. As we discuss above,
it may be that a good portion of the
incinerators, burn-off ovens and small,
remote incinerators would determine
that alternative disposal is a better
choice than compliance with the
proposed standards. If this were the case
for all of the units in these
subcategories, we estimate that
approximately 214,000 tons per year of
waste would be diverted to a landfill.
As mentioned above, we do not
anticipate any new CISWI units to be
constructed. Therefore, there would be
no water or solid waste impacts
associated with controls for new units.
C. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with
meeting the proposed emission limits
would consist primarily of additional
electricity needs to run added or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
improved air pollution control devices.
For example, increased scrubber pump
horsepower may cause slight increases
in electricity consumption and sorbent
injection controls would likewise
require electricity to power pumps and
motors. By our estimate, we anticipate
that an additional 271,455 MW-hours
per year would be required for the
additional and improved control
devices.
As discussed earlier, there could be
instances where owners and operators
of energy recovery units and wasteburning kilns decide to cease burning
waste materials. In these cases, the
energy provided by the burning of waste
would need to be replaced with a
traditional fuel, such as natural gas.
Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of
the energy input to energy recovery
units and kilns are from waste materials,
an estimate of the energy that would be
replaced with a traditional fuel if all
existing units stopped burning waste
materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr.
Since we do not anticipate any new
CISWI units to be constructed, there
would be no energy impacts associated
with control of new units.
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
For CISWI units adding controls to
meet the proposed emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air
impacts, comprising emissions from
electric generating units needed to
provide the electricity to power the
emission control devices.
As discussed earlier, we believe it
likely that the incinerators, burn-off
ovens and small, remote incinerators
may elect to discontinue the use of their
CISWI unit and send the waste to the
landfill or other disposal means. As we
discussed in the solid waste impacts
above, this could result in
approximately 214,000 tons per year of
waste going to landfills. By using EPA’s
Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we
estimate that, over the 20-year expected
life of a CISWI unit, the resulting
methane generated by a landfill
receiving the waste would be about
187,000 tons. If this landfill gas were
combusted in a flare, assuming typical
flare emission factors and landfill gas
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
chlorine, Hg and sulfur concentrations,
the following emissions would be
expected: 38 tons of PM; 16 tons of HCl;
32 tons of SO2; 1,724 tons of CO; 90 tons
of NOX; and about 3 lbs of Hg.
Here again, since we do not anticipate
any new CISWI units, we do not expect
any secondary air impacts associated
with control of new units.
E. What are the cost and economic
impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs
for all existing units to add the
necessary controls and monitoring
equipment, and to implement the
inspections, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to comply with
the proposed CISWI standards. We have
also analyzed the costs of alternative
disposal for the subcategories that may
have alternative options to burning
waste, specifically for the incinerators,
burn-off ovens and small, remote
incinerators. In our analysis, we have
selected the lowest cost alternative (i.e.,
compliance or alternative disposal) for
each facility. Based on this analysis, we
anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $574 million with an
associated total annual cost of $216
million.
Under the proposed rule, EPA’s
economic model suggests the average
national market-level variables (prices,
production-levels, consumption,
international trade) will not change
significantly (e.g., are less than 0.01
percent).
EPA performed a screening analysis
for impacts on small entities by
comparing compliance costs to sales/
revenues (e.g., sales and revenue tests).
EPA’s analysis found the tests were
below 1 percent for small entities
included in the screening analysis.
We do not anticipate any new CISWI
units to be constructed. Therefore, we
do not anticipate any costs associated
with control of new units.
F. What are the benefits?
We estimated the monetized benefits
of this proposed regulatory action to be
$240 million to $580 million (2008$, 3
percent discount rate) in the
implementation year (2015). The
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31968
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
monetized benefits of the proposed
regulatory action at a 7 percent discount
rate are $210 million to $520 million
(2008$). Using alternate relationships
between PM2.5 and premature mortality
supplied by experts, higher and lower
benefits estimates are plausible, but
most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.9 A
summary of the monetized benefits
estimates at discount rates of 3 percent
and 7 percent is in Table 16 of this
preamble.
TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE CISWI NSPS AND EG IN 2015
[millions of 2008$]1
Estimated
emissions reductions
(tons per year)
Total monetized benefits
(3% discount rate)
PM2.5 ........................................................
PM2.5 Precursors .....................................
SO2 ..........................................................
NOX .........................................................
660
........................
2,659
1,447
$150 to $370 ...........................................
..................................................................
$78 to $190 .............................................
$7.0 to $17 ..............................................
$71 to $170.
$6.4 to $16.
Total ..................................................
........................
$240 to $580 ...........................................
$210 to $520.
Total monetized benefits
(7% discount rate)
$140 to $330.
1
All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity
to form PM2.5. The monetized benefits from reducing 24,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 560 tons of hydrochloric acid, 5.4 tons of cadmium, 6.0
tons of lead, 280 pounds of mercury, and 230 grams of total dioxins/furans, each year are not included in these estimates. In addition, the monetized benefits from reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment are not included.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
These benefits estimates represent the
total monetized human health benefits
for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in
2015 from controls installed to reduce
air pollutants in order to meet these
standards. These estimates are
calculated as the sum of the monetized
value of avoided premature mortality
and morbidity associated with reducing
a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. To estimate human health
benefits derived from reducing PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we
utilized the general approach and
methodology established in Fann et al.
(2009).10
To generate the benefit-per-ton
estimates, we used a model to convert
emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in ambient
PM2.5 levels and another model to
estimate the changes in human health
associated with that change in air
quality. Finally, the monetized health
benefits were divided by the emissions
reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. Even though we assume that
all fine particles have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates
vary between precursors because each
ton of precursor reduced has a different
propensity to form PM2.5. For example,
SOX has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate
than direct PM2.5 because it does not
form as much PM2.5, thus the exposure
would be lower and the monetized
health benefits would be lower.
For context, it is important to note
that the magnitude of the PM benefits is
largely driven by the concentration
response function for premature
mortality. Experts have advised EPA to
consider a variety of assumptions,
including estimates based both on
empirical (epidemiological) studies and
judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty
in the relationship between PM2.5
concentrations and premature mortality.
For this proposed rule, we cite two key
empirical studies, one based on the
American Cancer Society cohort study11
and the extended Six Cities cohort
study12. In the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for this proposed rule,
which is available in the docket, we also
include benefits estimates derived from
expert judgments and other
assumptions.
This analysis does not include the
type of detailed uncertainty assessment
found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA
because we lack the necessary air
quality input and monitoring data to run
the benefits model. However, the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis13
provides an indication of the sensitivity
of our results to various assumptions.
It should be emphasized that the
monetized benefits estimates provided
above do not include benefits from
several important benefit categories,
including reducing other air pollutants,
ecosystem effects and visibility
impairment. The benefits from reducing
carbon monoxide and HAP have not
been monetized in this analysis,
including reducing 29,000 tons of CO,
590 tons of hydrochloric acid, 5.4 tons
of Cd, 6.0 tons of lead and 280 pounds
of Hg each year. Although we do not
have sufficient information or modeling
available to provide monetized
estimates for this rulemaking, we
include a qualitative assessment of the
effects associated with these air
pollutants in the RIA for this proposed
rule, which is available in the docket.
The costs of this proposed rulemaking
are estimated to be $216 million (2008$)
in the implementation year and the
monetized benefits are $240 million to
$580 million (2008$, 3 percent discount
rate) for that same year. The benefits at
a 7 percent discount rate are $210
million to $520 billion (2008$). Thus,
net benefits of this rulemaking are
estimated at $19 million to $360 million
(2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and
$¥2.4 million to $310 million (2008$,
7 percent discount rate). A summary of
the monetized benefits, social costs and
net benefits at discount rates of 3
percent and 7& is in Table 17 of this
preamble.
9 Roman et al, 2008. ‘‘Expert Judgment
Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in
Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.’’
Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274.
10 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009.
‘‘The influence of location, source, and emission
type in estimates of the human health benefits of
reducing a ton of air pollution.’’ Air Qual Atmos
Health (2009) 2:169–176.
11 Pope et al., 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term
Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal
of the American Medical Association 287:1132–
1141.
12 Laden et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine
Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
173: 667–672.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS.
Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. October.
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
ecas/ria.html.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
31969
TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE CISWI NSPS AND EG
IN 2015
[millions of 2008$]1
3% Discount rate
7% Discount rate
Proposed Option
.
Total Monetized Benefits2 .................................
Total Social Costs3 ............................................
Net Benefits .......................................................
$240 to $580 ....................................................
$220 ..................................................................
$19 to $360 ......................................................
$210 to $520.
$220.
$¥2.4 to $310.
Non-monetized Benefits.
24,000 tons of carbon monoxide.
560 tons of HCl.
5.4 tons of cadmium.
6.0 tons of lead.
280 pounds of mercury.
230 grams of total dioxins/furans.
Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
Proposed Option with Alternate Solid Waste Definition
Total Monetized Benefits2 .................................
Costs3
Total Social
............................................
Net Benefits .......................................................
Non-monetized Benefits.
$2,700 to $6,700 ..............................................
$2,500 to $6,000.
$480 ..................................................................
$2,300 to $6,200 ..............................................
$480.
$2,000 to $5,600.
130,000 tons of carbon monoxide.
430 tons of HCl.
4.3 tons of cadmium.
3.4 tons of lead.
1.2 tons of mercury.
85 grams of total dioxins/furans
Health effects from NO2 and SO2 exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
1
All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures.
The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects
associated with PM2.5 exposure.
3 The methodology used to estimate social costs for one year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs
for both discount rates.
2
For more information on the benefits
analysis, please refer to the RIA for this
rulemaking, which is available in the
docket.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action
to Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA
Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires
EPA to identify categories of sources of
seven specified pollutants to assure that
sources accounting for not less than 90
percent of the aggregate emissions of
each such pollutant are subject to
standards under CAA Section 112(d)(2)
or 112(d)(4). EPA has identified CISWI
as a source category that emits five of
the seven CAA Section 112(c)(6)
pollutants: polycyclic organic matter
(POM), dioxins, furans, Hg and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (The
POM emitted by CISWI is composed of
seven polyaromatic hydrocarbons (7–
PAH), 16 polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(16–PAH) and extractable organic matter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(EOM)). In the Federal Register notice
Source Category Listing for Section
112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to
Section 112(c)(6) Requirements, 63 FR
17838, 17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA
identified source categories ‘‘subject to
regulation’’ for purposes of CAA Section
112(c)(6) with respect to the CAA
Section 112(c)(6) pollutants that CISWI
emit. CISWI are solid waste incineration
units currently regulated under CAA
Section 129 and this proposal would
subject additional sources to regulation
under CAA Section 129. For purposes of
CAA Section 112(c)(6), EPA has
determined that standards promulgated
under CAA Section 129 are
substantively equivalent to those
promulgated under CAA Section 112(d).
(See Id. at 17845; see also 62 FR 33625,
33632 (1997).) As discussed in more
detail below, the CAA Section 129
standards effectively control emissions
of the five identified CAA Section
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
112(c)(6) pollutants. Further, since CAA
Section 129(h)(2) precludes EPA from
regulating these substantial sources of
the five identified CAA Section
112(c)(6) pollutants under CAA Section
112(d), EPA cannot further regulate
these emissions under that CAA
Section. As a result, EPA considers
emissions of these five pollutants from
CISWI ‘‘subject to standards’’ for
purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6).
As required by the statute, the CAA
Section 129 CISWI standards include
numeric emission limitations for the
nine pollutants specified in CAA
Section 129(a)(4). The combination of
waste segregation, good combustion
practices and add-on air pollution
control equipment (sorbent injection,
fabric filters, wet scrubbers, or
combinations thereof) effectively
reduces emissions of the pollutants for
which emission limits are required
under CAA Section 129: Hg, dioxins,
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31970
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
furans, Cd, Pb, PM, SO2, HCl, CO and
NOX. Thus, the standards specifically
require reduction in emissions of three
of the CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants:
dioxins, furans and Hg. As explained
below, the air pollution controls
necessary to comply with the
requirements of the CISWI standards
also effectively reduce emissions of the
following CAA Section 112(c)(6)
pollutants that are emitted from CISWI:
POM and PCBs. Although the CAA
Section 129 CISWI standards do not
have separate, specific emissions
standards for POM and PCBs, emissions
of these two CAA Section 112(c)(6)
pollutants are effectively controlled by
the same control measures used to
comply with the numerical emissions
limits for the pollutants enumerated in
CAA Section 129(a)(4). Specifically, as
by-products of combustion, the
formation of POM and PCBs is
effectively reduced by the combustion
and post-combustion practices required
to comply with the CAA Section 129
standards. Any POM and PCBs that do
form during combustion are further
controlled by the various postcombustion CISWI controls. The add-on
PM control systems (either fabric filter
or wet scrubber) and activated carbon
injection further reduce emissions of
these organic pollutants and also reduce
Hg emissions, as is evidenced by
performance data for MWCs and another
similar source category, HMIWI.
Specifically, the post-MACT compliance
tests at currently operating HMIWI that
were also operational at the time of
promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI MACT
standards show that, for those units, the
regulations reduced Hg emissions by
about 60 percent and reduced dioxin
and furans emissions by about 80
percent from pre-MACT levels.
Moreover, similar controls have been
demonstrated to effectively reduce
emissions of POM and PCBs from
MWCs. It is, therefore, reasonable to
conclude that POM and PCB emissions
would be substantially controlled at all
CISWI units meeting the proposed
emission limits. Thus, while the
proposed rule does not identify specific
numerical limits for POM and PCB,
emissions of those pollutants are, for the
reasons noted above, nonetheless
‘‘subject to regulation’’ for purposes of
CAA Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735; October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
will have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the OMB for review under Executive
Order 12866, and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action. For information regarding
the costs and benefits of this rule, please
refer to Table 17 of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR documents
prepared by EPA have been assigned
EPA ICR number 2384.01 for subpart
CCCC, 40 CFR part 60 and 2385.01 for
subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60.
The requirements in this proposed
action result in industry recordkeeping
and reporting burden associated with
review of the amendments for all CISWI,
and inspections of scrubbers, fabric
filters and other air pollution control
devices that may be used to meet the
emission limits for all CISWI. Ongoing
parametric monitoring requirements for
ESPs, SNCR, activated carbon injection
are also required of all CISWI units.
Stack testing and development of new
parameter limits would be necessary for
CISWI that need to make performance
improvements in order to meet the
proposed emission limits and for CISWI
that, prior to this proposed action, have
not been required to demonstrate
compliance with certain pollutants.
Visual emissions tests would be
required for all subcategories except
waste-burning kilns on an annual basis.
Energy recovery units would be
required to continuously monitor
opacity, and units larger than 250
MMBtu/hr would be required to
monitor PM emissions using a PM
CEMS. Waste-burning kilns would be
required to continuously monitor Hg
emissions using a Hg CEMS. Any new
CISWI would also be required to
continuously monitor CO emissions.
The annual average burden associated
with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the EG over the first
three years following promulgation of
this proposed action is estimated to be
12,591 hours at a total annual labor cost
of $498,230. The total annualized
capital/startup costs and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs associated
with the EG monitoring requirements,
EPA Method 22 of appendix A–7
testing, initial stack testing, storage of
data and reports and photocopying and
postage over the three-year period of the
ICR are estimated at $25,509,408 and
$8,503,136 per year, respectively. (The
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
annual inspection costs are included
under the recordkeeping and reporting
labor costs.) The annual average burden
associated with the NSPS over the first
three years following promulgation of
this proposed action is estimated to be
0 hours at a total annual labor cost of
$0, since we anticipate no new CISWI
units to be constructed. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it currently displays a valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the EPA’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this action, which
includes these ICR documents, under
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0119. Submit any comments related to
the ICR documents for this proposed
action to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this action
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after June 4, 2010, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by July 6, 2010. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies
that the proposed action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small government organizations and
small government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities directly regulated by
this proposed rule are facilities engaged
in industrial or commercial operations,
such as paper and paperboard
manufacturing and utility providers.
The average cost-to-sales ratios for small
companies are below 1 percent. The
median ratios are less than 0.1 percent.
Only one entity has a sales test that
exceeds 3 percent and that unit provides
wood-residue, natural gas-fired
cogeneration (NAICS 221).
Although this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities. We
continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts. We invite comments on all
aspects of the proposal and its impacts
on small entities.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, requires Federal agencies,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector.
This rule contains a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under
Section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
As discussed previously in this
preamble, the statutory authority for the
proposed rule is Section 129 of the
CAA. CAA Section 129 CISWI standards
include numeric emissions limitations
for the nine pollutants specified in CAA
Section 129(a)(4). Section 129(a)(2) of
the CAA directs EPA to develop
standards based on MACT, which
require existing and new major sources
to control emissions of the nine
pollutants.
In compliance with Section 205(a), we
identified and considered a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives. The
regulatory alternative upon which the
rule is based is the least costly, most
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
cost-effective alternative to achieve the
statutory requirements of CAA Section
129.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
The RIA prepared for the proposed
rule, including the EPA’s assessment of
costs and benefits, is detailed in the
‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units’’ in the docket. Based on estimated
compliance costs on all sources
associated with the proposed rule and
the predicted change in prices and
production in the affected industries,
the estimated social costs of the
proposed rule are $216 million (2008
dollars). In the year of full
implementation (2015), EPA estimates
the monetized PM2.5 benefits of the
proposed NSPS and EG are $240 million
to $580 million and $210 million to
$520 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates respectively. All
estimates are in 2008$. Using alternate
relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by
experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between
these estimates. The benefits from
reducing other air pollutants have not
been monetized in this analysis,
including reducing 24,000 tons of CO,
560 tons of HCl, 6 tons of Pb, 5.4 tons
of Cd, 280 pounds of Hg, and 230 grams
of total dioxins and furans each year. In
addition, ecosystem benefits and
visibility benefits have not been
monetized in this analysis.
Exposure to CO can affect the
cardiovascular system and the central
nervous system. Emissions of NOX can
transform into PM, which can result in
fatalities and many respiratory problems
(such as asthma or bronchitis); and NOX
can also transform into ozone causing
several respiratory problems to affected
populations.
The net benefits for the NSPS and
Emission Guidelines are $19 million to
$360 million and ¥$2.4 million to $310
million, at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates respectively. All
estimates are in 2008$.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate,
where accurate estimation is reasonably
feasible, future compliance costs
imposed by the rule and any
disproportionate budgetary effects. Our
estimates of the future compliance costs
of the proposed rule are discussed
previously in this preamble. We do not
believe that there will be any
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31971
disproportionate budgetary effects of the
proposed rule on any particular areas of
the country, State or local governments,
types of communities (e.g., urban, rural),
or particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate
the effect of the proposed rule on the
national economy. To the extent
feasible, we must estimate the effect on
productivity, economic growth, full
employment, creation of productive jobs
and international competitiveness of the
U.S. goods and services if we determine
that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible and that such effect is relevant
and material. The nationwide economic
impact of the proposed rule is presented
in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units’’ in the docket. This
analysis provides estimates of the effect
of the proposed rule on most of the
categories mentioned above. The results
of the economic impact analysis were
summarized previously in this
preamble.
5. Consultation With Government
Officials
The UMRA requires that we describe
the extent of EPA’s prior consultation
with affected State, local and tribal
officials, summarize the officials’
comments or concerns and summarize
our response to those comments or
concerns. We have determined that the
proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of Section 203 of the
UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255;
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ are
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31972
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This proposed
action will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State or local
governments and will not preempt State
law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November
9, 2000). EPA is not aware of any CISWI
in Indian country or owned or operated
by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
However, EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials and will
conduct outreach to tribal
environmental professionals in the
proposal period via the National Tribal
Air Association and other mechanisms.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under Section 5–
501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed
action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA
estimates that the requirements in this
proposed action would cause most
CISWI in the energy recovery unit and
waste-burning kiln subcategories to
modify existing air pollution control
devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of
their wet scrubbers) or install and
operate new control devices, resulting
in approximately 271,455 megawatt-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
hours per year of additional electricity
being used. EPA estimates that many
owners of CISWI units in the
incinerator, burn-off oven and small,
remote incinerator subcategories may
stop operating CISWI units and use
alternative waste disposal methods,
thereby not requiring additional energy
input for operation of control devices.
Given the negligible change in energy
consumption resulting from this
proposed action, EPA does not expect
any significant price increase for any
energy type. The cost of energy
distribution should not be affected by
this proposed action at all since the
action would not affect energy
distribution facilities. We also expect
that any impacts on the import of
foreign energy supplies, or any other
adverse outcomes that may occur with
regard to energy supplies would not be
significant. We, therefore, conclude that
if there were to be any adverse energy
effects associated with this proposed
action, they would be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.
EPA conducted searches for the
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration units through Enhanced
NSSN Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI). We also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and
searched their databases.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. EPA has decided to use
ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual
methods of measuring the oxygen or
carbon dioxide content of the exhaust
gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10–
1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA
Methods 3B, 6, 7 and 7C. This standard
is available from the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 3 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Another VCS, ASTM D6735–01,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides
from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources-Impinger Method,’’ is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method
26A.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784–02,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total
Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario
Hydro Method)’’ is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 29.
During the search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to
EPA’s reference method, EPA ordered a
copy of the standard and reviewed it as
a potential equivalent method. All
potential standards were reviewed to
determine the practicality of the VCS for
this rule. This review requires
significant method validation data
which meets the requirements of EPA
Method 301 for accepting alternative
methods or scientific, engineering and
policy equivalence to procedures in
EPA reference methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional
information is available for particular
VCS.
The search identified 23 other VCS
that were potentially applicable to this
rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
After reviewing the available standards,
EPA determined that 21 candidate VCS
(ASTM D3154–00 (2006), ASME
B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO10396:1993
(2007), ISO12039:2001, ASTM D5835–
95 (2007), ASTM D6522–00 (2005),
CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 (1999), ISO
9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC–
38–1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M–
98 (2005), ISO 7934:1998, ISO
11632:1998, ASTM D1608–98 (2003),
ISO11564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24–
M1983, CAN/CSA Z223.21–M1978,
ASTM D3162–94 (2005), EN 1948–3
(1996), EN 1911–1,2,3 (1998), EN
13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26–M1987)
identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would
not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation
data and other important technical and
policy considerations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS
General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final
rule and any amendments.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this
regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice (EJ). Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations, low-income, and tribal
populations in the United States.
This proposed action establishes
national emission standards for new and
existing CISWI. The EPA estimates that
there are approximately 176 such units,
including incinerators, burn-off ovens,
cement kilns and energy recovery units,
covered by this rule. The proposed rule
will reduce emissions of all the listed
HAP emitted from this source. This
includes emissions of cadmium (Cd),
hydrogen chloride (HCl), lead (Pb),
mercury (Hg), and chlorinated dioxin/
furans. Adverse health effects from
these pollutants include cancer,
irritation of the lungs, skin, and mucus
membranes; effects on the central
nervous system, and damage to the
kidneys), and acute health disorders.
The rule will also result in substantial
reductions of criteria pollutants such as
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), particulate matter (PM), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide and
NO2 are precursors for the formation of
PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these
emissions will reduce ozone and PM2.5
formation and associated health effects,
such as adult premature mortality,
chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma,
and other respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases. (Please refer to the RIA
contained in the docket for this
rulemaking.)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898,
EPA has undertaken to determine the
aggregate demographic makeup of the
communities near affected sources. This
analysis used ‘‘proximity-to-a-source’’ to
identify the populations considered to
be living near affected sources, such that
they have notable exposures to current
emissions from these sources. In this
approach, EPA reviewed the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
distributions of different sociodemographic groups in the locations of
the expected emission reductions from
this rule. The review identified those
census blocks within a circular distance
of three miles of affected sources and
determined the demographic and socioeconomic composition (e.g., race,
income, education, etc.) of these census
blocks. The radius of three miles (or
approximately five kilometers) has been
used in other demographic analyses
focused on areas around potential
sources. 14, 15, 16, 17 In addition, air
modeling experience has shown that
beyond three miles, the influence of an
individual source of emissions can
generally be considered to be small,
both in absolute terms and relative to
the influence of other sources (assuming
there are other sources in the area, as is
typical in urban areas). EPA’s
demographic analysis has shown that
these areas tend to have lower
proportions of Whites and American
Indians, higher proportions of AfricanAmericans, Hispanics and ‘‘Other and
Multi-racial’’ populations, and higher
proportions of families with incomes
below the poverty level.18
Based on the fact that the rule does
not allow emission increases, the EPA
has determined that the proposed rule
will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or tribal populations. However,
to the extent that any minority, low
income, or tribal subpopulation is
disproportionately impacted by the
current emissions as a result of the
proximity of their homes to these
sources, that subpopulation also stands
to see increased environmental and
health benefit from the emissions
reductions called for by this rule.
EPA defines ‘‘Environmental Justice’’
to include meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
14 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office).
Demographics of People Living Near Waste
Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing
Office; 1995.
15 Mohai P, Saha R. ‘‘Reassessing Racial and
Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental
Justice Research’’. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–
399.
16 Mennis J. ‘‘Using Geographic Information
Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces
of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice
Analysis’’. Social Science Quarterly,
2002;83(1):281–297.
17 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al.
Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United
Church of Christ. March, 2007.
18 The results of the demographic analysis are
presented in ‘‘Review of Environmental Justice
Impacts’’, April 2010, a copy of which is available
in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31973
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and polices. To promote
meaningful involvement, EPA has
developed a communication and
outreach strategy to ensure that
interested communities have access to
this proposed rule, are aware of its
content, and have an opportunity to
comment during the comment period.
During the comment period, EPA will
publicize the rulemaking via EJ
newsletters, tribal newsletters, EJ
listservs, and the internet, including the
Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation’s (OPEI) Rulemaking
Gateway Web site (https://
yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/).
EPA will also provide general
rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this
important for my community) for EJ
community groups and conduct
conference calls with interested
communities. In addition, State and
Federal permitting requirements will
provide State and local governments
and members of affected communities
the opportunity to provide comments on
the permit conditions associated with
permitting the sources affected by this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 29, 2010.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 60—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Revise the heading for subpart
CCCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCCC—Standards of
Performance for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units
3. Section 60.2005 is amended by
revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
§ 60.2005 When does this subpart become
effective?
This subpart takes effect on [THE
DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. * * *
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31974
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
4. Section 60.2015 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 60.2015
What is a new incineration unit?
(a) A new incineration unit is an
incineration unit that meets any of the
criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1)
through (a)(2) of this section.
(1) A commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration unit that commenced
construction after June 4, 2010.
(2) A commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration unit that commenced
reconstruction or modification after
[THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 60.2020 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(b).
c. Revising paragraph (c).
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(j), (k), and (l).
e. Revising paragraphs (g), (m) and
(n).
f. Removing paragraph (o).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2020 What combustion units are
exempt from this subpart?
This subpart exempts the types of
units described in paragraphs (a), (c)
through (i) and (m) of this section, but
some units are required to provide
notifications. Air curtain incinerators
are exempt from the requirements in
this subpart except for the provisions in
§§ 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Municipal waste combustion units.
Incineration units that are regulated
under subpart Ea of this part (Standards
of Performance for Municipal Waste
Combustors); subpart Eb of this part
(Standards of Performance for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart
Cb of this part (Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); AAAA of this part
(Standards of Performance for Small
Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or
subpart BBBB of this part (Emission
Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Hazardous waste combustion
units. Units for which you are required
to get a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Sewage treatment plants.
Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of
Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units.
Incineration units combusting sewage
sludge for the purpose of reducing the
volume of the sewage sludge by
removing combustible matter. Sewage
sludge incineration unit designs may
include fluidized bed and multiple
hearth.
§ 60.2025
[Removed]
6. Section 60.2025 is removed.
7. Section 60.2030 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(5).
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9).
§ 60.2030 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The authorities that will not be
delegated to State, local, or tribal
agencies are specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) and (c)(6) through (9)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Approval of alternative opacity
emission limits in § 60.2105 under
§ 60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8).
(9) Performance test and data
reduction waivers under § 60.2125(j).
8. Section 60.2045 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2045 Who must prepare a siting
analysis?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis
if you plan to commence construction of
an incinerator after December 1, 2000.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis
for CISWI units that commenced
construction after June 4, 2010 or that
commenced reconstruction or
modification after [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE].
(c) You must prepare a siting analysis
if you are required to submit an initial
application for a construction permit
under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40
CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
reconstruction or modification of your
CISWI unit.
9. Section 60.2070 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2070 What are the operator training
and qualification requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions
or to prevent conditions that may lead
to malfunctions.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
10. Section 60.2085 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2085 How do I maintain my operator
qualification?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or
conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Section 60.2105 is revised to read
as follow:
§ 60.2105 What emission limitations must I
meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission
limitations for each unit, including
bypass stack or vent, specified in table
1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9
of this subpart by the applicable date in
§ 60.2140. You must be in compliance
with the emission limitations of this
subpart that apply to you at all times.
(b) An incinerator that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999
but no later than June 4, 2010 or that
commenced reconstruction or
modification on or after June 1, 2001 but
no later than [THE DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE] must meet the more stringent
emission limit for the respective
pollutant in table 1 of this subpart or
table 6 of subpart DDDD.
(c) Units that do not use wet scrubbers
must maintain opacity to less than or
equal to the percent opacity (1-hour
block average) specified in table 1 of
this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this
subpart, as applicable.
12. Section 60.2110 is amended by
adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to read
as follows:
§ 60.2110 What operating limits must I
meet and by when?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) If you use an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure
the voltage and amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator collection
plates during the particulate matter
performance test. Calculate the average
value of these parameters for each test
run. The minimum test run averages
establish your site-specific minimum
voltage and amperage operating limits
for the electrostatic precipitator.
(e) If you use activated carbon
injection to comply with the emission
limitations, you must measure the
mercury sorbent flow rate during the
mercury performance test. The
minimum mercury sorbent flow rate test
run averages establish your site-specific
minimum mercury sorbent flow rate.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic
reduction to comply with the emission
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
limitations, you must establish the
maximum charge rate, the minimum
secondary chamber temperature (if
applicable to your CISWI unit) and the
minimum reagent flow rate as sitespecific operating parameters during the
initial nitrogen oxides performance test
to determine compliance with the
emissions limits.
13. Section 60.2115 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2115 What if I do not use a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection,
selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations?
(a) If you use an air pollution control
device other than a wet scrubber,
activated carbon injection, selective
noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator or limit
emissions in some other manner to
comply with the emission limitations
under § 60.2105, you must petition the
EPA Administrator for specific
operating limits to be established during
the initial performance test and
continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial
performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the
Administrator. Your petition must
include the 5 items listed in paragraphs
(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of the specific
parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(2) A discussion of the relationship
between these parameters and emissions
of regulated pollutants, identifying how
emissions of regulated pollutants
change with changes in these
parameters and how limits on these
parameters will serve to limit emissions
of regulated pollutants.
(3) A discussion of how you will
establish the upper and/or lower values
for these parameters which will
establish the operating limits on these
parameters.
(4) A discussion identifying the
methods you will use to measure and
the instruments you will use to monitor
these parameters, as well as the relative
accuracy and precision of these methods
and instruments.
(5) A discussion identifying the
frequency and methods for recalibrating
the instruments you will use for
monitoring these parameters.
(b) For energy recovery units that do
not use a wet scrubber, you must install,
operate, certify and maintain a
continuous opacity monitoring system
according to the procedures in § 60.2145
by the compliance date specified in
§ 60.2105.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 60.2120
[Removed]
14. Section 60.2120 is removed.
15. Section 60.2125 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (h) through (n) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and
annual performance test?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) All performance tests must be
conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in table 1 of this
subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Method 22 of appendix A–7 of this
part must be used to determine
compliance with the fugitive ash
emission limit in table 1 of this subpart
or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs
(i)(1),(i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this
section, within 60 days after achieving
the maximum production rate at which
the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial
startup of such facility, or at such other
times specified by this part, and at such
other times as may be required by the
Administrator under Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of
such facility must conduct performance
test(s) and furnish the Administrator a
written report of the results of such
performance test(s).
(1) If a force majeure is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred for which the
affected owner or operator intends to
assert a claim of force majeure, the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date the owner
or operator first knew, or through due
diligence should have known that the
event may cause or caused a delay in
testing beyond the regulatory deadline,
but the notification must occur before
the performance test deadline unless the
initial force majeure or a subsequent
force majeure event delays the notice,
and in such cases, the notification must
occur as soon as practicable.
(2) The owner or operator must
provide to the Administrator a written
description of the force majeure event
and a rationale for attributing the delay
in testing beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure; describe
the measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay; and identify a date
by which the owner or operator
proposes to conduct the performance
test. The performance test must be
conducted as soon as practicable after
the force majeure occurs.
(3) The decision as to whether or not
to grant an extension to the performance
test deadline is solely within the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31975
discretion of the Administrator. The
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator in writing of approval or
disapproval of the request for an
extension as soon as practicable.
(4) Until an extension of the
performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under
paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (3) of this
section, the owner or operator of the
affected facility remains strictly subject
to the requirements of this part.
(j) Performance tests must be
conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures contained in this subpart
unless the Administrator does one of the
following.
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology.
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method.
(3) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance.
(4) Waives the requirement for
performance tests because the owner or
operator of a source has demonstrated
by other means to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that the affected facility is in
compliance with the standard.
(5) Approves shorter sampling times
and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors. Nothing in this paragraph
is construed to abrogate the
Administrator’s authority to require
testing under Section 114 of the Clean
Air Act.
(k) Performance tests must be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator shall specify to the plant
operator based on representative
performance of the affected facility. The
owner or operator must make available
to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the
conditions of the performance tests.
(l) The owner or operator of an
affected facility must provide the
Administrator at least 30 days’ prior
notice of any performance test, except as
specified under other subparts, to afford
the Administrator the opportunity to
have an observer present. If after 30
days’ notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due
to operational problems, etc.) in
conducting the scheduled performance
test, the owner or operator of an affected
facility must notify the Administrator
(or delegated State or local agency) as
soon as possible of any delay in the
original test date, either by providing at
least 7 days’ prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31976
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
test, or by arranging a rescheduled date
with the Administrator (or delegated
State or local agency) by mutual
agreement.
(m) The owner or operator of an
affected facility must provide, or cause
to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test
methods applicable to such facility.
This includes the following.
(i) Constructing the air pollution
control system such that volumetric
flow rates and pollutant emission rates
can be accurately determined by
applicable test methods and procedures.
(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of
cyclonic flow during performance tests,
as demonstrated by applicable test
methods and procedures.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
(n) Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, each performance test must
consist of three separate runs using the
applicable test method. Each run must
be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable
standard. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an
applicable standard, the arithmetic
means of results of the three runs apply.
In the event that a sample is
accidentally lost or conditions occur in
which one of the three runs must be
discontinued because of forced
shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable
portion of the sample train, extreme
meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond the owner or
operator’s control, compliance may,
upon the Administrator’s approval, be
determined using the arithmetic mean
of the results of the two other runs.
16. Section 60.2130 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2130 How are the performance test
data used?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
You use results of performance tests
to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limitations in table 1 of this
subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this
subpart.
17. Section 60.2135 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limitations
and establish the operating limits?
You must conduct an initial
performance test, as required under
§ 60.2105 and § 60.2125 to determine
compliance with the emission
limitations in table 1 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 9 of this subpart and to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
establish operating limits using the
procedures in § 60.2110 or § 60.2115.
The initial performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed
in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5
through 9 of this subpart and the
procedures in § 60.2125. The use of the
bypass stack during a performance test
shall invalidate the performance test.
18. Section 60.2141 is added to read
as follows:
§ 60.2141 By what date must I conduct the
initial air pollution control device
inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control
device inspection must be conducted
within 60 days after installation of the
control device and the associated CISWI
unit reaches the charge rate at which it
will operate, but no later than 180 days
after the device’s initial startup.
(b) Within 10 operating days
following an air pollution control device
inspection, all necessary repairs must be
completed unless the owner or operator
obtains written approval from the State
agency establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
19. Section 60.2145 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and (b) and
adding paragraphs (d) through (t) to read
as follows:
§ 60.2145 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and the operating limits?
(a) You must conduct an annual
performance test for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and
opacity for each CISWI unit as required
under § 60.2125 to determine
compliance with the emission
limitations. The annual performance
test must be conducted using the test
methods listed in table 1 of this subpart
or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart and
the procedures in § 60.2125.
(b) You must continuously monitor
the operating parameters specified in
§ 60.2110 or established under
§ 60.2115. Operation above the
established maximum or below the
established minimum operating limits
constitutes a deviation from the
established operating limits. Three-hour
rolling average values are used to
determine compliance (except for
baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is
established under § 60.2115. Operating
limits are confirmed or reestablished
during performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For energy recovery units,
incinerators, burn-off ovens and small
remote units, you must perform annual
visual emissions test for ash handling.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(e) For energy recovery units, you
must conduct an annual performance
test for opacity (except where
particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system are used for
compliance) and the pollutants (except
for carbon monoxide) listed in table 1 of
this subpart or tables 5 through 9 of this
subpart.
(f) For energy recovery units,
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the carbon monoxide emission
limit using a carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring
system according to the following
requirements:
(1) Determine continuous compliance
with the carbon monoxide emissions
limit using a 24-hour block average,
calculated as specified in section 12.4.1
of EPA Reference Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of this part.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring
system in accordance with the
requirements of performance
specification 4B of appendix B of this
part and quality assurance procedure
one of appendix F of this part.
(g) For energy recovery units with
design capacities greater than 250
MMBtu/hr, demonstrate continuous
compliance with the particulate matter
emissions limit using a particulate
matter continuous emissions monitoring
system according to the procedures in
§ 60.2165(n).
(h) For waste-burning kilns, you must
conduct an annual performance test for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
fugitive ash and opacity (as mentioned
in § 60.2145(a)), nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide as listed in table 7 of this
subpart. You must determine
compliance with the mercury emissions
limit using a mercury continuous
emissions monitoring system according
to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a continuous emission
monitor in accordance with
performance specification 12A of 40
CFR part 60, appendix B or a sorbent
trap based integrated monitor in
accordance with performance
specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B or appendix K of 40 CFR
part 75. The duration of the
performance test must be a calendar
month. For each calendar month in
which the waste-burning kiln operates,
hourly mercury concentration data and
stack gas volumetric flow rate data must
be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a
mercury continuous emissions
monitoring system must install, operate,
calibrate and maintain an instrument for
continuously measuring and recording
the exhaust gas flow rate to the
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
atmosphere according to the
requirements of performance
specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B and quality assurance
procedure 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
F, upon promulgation.
(3) The owner or operator of a wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial
compliance by operating a mercury
continuous emissions monitoring
system while the raw mill of the in-line
kiln/raw mill is under normal operating
conditions and while the raw mill of the
in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(i) If you use an air pollution control
device to meet the emission limitations
in this subpart, you must conduct an
initial and annual inspection of the air
pollution control device. The inspection
must include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control
device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring
plan according to the requirements in
paragraph (j) of this section. This
requirement also applies to you if you
petition the EPA Administrator for
alternative monitoring parameters under
§ 60.13(i).
(j) For each continuous monitoring
system required in this section, you
must develop and submit to the EPA
Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan according to
the requirements of this paragraph (j)
that addresses paragraphs (j)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific
monitoring plan at least 60 days before
your initial performance evaluation of
your continuous monitoring system.
(i) Installation of the continuous
monitoring system sampling probe or
other interface at a measurement
location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is
representative of control of the exhaust
emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the
last control device).
(ii) Performance and equipment
specifications for the sample interface,
the pollutant concentration or
parametric signal analyzer and the data
collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation
procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g.,
calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of
§ 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of § 60.13.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and
reporting procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of § 60.7(b),
(c), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f) and (g).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) You must conduct a performance
evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with
your site-specific monitoring plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain
the continuous monitoring system in
continuous operation according to the
site-specific monitoring plan.
(k) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a flow measurement
device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (j) and (k)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other
necessary equipment in a position that
provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of
the flow rate.
(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal
velocity distributions due to upstream
and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration
check at least semiannually.
(l) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pressure
measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (j) and (l)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a
position that provides a representative
measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating
pressure, vibration and internal and
external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum
tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or
a transducer with a minimum tolerance
of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge
calibration quarterly and transducer
calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any
time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating pressure range or install a new
pressure sensor.
(m) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pH measurement
device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (j) and (m)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position
that provides a representative
measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly
mixed and representative of the fluid to
be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration
on at least two points every 8 hours of
process operation.
(n) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor voltage and secondary current
(or total power input) of an electrostatic
precipitator, you must use voltage and
secondary current monitoring
equipment to measure voltage and
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31977
secondary current to the electrostatic
precipitator.
(o) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g.,
weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper
flow measurement device), you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (j)
and (o)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the device in a position(s)
that provides a representative
measurement of the total sorbent
injection rate.
(2) Install and calibrate the device in
accordance with manufacturer’s
procedures and specifications.
(3) At least annually, calibrate the
device in accordance with the
manufacturer’s procedures and
specifications.
(p) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag
leak detection system to comply with
the requirements of this subpart, you
must install, calibrate, maintain and
continuously operate a bag leak
detection system as specified in
paragraphs (p)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) You must install and operate a bag
leak detection system for each exhaust
stack of the fabric filter.
(2) Each bag leak detection system
must be installed, operated, calibrated
and maintained in a manner consistent
with the manufacturer’s written
specifications and recommendations
and in accordance with the guidance
provided in EPA–454/R–98–015,
September 1997.
(3) The bag leak detection system
must be certified by the manufacturer to
be capable of detecting particulate
matter emissions at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter or
less.
(4) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(5) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal
from the sensor.
(6) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with an alarm system
that will sound automatically when an
increase in relative particulate matter
emissions over a preset level is detected.
The alarm must be located where it is
easily heard by plant operating
personnel.
(7) For positive pressure fabric filter
systems that do not duct all
compartments of cells to a common
stack, a bag leak detection system must
be installed in each baghouse
compartment or cell.
(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors
are required, the system’s
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31978
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
instrumentation and alarm may be
shared among detectors.
(q) For facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the sulfur
dioxide emission limit, compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
demonstrated by using the continuous
emission monitoring system specified in
§ 60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and
calculating a 24-hour daily geometric
average emission concentration using
EPA Reference Method 19, sections 4.3
and 5.4, as applicable. The sulfur
dioxide continuous emission
monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification
2 in appendix B of this part and must
follow the procedures and methods
specified in this paragraph (q). For
sources that have actual inlet emissions
less than 100 parts per million dry
volume, the relative accuracy criterion
for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous
emission monitoring systems should be
no greater than 20 percent of the mean
value of the reference method test data
in terms of the units of the emission
standard, or 5 parts per million dry
volume absolute value of the mean
difference between the reference
method and the continuous emission
monitoring systems, whichever is
greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
performance specification 2 in appendix
B of this part, sulfur dioxide and oxygen
(or carbon dioxide) data must be
collected concurrently (or within a 30to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emission monitors and the
test methods specified in paragraphs
(q)(1)(i) and (q)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference
Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an alternative
ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus]
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17],
must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–
19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus] (incorporated by reference,
see § 60.17] as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous
emissions monitoring system at the inlet
to the sulfur dioxide control device
must be 125 percent of the maximum
estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the unit subject to
this rule. The span value of the
continuous emission monitoring system
at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide
control device must be 50 percent of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
maximum estimated hourly potential
sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit
subject to this rule.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations
and daily calibration drift tests must be
performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions
data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks
and/or zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained by
using other monitoring systems as
approved by EPA or EPA Reference
Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of
85 percent of the hours per day, 90
percent of the hours per calendar
quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per
calendar year that the affected facility is
operated and combusting solid waste (as
that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA).
(r) For facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the nitrogen oxides emission limit,
compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emission limit may be demonstrated by
using the continuous emission
monitoring system specified in
§ 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides
and calculating a 24-hour daily
arithmetic average emission
concentration using EPA Reference
Method 19, section 4.1. The nitrogen
oxides continuous emission monitoring
system must be operated according to
performance specification 2 in appendix
B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(5) of this
section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
performance specification 2 of appendix
B of this part, nitrogen oxides and
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be
collected concurrently (or within a 30to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emission monitors and the
test methods specified in paragraphs
(r)(1)(i) and (r)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference
Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E must be
used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–
19.10–1981—Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus] (incorporated by reference,
see § 60.17] as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous
emission monitoring system must be
125 percent of the maximum estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hourly potential nitrogen oxide
emissions of unit.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations
and daily calibration drift tests must be
performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous
emissions monitoring system data are
not obtained because of continuous
emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks
and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained using
other monitoring systems as approved
by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to
provide, as necessary, valid emissions
data for a minimum of 85 percent of the
hours per day, 90 percent of the hours
per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of
the hours per calendar year the unit is
operated and combusting solid waste.
(5) The owner or operator of an
affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected
to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If
carbon dioxide is selected for use in
diluent corrections, the relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels must be established during the
initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv) of
this section. This relationship may be
re-established during performance
compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method
3B must be used to determine the
relationship between oxygen and carbon
dioxide at a sampling location. Method
3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/
ASME PTC–19.10–1981—Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus]
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17)
as applicable, must be used to
determine the oxygen concentration at
the same location as the carbon dioxide
monitor.
(ii) Samples must be taken for at least
30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample must represent a 1hour average.
(iv) A minimum of 3 runs must be
performed.
(s) For facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with any of the emission limits of this
subpart, you must complete the
following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the
appropriate emission limit(s) using a 24hour block average, calculated following
the procedures in EPA Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of this part.
(2) Operate all continuous emissions
monitoring systems in accordance with
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the applicable procedures under
appendices B and F of this part.
(t) Use of the bypass stack at any time
is an emissions standards deviation for
particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg.
20. Section 60.2150 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2150 By what date must I conduct the
annual performance test?
You must conduct annual
performance tests within 12 months
following the initial performance test.
Conduct subsequent annual
performance tests within 12 months
following the previous one.
21. Section 60.2151 is added to read
as follows:
§ 60.2151 By what date must I conduct the
annual air pollution control device
inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12
months following the previous annual
air pollution control device inspection),
you must complete the air pollution
control device inspection as described
in § 60.2141.
22. Section 60.2155 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2155 May I conduct performance
testing less often?
(a) You can test less often for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
fugitive ash, or opacity, provided:
(1) You have test data for at least 3
consecutive years.
(2) The test data results for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash,
or opacity is less than 75 percent of the
emissions or opacity limit.
(3) There are no changes in the
operation of the affected source or air
pollution control equipment that could
affect emissions. In this case, you do not
have to conduct a performance test for
that pollutant for the next 2 years. You
must conduct a performance test during
the third year and no more than 36
months following the previous
performance test.
(b) If your CISWI unit continues to
emit less than 75 percent of the
emission limitation for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash,
or opacity, and there are no changes in
the operation of the affected facility or
air pollution control equipment that
could increase emissions, you may
choose to conduct performance tests for
these pollutants every third year, but
each test must be within 36 months of
the previous performance test.
(c) If a performance test shows
emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission or opacity
limitation for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or
opacity, you must conduct annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
performance tests for that pollutant
until all performance tests over a 3-year
period are within 75 percent of the
applicable emission limitation.
23. Section 60.2165 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2165 What monitoring equipment
must I install and what parameters must I
monitor?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you are using something other
than a wet scrubber, activated carbon,
selective non-catalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with
the emission limitations under
§ 60.2105, you must install, calibrate (to
the manufacturers’ specifications),
maintain and operate the equipment
necessary to monitor compliance with
the site-specific operating limits
established using the procedures in
§ 60.2115.
(d) If you use activated carbon
injection to comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must
measure the minimum mercury sorbent
flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic
reduction to comply with the emission
limitations, you must complete the
following:
(1) Following the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.2125, whichever date comes first,
ensure that the affected facility does not
operate above the maximum charge rate,
or below the minimum secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to
your CISWI unit) or the minimum
reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour
rolling averages (calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 3 operating
hours) at all times. Operating parameter
limits do not apply during performance
tests.
(2) Operation of the affected facility
above the maximum charge rate, below
the minimum secondary chamber
temperature and below the minimum
reagent flow rate simultaneously
constitute a violation of the nitrogen
oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you
must monitor the voltage and amperage
of the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates and maintain the 3hour block averages at or above the
operating limits established during the
mercury or particulate matter
performance test.
(g) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the hydrogen chloride
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31979
use of a hydrogen chloride continuous
emissions monitoring system for
conducting the hydrogen chloride
annual performance test, monitoring the
minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent
flow rate and monitoring the minimum
scrubber liquor pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the particulate matter
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system for
conducting the particulate matter
annual performance test and monitoring
the minimum pressure drop across the
wet scrubber, if applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the dioxin/furan annual
performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the
sample according to EPA Method 23 of
appendix A–7 of this part. This option
to use a continuous automated sampling
system takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to
dioxin/furan from continuous monitors
is published in the Federal Register.
The owner or operator who elects to
continuously sample dioxin/furan
emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Method 23 of
appendix A–7 must install, calibrate,
maintain and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and must
comply with the requirements specified
in § 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a
continuous automated sampling system
for the mercury annual performance
test. You must record the output of the
system and analyze the sample at set
intervals using any suitable
determinative technique that can meet
appropriate performance criteria. This
option to use a continuous automated
sampling system takes effect on the date
a final performance specification
applicable to mercury from monitors is
published in the Federal Register. The
owner or operator who elects to
continuously sample mercury emissions
instead of sampling and testing using
EPA Reference Method 29 of appendix
A–8 of this part, ASTM D6784–02
(2008), Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound
and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), or an
approved alternative method for
measuring mercury emissions, must
install, calibrate, maintain and operate a
continuous automated sampling system
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31980
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and must comply with the requirements
specified in § 60.58b(p) and (q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a continuous emissions
monitoring system for the nitrogen
oxides annual performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the
nitrogen oxides emissions limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of
the system. The requirements under
performance specification 2 of appendix
B of this part, the quality assurance
procedure one of appendix F of this part
and the procedures under § 60.13 must
be followed for installation, evaluation
and operation of the continuous
emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial
performance test for nitrogen oxides is
completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.2125, compliance
with the emission limit for nitrogen
oxides required under § 60.52b(d) must
be determined based on the 24-hour
daily arithmetic average of the hourly
emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system
outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages must be expressed in parts per
million by volume (dry basis) and used
to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic
average concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated
using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2).
(l) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the sulfur dioxide annual
performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur
dioxide emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the
system. The requirements under
performance specification 2 of appendix
B of this part, the quality assurance
requirements of procedure one of
appendix F of this part and procedures
under § 60.13 must be followed for
installation, evaluation and operation of
the continuous emission monitoring
system.
(2) Following the date that the initial
performance test for sulfur dioxide is
completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.2125, compliance
with the sulfur dioxide emission limit
may be determined based on the 24-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
hour daily geometric average of the
hourly arithmetic average emission
concentrations using continuous
emission monitoring system outlet data.
The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
expressed in parts per million corrected
to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used
to calculate the 24-hour daily geometric
average emission concentrations and
daily geometric average emission
percent reductions. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated
using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units that do
not use a wet scrubber, you must install,
operate, certify and maintain a
continuous opacity monitoring system
according to the procedures in
paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this
section by the compliance date specified
in § 60.2105. Energy recovery units that
use a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate initial and continuing
compliance according to the procedures
in § 60.2165(n) are not required to
install a continuous opacity monitoring
system and must perform the annual
performance tests for opacity consistent
with § 60.2145(e).
(1) Install, operate and maintain each
continuous opacity monitoring system
according to performance specification
1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation
of each continuous opacity monitoring
system according to the requirements in
§ 60.13 and according to PS–1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in § 60.13(e)(1), each
continuous opacity monitoring system
must complete a minimum of one cycle
of sampling and analyzing for each
successive 10-second period and one
cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity
monitoring system data as specified in
§ 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6minute averages (and 1-hour block
averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with
design capacities greater than 250
MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate
matter testing with EPA Method 5, an
owner or operator must install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system
for monitoring particulate matter
emissions discharged to the atmosphere
and record the output of the system. The
owner or operator of an affected facility
who continuously monitors particulate
matter emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5 must install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
monitoring system and must comply
with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(14) of this
section.
(1) Notify the Administrator one (1)
month before starting use of the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator one (1)
month before stopping use of the
system.
(3) The monitor must be installed,
evaluated and operated in accordance
with the requirements of performance
specification 11 of appendix B of this
part and quality assurance requirements
of procedure two of appendix F of this
part and § 60.13.
(4) The initial performance evaluation
must be completed no later than 180
days after the date of initial startup of
the affected facility, as specified under
§ 60.2125 or within 180 days of
notification to the Administrator of use
of the continuous monitoring system if
the owner or operator was previously
determining compliance by Method 5
performance tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an
affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected
to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
The relationship between oxygen and
carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility must be established according to
the procedures and methods specified
in § 60.2145(r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an
affected facility must conduct an initial
performance test for particulate matter
emissions as required under § 60.2125.
Compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit must be determined by
using the continuous emission
monitoring system specified in
paragraph (n) of this section to measure
particulate matter and calculating a 24hour block arithmetic average emission
concentration using EPA Reference
Method 19, section 4.1.
(7) Compliance with the particulate
matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 24-hour daily
(block) average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system
outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous
monitoring system hourly averages must
be obtained as specified in § 60.2170(e).
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages
required under paragraph (n)(7) of this
section must be expressed in milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter corrected
to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
(dry basis) and must be used to calculate
the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
emission concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid continuous emission
monitoring system data must be used in
calculating average emission
concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of
this section are not met.
(11) The continuous emission
monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification
11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
performance specification 11 in
appendix B of this part, particulate
matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data must be collected concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) by
both the continuous emission monitors
and the following test methods.
(i) For particulate matter, EPA
Reference Method 5 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as
applicable must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration
drift tests must be performed in
accordance with procedure 2 in
appendix F of this part.
(14) When particulate matter
emissions data are not obtained because
of continuous emission monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained by
using other monitoring systems as
approved by the Administrator or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as
necessary, valid emissions data for a
minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per
calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected
facility is operated and combusting
waste.
(o) For energy recovery units, operate
the carbon monoxide continuous
emissions monitoring system in
accordance with the requirements of
performance specification 4B of
appendix B of this part and quality
assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of
this part.
(p) The owner/operator of an affected
source with a bypass stack shall install,
calibrate (to manufacturers’
specifications), maintain and operate a
device or method for measuring the use
of the bypass stack including date, time
and duration.
24. Section 60.2170 is revised to read
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of
monitoring data I must obtain?
(a) You must conduct all monitoring
at all times the CISWI unit is operating.
(b) You must use all the data collected
during all periods in assessing
compliance with the operating limits.
(c) For continuous emission
monitoring systems for measuring sulfur
dioxide emissions, valid continuous
monitoring system hourly averages must
be obtained as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section for a
minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per
calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected
facility is combusting waste. All valid
continuous emission monitoring system
data must be used in calculating average
emission concentrations and percent
reductions even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of this paragraph (c)
are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour
must be used to calculate each 1-hour
arithmetic average.
(2) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour
arithmetic average must be corrected to
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
(d) For continuous emission
monitoring systems for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions, valid
continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages must be obtained as
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
of this section for a minimum of 85
percent of the hours per day, 90 percent
of the hours per calendar quarter, and
95 percent of the hours per calendar
year that the affected facility is
combusting waste. All valid continuous
emission monitoring system data must
be used in calculating average emission
concentrations and percent reductions
even if the minimum continuous
emission monitoring system data
requirements of this paragraph (d) are
not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour
must be used to calculate each 1-hour
arithmetic average.
(2) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour
arithmetic average must be corrected to
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
(e) For continuous emission
monitoring systems for measuring
particulate matter emissions, valid
continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31981
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this
section for a minimum of 85 percent of
the hours per day, 90 percent of the
hours per calendar quarter, and 95
percent of the hours per calendar year
that the affected source is combusting
waste. All valid continuous emission
monitoring system data must be used in
calculating average emission
concentrations and percent reductions
even if the minimum continuous
emission monitoring system data
requirements of this paragraph (e) are
not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour
must be used to calculate each one-hour
arithmetic average.
(2) Each particulate matter one-hour
arithmetic average must be corrected to
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the one-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
25. Section 60.2175 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(c) and (d).
d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (u).
§ 60.2175
What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as
applicable) as specified in paragraphs
(a), (b), and (e) through (u) of this
section for a period of at least 5 years:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that
establish operating limits for controls
other than wet scrubbers under
§ 60.2110(d) through (f) or § 60.2115,
you must maintain data collected for all
operating parameters used to determine
compliance with the operating limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Identification of calendar dates
and times for which data show a
deviation from the operating limits in
table 2 of this subpart or a deviation
from other operating limits established
under § 60.2110(d) through (f) or
§ 60.2115 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations,
and a description of corrective actions
taken.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) Maintain records of the annual air
pollution control device inspections
that are required for each CISWI unit
subject to the emissions limits in table
1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9
of this subpart, any required
maintenance and any repairs not
completed within 10 days of an
inspection or the timeframe established
by the State regulatory agency.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31982
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(p) For continuously monitored
pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the
following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of
opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations
of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations
of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations
of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All one-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All one-hour average
concentrations of mercury emissions.
(7) All one-hour average
concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(q) Records indicating use of the
bypass stack, including dates, times and
durations.
(r) If you choose to stack test less
frequently than annually, consistent
with § 60.2155(a) through (c), you must
keep annual records that document that
your emissions in the previous stack
test(s) were less than 75 percent of the
applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source
operations including fuel composition
and operation of air pollution control
equipment that would cause emissions
of the relevant pollutant to increase
within the past year.
(s) Records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or
the air pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(t) Records of all required
maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(u) Records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize
emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d),
including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
26. Section 60.2210 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as
follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2210 What information must I include
in my annual report?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If no deviation from any emission
limitation or operating limit that applies
to you has been reported, a statement
that there was no deviation from the
emission limitations or operating limits
during the reporting period.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(k) If you had a malfunction during
the reporting period, the compliance
report must include the number,
duration, and a brief description for
each type of malfunction that occurred
during the reporting period and that
caused or may have caused any
applicable emission limitation to be
exceeded. The report must also include
a description of actions taken by an
owner or operator during a malfunction
of an affected source to minimize
emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d),
including actions taken to correct a
malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an
emission or operating limitation that
occurs for a CISWI unit for which you
are not using a CMS to comply with the
emission or operating limitations in this
subpart, the annual report must contain
the following information.
(1) The total operating time of the
CISWI unit at which the deviation
occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number,
duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during
which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous
emission monitoring system, was out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of
this section, the annual report must
contain the following information for
each deviation from an emission or
operating limitation occurring for a
CISWI unit for which you are using a
continuous monitoring system to
comply with the emission and operating
limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each
malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that
each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous monitoring system was
out-of-control, including start and end
dates and hours and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(4) The date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during
a period of malfunction or during
another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of
the deviation during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a
percent of the total source operating
time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration
of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to control
equipment problems, process problems,
other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) A summary of the total duration of
continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period,
and the total duration of continuous
monitoring system downtime as a
percent of the total operating time of the
CISWI unit at which the continuous
monitoring system downtime occurred
during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each
parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI
unit.
(10) A brief description of the
continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous
monitoring system certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in
continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last
reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which
the continuous monitoring system,
including the continuous emission
monitoring system, was not out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of
this section, a statement that there were
not periods during which the
continuous monitoring system was out
of control during the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is
out of control if any of the following
occur.
(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if
applicable), or high-level calibration
drift exceeds two times the applicable
calibration drift specification in the
applicable performance specification or
in the relevant standard.
(2) The continuous monitoring system
fails a performance test audit (e.g.,
cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy
audit, relative accuracy test audit, or
linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity
monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the
applicable performance specification in
the relevant standard.
27. Section 60.2220 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) and removing
paragraphs (e) and (f).
§ 60.2220 What must I include in the
deviation report?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Durations and causes of the
following:
(1) Each deviation from emission
limitations or operating limits and your
corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective
actions.
*
*
*
*
*
28. Section 60.2235 is revised to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 60.2235
reports?
In what form can I submit my
(a) Submit initial, annual and
deviation reports electronically or in
paper format, postmarked on or before
the submittal due dates.
(b) After December 31, 2011, within
60 days after the date of completing
each performance evaluation conducted
to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, the owner or operator of the
affected facility must submit the test
data to EPA by entering the data
electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE
database through EPA’s Central Data
Exchange. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall enter the test data
into EPA’s database using the Electronic
Reporting Tool or other compatible
electronic spreadsheet. Only
performance evaluation data collected
using methods compatible with ERT are
subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into EPA’s
WebFIRE database.
29. Section 60.2242 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2242 Am I required to apply for and
obtain a title V operating permit for my
unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain
incinerator affected by this subpart must
operate pursuant to a permit issued
under Section 129(e) and title V of the
Clean Air Act.
30. Section 60.2250 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2250 What are the emission
limitations for air curtain incinerators?
Within 60 days after your air curtain
incinerator reaches the charge rate at
which it will operate, but no later than
180 days after its initial startup, you
must meet the two limitations specified
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or
equal to 10 percent opacity (as
determined by the average of three onehour blocks consisting of 10 six minute
average opacity values), except as
described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or
equal to 35 percent opacity (as
determined by the average of three 1hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute
average opacity values) during the
startup period that is within the first 30
minutes of operation.
31. Section 60.2260 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for air curtain
incinerators?
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(d) You must submit the results (as
determined by the average of three 1hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute
average opacity values) of the initial
opacity tests no later than 60 days
following the initial test. Submit annual
opacity test results within 12 months
following the previous report.
*
*
*
*
*
32. Section 60.2265 is amended by:
a. Adding definitions for ‘‘Burn-off
oven’’, ‘‘Bypass stack’’, ‘‘Energy recovery
unit’’, ‘‘Incinerator’’, ‘‘Kiln’’, ‘‘Minimum
voltage or amperage’’, ‘‘Opacity’’, ‘‘Raw
mill’’, ‘‘Small remote incinerator’’, ‘‘Solid
waste incineration unit’’ and ‘‘Wasteburning kiln’’, in alphabetical order.
b. Revising the definitions for
‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) unit’’ and
‘‘Deviation’’.
c. Removing the definition for
‘‘Agricultural waste’’, ‘‘Commercial or
industrial waste’’, ‘‘Malfunction’’ and
‘‘Solid waste’’.
§ 60.2265
What definitions must I know?
*
*
*
*
*
Burn-off oven means any rack
reclamation unit, part reclamation unit,
or drum reclamation unit.
Bypass stack means a device used for
discharging combustion gases to avoid
severe damage to the air pollution
control device or other equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
Commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration (CISWI) unit means
any distinct operating unit of any
commercial or industrial facility that
combusts any solid waste pursuant to
Subtitle D of RCRA. While not all CISWI
units will include all of the following
components, a CISWI unit includes, but
is not limited to, the solid waste feed
system, grate system, flue gas system,
waste heat recovery equipment, if any,
and bottom ash system. The CISWI unit
does not include air pollution control
equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit
boundary starts at the solid waste
hopper (if applicable) and extends
through two areas: The combustion unit
flue gas system, which ends
immediately after the last combustion
chamber or after the waste heat recovery
equipment, if any; and the combustion
unit bottom ash system, which ends at
the truck loading station or similar
equipment that transfers the ash to final
disposal. The CISWI unit includes all
ash handling systems connected to the
bottom ash handling system.
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31983
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including but not limited to any
emission limitation, operating limit, or
operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit.
*
*
*
*
*
Energy recovery unit means a
combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) for energy recovery. Energy
recovery units include units that would
be considered boilers and process
heaters if they did not combust solid
waste.
*
*
*
*
*
Incinerator means any furnace used in
the process of combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) for the purpose of reducing the
volume of the waste by removing
combustible matter. Incinerator designs
include single chamber, two-chamber
and cyclonic burn barrels.
*
*
*
*
*
Kiln means an oven or furnace,
including any associated preheater or
precalciner devices, used for processing
a substance by burning, firing or drying.
Kilns include cement kilns, that
produce clinker by heating limestone
and other materials for subsequent
production of Portland cement and lime
kilns that produce quicklime by
calcination of limestone.
*
*
*
*
*
Minimum voltage or amperage means
90 percent of the lowest test-run average
voltage or amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator measured from the pressure
drop and liquid flow rate monitors
during the most recent particulate
matter or mercury performance test
demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limits.
*
*
*
*
*
Opacity means the degree to which
emissions reduce the transmission of
light and obscure the view of an object
in the background.
*
*
*
*
*
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill,
vertical roller mill or other size
reduction equipment, that is not part of
an in-line kiln/raw mill, used to grind
feed to the appropriate size. Moisture
may be added or removed from the feed
during the grinding operation. If the raw
mill is used to remove moisture from
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31984
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also
includes the air separator associated
with the raw mill.
*
*
*
*
*
Small, remote incinerator means an
incinerator that combusts solid waste
(as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) and has the capacity to combust
1 ton per day or less solid waste and is
more than 50 miles driving distance to
the nearest municipal solid waste
landfill.
Solid waste incineration unit means a
distinct operating unit of any facility
which combusts any solid waste
material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public
(including single and multiple
residences, hotels and motels). Such
term does not include incinerators or
other units required to have a permit
under section 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. The term ‘‘solid waste
incineration unit’’ does not include (A)
materials recovery facilities (including
primary or secondary smelters) which
combust waste for the primary purpose
of recovering metals, (B) qualifying
small power production facilities, as
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous
waste (such as units which burn tires or
used oil, but not including refusederived fuel) for the production of
electric energy or in the case of
qualifying cogeneration facilities which
burn homogeneous waste for the
production of electric energy and steam
or forms of useful energy (such as heat)
which are used for industrial,
commercial, heating or cooling
purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators
provided that such incinerators only
burn wood wastes, yard wastes and
clean lumber and that such air curtain
incinerators comply with opacity
limitations to be established by the
Administrator by rule.
*
*
*
*
*
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that
is heated, in whole or in part, by
combusting solid waste (as that term is
defined by the Administrator pursuant
to Subtitle D of RCRA).
*
*
*
*
*
33. The heading of table 1 to subpart
CCCC is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60–
Emission Limitations for CISWI Units
for Which Construction Is Commenced
After November 30, 1999 but no later
than June 4, 2010 or for Which
Modification or Reconstruction Is
Commenced on or After June 1, 2001
but no later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE].
*
*
*
*
*
34. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is
amended by revising the entries for
‘‘Annual Report’’ and ‘‘Emission
limitation or operating limit deviation
report.’’
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a
Report
Due date
*
Annual report .............
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Emission limitation or
operating limit deviation report.
*
a This
Contents
Reference
*
*
*
*
*
No later than 12 months following the sub- • Name and address .....................................
mission of the initial test report. Subse- • Statement and signature by responsible
quent reports are to be submitted no more
official.
than 12 months following the previous re- • Date of report.
port.
• Values for the operating limits.
• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the
lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for
each operating parameter recorded for the
calendar year being reported.
• If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the
test.
• If a performance test was not conducted
during the reporting period, a statement
that the requirements of § 60.2155(a) or
(b) were met.
• Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable
for more than 8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
By August 1 of that year for data collected • Dates and times of deviation .....................
during the first half of the calendar year. • Averaged and recorded data for those
By February 1 of the following year for
dates.
data collected during the second half of • Duration and causes of each deviation
the calendar year.
and the corrective actions taken.
• Copy of operating limit monitoring data
and any test reports.
• Dates, times and causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
*
*
*
*
*
table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
34. Table 5 to Subpart CCCC is added
to read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
*
§§ 60.2205 and 60.2210.
§ 60.2215 and 60.2220.
*
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
31985
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION
AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
24-hour block average ...........
Cadmium ..................................
0.00066 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
1.4 parts per million dry volume.
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
0.0093 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.00073 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
0.074 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.0013 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.00013 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
1% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
19 parts per million dry volume.
Particulate matter (filterable) ....
0.0077 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
1.5 parts per million dry volume.
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
a All
And determining compliance using
this method
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Carbon Monoxide Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (performance specification 4A of this part, using a RA of 0.5 ppm
instead of 5 ppm as specified in 13.2. For
the cylinder gas audit, +/¥ 15% or 0.5
ppm, whichever is greater.)
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect enough
volume to meet a detection
limit data quality objective
of 0.03 ug/dscm).
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1-hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (1-hour minimum sample time per run).
Three 1-hour observation periods.
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 30B of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part). Use a span gas with a concentration of 100 ppm or less.
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a maximum allowable drift of 0.2 ppm and a span gas with a
concentration of 5 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
36. Table 6 to Subpart CCCC is added
to read as follows:
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS THAT COMMENCED
CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE
6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Cadmium ..................................
0.00012 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
3 parts per million dry volume
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
0.034 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance using
this method
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
24 hour block average ...........
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (performance specification 4A of this part, using a RA of 0.5 ppm
instead of 5 ppm as specified in 13.2. For
the cylinder gas audit, +/¥ 15% or 0.5
ppm, whichever is greater.)
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31986
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS THAT COMMENCED
CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE
6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]—Continued
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance using
this method
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect enough
volume to meet a detection
limit data quality objective
of 0.03 μg/dscm).
6-minute averages; 1-hour
block average for units that
operate dry control systems.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.0027 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
0.17 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.0012 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.00013 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
1% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
Particulate matter (filterable) ....
75 parts per million dry volume.
4.4 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
4.1 parts per million dry volume.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
Three 1-hour observation periods.
a All
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 30B of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Continuous opacity monitoring (performance
specification 1 of appendix B of this part),
unless equipped with a wet scrubber.
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part) if the
unit has a design capacity less than or
equal to 250 MMBtu/hr; or PM CEMS (performance specification 11 of appendix B of
this part) if the unit has a design capacity
greater than 250 MMBtu/hr.
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a span gas with a
concentration of 20 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
37. Table 7 to Subpart CCCC is added
to read as follows:
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR WASTE-BURNING KILNS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
0.00030 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
36 parts per million dry volume.
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Cadmium ..................................
0.00035 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.000028 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
1.5 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.00078 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance using this method
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
24-hour block average ...........
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (performance specification 4A of this part, using a RA of 1 ppm
instead of 5 ppm as specified in 13.2. For
the cylinder gas audit, +/¥ 15% or 0.5
ppm, whichever is greater.)
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
31987
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR WASTE-BURNING KILNS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]—Continued
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance using this method
Mercury CEMS (performance specification
12A of appendix B of this part or mercury
sorbent trap method specified in appendix
K of part 75)
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Mercury ....................................
0.024 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
24-hour block average ...........
Opacity .....................................
1% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
Particulate matter (filterable) ....
140 parts per million dry volume.
1.8 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
3.6 parts per million dry volume.
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
a All
Three 1-hour observation periods.
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a span gas with a
concentration of 20 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
38. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added
to read as follows:
TABLE 8 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR BURN-OFF OVENS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
24 hour block average ...........
0.0032 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
74 parts per million dry volume.
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
0.011 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.00086 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
17.6 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.029 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.0033 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Cadmium ..................................
2% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
16 parts per million dry volume.
Particulate matter (filterable) ....
28 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
And determining compliance using this method
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System (performance specification 4A of this part, using a RA of 2 ppm
instead of 5 ppm as specified in 13.2. For
the cylinder gas audit,±±15% or 0.5 ppm,
whichever is greater.)
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect enough
volume to meet a detection
limit data quality objective
of 0.3 ug/dscm).
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 30B of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part). Use a span gas with a concentration of 100 ppm or less.
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 and appendix A–8 of this part).
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31988
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR BURN-OFF OVENS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER [THE DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]—Continued
You must meet this emission
limitation a
For the air pollutant
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance using this method
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a maximum allowable drift of 0.2 ppm and a span gas with
concentration of 5 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
1.5 parts per million dry volume.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
Three 1-hour observation periods.
a All
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
39. Table 9 to Subpart CCCC is added
to read as follows:
TABLE 9 TO SUBPART CCCC OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR SMALL, REMOTE INCINERATORS THAT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AFTER JUNE 4, 2010 OR THAT COMMENCED RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION AFTER
[THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance using this
method
Cadmium .................
0.057 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
Carbon monoxide ....
4.0 parts per million dry volume ..........
24 hour block average .........................
Dioxins/furans (total
1,200 nanograms per dry standard
mass basis).
cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic 94 nanograms per dry standard cubic
equivalency basis).
meter.
Hydrogen chloride ... 150 parts per million dry volume .........
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–8 of this part). Use ICPMS
for the analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (performance specification 4A of this part,
using a RA of 0.5 ppm instead of 5
ppm as specified in 13.2. For the
cylinder gas audit, ± 15% or 0.5
ppm, whichever is greater).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26 or 26A
of appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–8 of this part). Use ICPMS
for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of
appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of
this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of
appendix A–4 of this part. Use a
span gas with a concentration of
200 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix A–7 of this part).
Lead ........................
1.4 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter.
Mercury ...................
Opacity ....................
0.0013 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
13% ......................................................
Oxides of nitrogen ...
210 parts per million dry volume ..........
Particulate matter
(filterable).
240 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter.
Sulfur dioxide ..........
43 parts per million dry volume ...........
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Fugitive ash .............
Visible emissions for no more than 5%
of the hourly observation period.
Three 1-hour observation periods ........
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
a All
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
Subpart DDDD—Emissions Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units
40. Section 60.2500 is revised to read
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 60.2500
subpart?
What is the purpose of this
This subpart establishes emission
guidelines and compliance schedules
for the control of emissions from
commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) units. The
pollutants addressed by these emission
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
guidelines are listed in table 2 of this
subpart and tables 6 through 10 of this
subpart. These emission guidelines are
developed in accordance with sections
111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act and
subpart B of this part.
41. Section 60.2505 is revised to read
as follows.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 60.2505
Am I affected by this subpart?
(a) If you are the Administrator of an
air quality program in a State or United
States protectorate with one or more
existing CISWI units that meets the
criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of
this section, you must submit a State
plan to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) that implements the
emission guidelines contained in this
subpart.
(b) You must submit a State plan to
EPA by December 3, 2001 for
incinerators that commenced
construction on or before November 30,
1999 and that were not modified or
reconstructed after June 1, 2001.
(c) You must submit a State plan that
meets the requirements of this subpart
and contains the more stringent
emission limit for the respective
pollutant in table 6 of this subpart or
table 1 of subpart CCCC of this part to
EPA by [THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
incinerators that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999
but no later than June 4, 2010 or
commenced modification or
reconstruction after June 1, 2001 but no
later than [THE DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(d) You must submit a State plan to
EPA that meets the requirements of this
subpart and contains the emission limits
in tables 7 through 10 of this subpart by
[THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI
units other than incinerators that
commenced construction on or before
June 4, 2010.
41. Section 60.2525 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2525 What if my State plan is not
approvable?
(a) If you do not submit an approvable
State plan (or a negative declaration
letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA will
develop a Federal plan according to
§ 60.27 to implement the emission
guidelines contained in this subpart.
Owners and operators of CISWI units
not covered by an approved State plan
must comply with the Federal plan. The
Federal plan is an interim action and
will be automatically withdrawn when
your State plan is approved.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable
State plan (or a negative declaration
letter) to EPA that meets the
requirements of this subpart and
contains the emission limits in tables 6
through 10 of this subpart for CISWI
units that commenced construction after
November 30, 1999, but on or before by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
[THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] by [THE DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], then EPA will develop a
Federal plan according to § 60.27 to
implement the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart. Owners and
operators of CISWI units not covered by
an approved State plan must comply
with the Federal plan. The Federal plan
is an interim action and will be
automatically withdrawn when your
State plan is approved.
43. Section 60.2535 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text.
b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as
paragraph (c).
c. Adding paragraph (b).
§ 60.2535 What compliance schedule must
I include in my state plan?
(a) For CISWI units in the incinerator
subcategory that commenced
construction on or before November 30,
1999, your State plan must include
compliance schedules that require
CISWI units to achieve final compliance
as expeditiously as practicable after
approval of the state plan but not later
than the earlier of the two dates
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) For CISWI units in the incinerator
subcategory that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999,
but on or before June 4, 2010, and for
CISWI units in the energy recovery
units, waste-burning kilns, burn-off
ovens, and small remote incinerators
subcategories that commenced
construction before June 4, 2010, your
state plan must include compliance
schedules that require CISWI units to
achieve final compliance as
expeditiously as practicable after
approval of the state plan but not later
than the earlier of the two dates
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
of this section.
(1) [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) 3 years after the effective date of
state plan approval.
*
*
*
*
*
44. Section 60.2540 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 60.2540 Are there any state plan
requirements for this subpart that apply
instead of the requirements specified in
subpart B?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) State plans developed to
implement this subpart must be as
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31989
protective as the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart. State plans
must require all CISWI units to comply
by the dates specified in § 60.2535. This
applies instead of the option for case-bycase less stringent emission standards
and longer compliance schedules in
§ 60.24(f).
*
*
*
*
*
45. Section 60.2541 is added to read
as follows:
§ 60.2541 In lieu of a state plan submittal,
are there other acceptable option(s) for a
state to meet its Section 111(d)/129(b)(2)
obligations?
Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air
Act Section 111(d)/129 obligations by
submitting an acceptable written request
for delegation of the Federal plan that
meets the requirements of this section.
This is the only other option for a state
to meet its Clean Air Act Section 111(d)/
129 obligations.
(a) An acceptable Federal plan
delegation request must include the
following:
(1) A demonstration of adequate
resources and legal authority to
administer and enforce the Federal plan.
(2) The items under § 60.2515(a)(1),
(2) and (7).
(3) Certification that the hearing on
the state delegation request, similar to
the hearing for a state plan submittal,
was held, a list of witnesses and their
organizational affiliations, if any,
appearing at the hearing, and a brief
written summary of each presentation or
written submission.
(4) A commitment to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement with the
Regional Administrator that sets forth
the terms, conditions and effective date
of the delegation and that serves as the
mechanism for the transfer of authority.
Additional guidance and information is
given in EPA’s Delegation Manual, Item
7–139, Implementation and
Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/
129(b)(3) Federal plans.
(b) A State with an already approved
CISWI Clean Air Act Section 111(d)/129
state plan is not precluded from
receiving EPA approval of a delegation
request for the revised Federal plan,
providing the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section are met, and at the
time of the delegation request, the state
also requests withdrawal of EPA’s
previous State plan approval.
(c) A state’s Clean Air Act Section
111(d)/129 obligations are separate from
its obligations under title V of the Clean
Air Act.
46. Section 60.2542 is added to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31990
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 60.2542 What authorities will not be
delegated to state, local, or Tribal
agencies?
The authorities listed under
§ 60.2030(c) will not be delegated to
state, local, or Tribal agencies.
47. Section 60.2545 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect
CISWI unit owners and operators in my
state?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you do not submit an approvable
plan to implement and enforce the
guidelines contained in this subpart by
[THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI
units that commenced construction after
November 30, 1999, but on or before
[THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the EPA will implement
and enforce a Federal plan, as provided
in § 60.2525, to ensure that each unit
within your state that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999,
but on or before by [THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], reaches
compliance with all the provisions of
this subpart by [THE DATE 5 YEARS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
48. Section § 60.2555 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph
(b).
c. Revising paragraphs (c) and (g).
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(j), (k) and (l).
e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n).
f. Removing paragraph (o).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
This subpart exempts the types of
units described in paragraphs (a), (c)
through (i) and (m) of this section, but
some units are required to provide
notifications. Air curtain incinerators
are exempt from the requirements in
this subpart except for the provisions in
§§ 60.2805, 60.2860, and 60.2870.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Municipal waste combustion units.
Incineration units that are regulated
under subpart Ea of this part (Standards
of Performance for Municipal Waste
Combustors); subpart Eb of this part
(Standards of Performance for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart
Cb of this part (Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); AAAA of this part
(Standards of Performance for Small
Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 60.2558
[Removed]
49. Section 60.2558 is removed.
50. Section 60.2635 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2635 What are the operator training
and qualification requirements?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions
or to prevent conditions that may lead
to malfunctions.
*
*
*
*
*
51. Section 60.2650 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2650 How do I maintain my operator
qualification?
§ 60.2555 What combustion units are
exempt from my state plan?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
subpart BBBB of this part (Emission
Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Hazardous waste combustion
units. Units for which you are required
to get a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) [Reserved]
(k) [Reserved]
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Sewage treatment plants.
Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of
Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units.
Incineration units combusting sewage
sludge for the purpose of reducing the
volume of the sewage sludge by
removing combustible matter. Sewage
sludge incineration unit designs may
include fluidized bed and multiple
hearth.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or
conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
*
*
*
*
*
52. Section 60.2670 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2670 What emission limitations must I
meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission
limitations for each unit, including
bypass stack or vent, specified in table
2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 10
of this subpart by the final compliance
date under the approved State plan,
Federal plan, or delegation, as
applicable. The emission limitations
apply at all times the unit is operating
including and not limited to startup,
shutdown, or malfunction.
(b) Units that do not use wet
scrubbers must maintain opacity to less
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
than or equal to the percent opacity (1hour block average) specified in table 2
of this subpart or tables 6 through 10 of
this subpart, as applicable.
53. Section 60.2675 is amended by
adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to read
as follows:
§ 60.2675 What operating limits must I
meet and by when?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) If you use an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure
the voltage and amperage of the
electrostatic precipitator collection
plates during the particulate matter
performance test. Calculate the average
value of these parameters for each test
run. The minimum test run averages
establish your site-specific minimum
voltage and amperage operating limits
for the electrostatic precipitator.
(e) If you use activated carbon
injection to comply with the emission
limitations, you must measure the
mercury sorbent flow rate during the
mercury performance test. The
minimum mercury sorbent flow rate test
run averages establish your site-specific
minimum mercury sorbent flow rate.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic
reduction to comply with the emission
limitations, you must establish the
maximum charge rate, the minimum
secondary chamber temperature (if
applicable to your CISWI unit) and the
minimum reagent flow rate as sitespecific operating parameters during the
initial nitrogen oxides performance test
to determine compliance with the
emissions limits.
54. Section 60.2680 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2680 What if I do not use a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection,
selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations?
(a) If you use an air pollution control
device other than a wet scrubber,
activated carbon injection, selective
noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator or limit
emissions in some other manner to
comply with the emission limitations
under § 60.2670, you must petition the
Administrator for specific operating
limits to be established during the
initial performance test and
continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial
performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the
Administrator. Your petition must
include the five items listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this
section.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) Identification of the specific
parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(2) A discussion of the relationship
between these parameters and emissions
of regulated pollutants, identifying how
emissions of regulated pollutants
change with changes in these
parameters and how limits on these
parameters will serve to limit emissions
of regulated pollutants.
(3) A discussion of how you will
establish the upper and/or lower values
for these parameters which will
establish the operating limits on these
parameters.
(4) A discussion identifying the
methods you will use to measure and
the instruments you will use to monitor
these parameters, as well as the relative
accuracy and precision of these methods
and instruments.
(5) A discussion identifying the
frequency and methods for recalibrating
the instruments you will use for
monitoring these parameters.
(b) For energy recovery units that do
not use a wet scrubber, you must install,
operate, certify and maintain a
continuous opacity monitoring system
according to the procedures in § 60.2710
by the compliance date specified in
§ 60.2670.
§ 60.2685
[Removed]
55. Section 60.2685 is removed.
56. Section 60.2690 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (h) through (n) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2690 How do I conduct the initial and
annual performance test?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
*
*
*
*
*
(c) All performance tests must be
conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in tables 2 and 6
through 10 of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Method 22 of appendix A–7 of this
part must be used to determine
compliance with the fugitive ash
emission limit in table 2 of this subpart
or tables 6 through 10 of this subpart.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs
(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this
section, within 60 days after achieving
the maximum production rate at which
the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial
startup of such facility, or at such other
times specified by this part, and at such
other times as may be required by the
Administrator under Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of
such facility must conduct performance
test(s) and furnish the Administrator a
written report of the results of such
performance test(s).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(1) If a force majeure is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred for which the
affected owner or operator intends to
assert a claim of force majeure, the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date the owner
or operator first knew, or through due
diligence should have known that the
event may cause or caused a delay in
testing beyond the regulatory deadline,
but the notification must occur before
the performance test deadline unless the
initial force majeure or a subsequent
force majeure event delays the notice,
and in such cases, the notification must
occur as soon as practicable.
(2) The owner or operator must
provide to the Administrator a written
description of the force majeure event
and a rationale for attributing the delay
in testing beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure; describe
the measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay; and identify a date
by which the owner or operator
proposes to conduct the performance
test. The performance test must be
conducted as soon as practicable after
the force majeure occurs.
(3) The decision as to whether or not
to grant an extension to the performance
test deadline is solely within the
discretion of the Administrator. The
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator in writing of approval or
disapproval of the request for an
extension as soon as practicable.
(4) Until an extension of the
performance test deadline has been
approved by the Administrator under
paragraphs (i)(1), (2), and (3) of this
section, the owner or operator of the
affected facility remains strictly subject
to the requirements of this part.
(j) Performance tests must be
conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures contained in this subpart
unless the Administrator does one of the
following.
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology.
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method.
(3) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance.
(4) Waives the requirement for
performance tests because the owner or
operator of a source has demonstrated
by other means to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that the affected facility is in
compliance with the standard.
(5) Approves shorter sampling times
and smaller sample volumes when
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31991
necessitated by process variables or
other factors. Nothing in this paragraph
is construed to abrogate the
Administrator’s authority to require
testing under Section 114 of the Clean
Air Act.
(k) Performance tests must be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator shall specify to the plant
operator based on representative
performance of the affected facility. The
owner or operator must make available
to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the
conditions of the performance tests.
(l) The owner or operator of an
affected facility must provide the
Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as
specified under other subparts, to afford
the Administrator the opportunity to
have an observer present. If after 30
days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due
to operational problems, etc.) in
conducting the scheduled performance
test, the owner or operator of an affected
facility must notify the Administrator
(or delegated state or local agency) as
soon as possible of any delay in the
original test date, either by providing at
least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance
test, or by arranging a rescheduled date
with the Administrator (or delegated
state or local agency) by mutual
agreement.
(m) The owner or operator of an
affected facility must provide, or cause
to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test
methods applicable to such facility.
This includes the following:
(i) Constructing the air pollution
control system such that volumetric
flow rates and pollutant emission rates
can be accurately determined by
applicable test methods and procedures.
(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of
cyclonic flow during performance tests,
as demonstrated by applicable test
methods and procedures.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
(n) Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, each performance test must
consist of three separate runs using the
applicable test method. Each run must
be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable
standard. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an
applicable standard, the arithmetic
means of results of the three runs apply.
In the event that a sample is
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31992
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
accidentally lost or conditions occur in
which one of the three runs must be
discontinued because of forced
shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable
portion of the sample train, extreme
meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond the owner or
operator’s control, compliance may,
upon the Administrator’s approval, be
determined using the arithmetic mean
of the results of the two other runs.
57. Section 60.2695 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2695 How are the performance test
data used?
You use results of performance tests
to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limitations in table 2 of this
subpart or tables 6 through 10 of this
subpart.
58. Section 60.2700 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2700 How do I demonstrate initial
compliance with the amended emission
limitations and establish the operating
limits?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
(a) You must conduct an initial
performance test, as required under
§ 60.2690 and § 60.2670, to determine
compliance with the emission
limitations in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 10 of this subpart and
to establish operating limits using the
procedures in § 60.2675 or § 60.2680.
The initial performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed
in table 2 of this subpart and tables 6
through 10 of this subpart and the
procedures in § 60.2690. The use of the
bypass stack during a performance test
shall invalidate the performance test.
(b) You may use the results from a
performance test conducted within the
two previous years that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limits in
table 2 of this subpart or tables 5
through 9 of this subpart. However, you
must continue to meet the operating
limits established during the most
recent performance test that
demonstrated compliance with the
emission limits in table 2 of this subpart
or tables 5 through 9 of this subpart. The
test must use the test methods in table
2 of this subpart or tables 5 through 9
of this subpart.
59. Section 60.2706 is added to read
as follows:
§ 60.2706 By what date must I conduct the
initial air pollution control device
inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control
device inspection must be conducted
within 60 days after installation of the
control device and the associated CISWI
unit reaches the charge rate at which it
will operate, but no later than 180 days
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
after the final compliance date for
meeting the amended emission
limitations.
(b) Within 10 operating days
following an air pollution control device
inspection, all necessary repairs must be
completed unless the owner or operator
obtains written approval from the state
agency establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
60. Section 60.2710 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and
adding paragraphs (d) through (t) to read
as follows:
§ 60.2710 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the amended
emission limitations and the operating
limits?
(a) You must conduct an annual
performance test for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash and
opacity for each CISWI unit as required
under § 60.2690 to determine
compliance with the emission
limitations. The annual performance
test must be conducted using the test
methods listed in table 2 of this subpart
or tables 6 through 10 of this subpart
and the procedures in § 60.2690.
(b) You must continuously monitor
the operating parameters specified in
§ 60.2675 or established under
§ 60.2680. Operation above the
established maximum or below the
established minimum operating limits
constitutes a deviation from the
established operating limits. Three-hour
rolling average values are used to
determine compliance (except for
baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is
established under § 60.2680. Operating
limits are confirmed or reestablished
during performance tests.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For energy recovery units,
incinerators, burn-off ovens and small
remote units, you must perform annual
visual emissions test for ash handling.
(e) For energy recovery units, you
must conduct an annual performance
test for opacity (except where
particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring systems are used for
compliance) and the pollutants (except
for carbon monoxide) listed in table 2 of
this subpart and tables 6 through 10 of
this subpart.
(f) For energy recovery units,
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the carbon monoxide emission
limit using a carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring
system according to the following
requirements:
(1) Determine continuous compliance
with the carbon monoxide emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
limit using a 24-hour block average,
calculated as specified in section 12.4.1
of EPA Reference Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of this part.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide
continuous emissions monitoring
system in accordance with the
applicable requirements of performance
specification 4B of appendix B and the
quality assurance procedures of
appendix F of this part.
(g) For energy recovery units with
design capacities greater than 250
MMBtu/hr, demonstrate continuous
compliance with the particulate matter
emissions limit using a particulate
matter continuous emissions monitoring
system according to the procedures in
§ 60.2730(n).
(h) For waste-burning kilns, you must
conduct an annual performance test for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
fugitive ash and opacity (as mentioned
in section 60.2710(a)), nitrogen oxides
and sulfur dioxide as listed in table 8 of
this subpart. You must determine
compliance with the mercury emissions
limit using a mercury continuous
emissions monitoring system according
to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a continuous emission
monitor in accordance with
performance specification 12A of 40
CFR part 60, appendix B or a sorbent
trap based integrated monitor in
accordance with performance
specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B or appendix K of 40 CFR
part 75. The duration of the
performance test must be a calendar
month. For each calendar month in
which the waste-burning kiln operates,
hourly mercury concentration data and
stack gas volumetric flow rate data must
be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a
mercury continuous emissions
monitoring system must install, operate,
calibrate and maintain an instrument for
continuously measuring and recording
the exhaust gas flow rate to the
atmosphere according to the
requirements of performance
specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B and quality assurance
procedure 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
F, upon promulgation.
(3) The owner or operator of a wasteburning kiln must demonstrate initial
compliance by operating a mercury
continuous emission monitor while the
raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is
under normal operating conditions and
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/
raw mill is not operating.
(i) If you use an air pollution control
device to meet the emission limitations
in this subpart, you must conduct an
initial and annual inspection of the air
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
pollution control device. The inspection
must include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control
device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring
plan according to the requirements in
paragraph (j) of this section. This
requirement also applies to you if you
petition the EPA Administrator for
alternative monitoring parameters under
§ 60.13(i).
(j) For each continuous monitoring
system required in this section, you
must develop and submit to the EPA
Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan according to
the requirements of this paragraph (j)
that addresses paragraphs (j)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific
monitoring plan at least 60 days before
your initial performance evaluation of
your continuous monitoring system.
(i) Installation of the continuous
monitoring system sampling probe or
other interface at a measurement
location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is
representative of control of the exhaust
emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the
last control device).
(ii) Performance and equipment
specifications for the sample interface,
the pollutant concentration or
parametric signal analyzer and the data
collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation
procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g.,
calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of
§ 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of § 60.13.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and
reporting procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of § 60.7(b),
(c), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f) and (g).
(2) You must conduct a performance
evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with
your site-specific monitoring plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain
the continuous monitoring system in
continuous operation according to the
site-specific monitoring plan.
(k) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a flow measurement
device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (j) and (k)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other
necessary equipment in a position that
provides a representative flow.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Use a flow sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of
the flow rate.
(3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal
velocity distributions due to upstream
and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration
check at least semiannually.
(l) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pressure
measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (j) and (l)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a
position that provides a representative
measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating
pressure, vibration and internal and
external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum
tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or
a transducer with a minimum tolerance
of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge
calibration quarterly and transducer
calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any
time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating pressure range or install a new
pressure sensor.
(m) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pH measurement
device, you must meet the requirements
in paragraphs (j) and (m)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position
that provides a representative
measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly
mixed and representative of the fluid to
be measured.
(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration
on at least two points every 8 hours of
process operation.
(n) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor voltage and secondary current
(or total power input) of an electrostatic
precipitator, you must use voltage and
secondary current monitoring
equipment to measure voltage and
secondary current to the electrostatic
precipitator.
(o) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g.,
weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper
flow measurement device), you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (j)
and (o)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Locate the device in a position(s)
that provides a representative
measurement of the total sorbent
injection rate.
(2) Install and calibrate the device in
accordance with manufacturer’s
procedures and specifications.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31993
(3) At least annually, calibrate the
device in accordance with the
manufacturer’s procedures and
specifications.
(p) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag
leak detection system to comply with
the requirements of this subpart, you
must install, calibrate, maintain and
continuously operate a bag leak
detection system as specified in
paragraphs (p)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) You must install and operate a bag
leak detection system for each exhaust
stack of the fabric filter.
(2) Each bag leak detection system
must be installed, operated, calibrated
and maintained in a manner consistent
with the manufacturer’s written
specifications and recommendations
and in accordance with the guidance
provided in EPA–454/R–98–015,
September 1997.
(3) The bag leak detection system
must be certified by the manufacturer to
be capable of detecting particulate
matter emissions at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter or
less.
(4) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(5) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal
from the sensor.
(6) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with an alarm system
that will sound automatically when an
increase in relative particulate matter
emissions over a preset level is detected.
The alarm must be located where it is
easily heard by plant operating
personnel.
(7) For positive pressure fabric filter
systems that do not duct all
compartments of cells to a common
stack, a bag leak detection system must
be installed in each baghouse
compartment or cell.
(8) Where multiple bag leak detectors
are required, the system’s
instrumentation and alarm may be
shared among detectors.
(q) For facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the sulfur
dioxide emission limit, compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
demonstrated by using the continuous
emission monitoring system specified in
§ 60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and
calculating a 24-hour daily geometric
average emission concentration using
EPA Reference Method 19, sections 4.3
and 5.4, as applicable. The sulfur
dioxide continuous emission
monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31994
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
2 in appendix B of this part and must
follow the procedures and methods
specified in this paragraph (q). For
sources that have actual inlet emissions
less than 100 parts per million dry
volume, the relative accuracy criterion
for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous
emission monitoring systems should be
no greater than 20 percent of the mean
value of the reference method test data
in terms of the units of the emission
standard, or 5 parts per million dry
volume absolute value of the mean
difference between the reference
method and the continuous emission
monitoring systems, whichever is
greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
performance specification 2 in appendix
B of this part, sulfur dioxide and oxygen
(or carbon dioxide) data must be
collected concurrently (or within a 30to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emission monitors and the
test methods specified in paragraphs
(q)(1)(i) and (q)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference
Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an alternative
ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981—Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus]
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17]
must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–19–10–
1981—Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17]
as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous
emissions monitoring system at the inlet
to the sulfur dioxide control device
must be 125 percent of the maximum
estimated hourly potential sulfur
dioxide emissions of the unit subject to
this rule. The span value of the
continuous emission monitoring system
at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide
control device must be 50 percent of the
maximum estimated hourly potential
sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit
subject to this rule.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations
and daily calibration drift tests must be
performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) When sulfur dioxide emissions
data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks
and/or zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained by
using other monitoring systems as
approved by EPA or EPA Reference
Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
85 percent of the hours per day, 90
percent of the hours per calendar
quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per
calendar year that the affected facility is
operated and combusting solid waste (as
that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA).
(r) For facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the nitrogen oxides emission limit,
compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emission limit may be demonstrated by
using the continuous emission
monitoring system specified in
§ 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides
and calculating a 24-hour daily
arithmetic average emission
concentration using EPA Reference
Method 19, section 4.1. The nitrogen
oxides continuous emission monitoring
system must be operated according to
performance specification 2 in appendix
B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (r)(1) through (r)(5) of this
section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
performance specification 2 of appendix
B of this part, nitrogen oxides and
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be
collected concurrently (or within a 30to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emission monitors and the
test methods specified in paragraphs
(r)(1)(i) and (r)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference
Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E must be
used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC–
19.10–1981—Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus] (incorporated by reference,
see § 60.17], as applicable, must be
used.
(2) The span value of the continuous
emission monitoring system must be
125 percent of the maximum estimated
hourly potential nitrogen oxide
emissions of unit.
(3) Quarterly accuracy determinations
and daily calibration drift tests must be
performed in accordance with
procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) When nitrogen oxides continuous
emissions monitoring data are not
obtained because of continuous
emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks
and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained using
other monitoring systems as approved
by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to
provide, as necessary, valid emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
data for a minimum of 85 percent of the
hours per day, 90 percent of the hours
per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of
the hours per calendar year the unit is
operated and combusting solid waste.
(5) The owner or operator of an
affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected
to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If
carbon dioxide is selected for use in
diluent corrections, the relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels must be established during the
initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv) of
this section. This relationship may be
reestablished during performance
compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method
3B must be used to determine the
relationship between oxygen and carbon
dioxide at a sampling location. Method
3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/
ASME PTC–19.10–1981—Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus]
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17),
as applicable, must be used to
determine the oxygen concentration at
the same location as the carbon dioxide
monitor.
(ii) Samples must be taken for at least
30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample must represent a 1hour average.
(iv) A minimum of 3 runs must be
performed.
(s) For facilities using a continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with any of the emission limits of this
subpart, you must complete the
following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the
appropriate emission limit(s) using a 24hour block average, calculated following
the procedures in EPA Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of this part.
(2) Operate all continuous emissions
monitoring system in accordance with
the applicable procedures under
appendices B and F of this part.
(t) Use of the bypass stack at any time
is an emissions standards deviation for
particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg.
61. Section 60.2715 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2715 By what date must I conduct the
annual performance test?
You must conduct annual
performance tests within 12 months
following the initial performance test.
Conduct subsequent annual
performance tests within 12 months
following the previous one.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
62. Section 60.2716 is added to read
as follows:
§ 60.2716 By what date must I conduct the
annual air pollution control device
inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12
months following the previous annual
air pollution control device inspection),
you must complete the air pollution
control device inspection as described
in § 60.2706.
63. Section 60.2720 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2720 May I conduct performance
testing less often?
(a) You can test less often for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
fugitive ash, or opacity, provided:
(1) You have test data for at least 3
consecutive years.
(2) The test data results for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash,
or opacity is less than 75 percent of the
emissions or opacity limit.
(3) There are no changes in the
operation of the affected source or air
pollution control equipment that could
affect emissions. In this case, you do not
have to conduct a performance test for
that pollutant for the next 2 years. You
must conduct a performance test during
the third year and no more than 36
months following the previous
performance test.
(b) If your CISWI unit continues to
emit less than 75 percent of the
emission limitation for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash,
or opacity and there are no changes in
the operation of the affected facility or
air pollution control equipment that
could increase emissions, you may
choose to conduct performance tests for
these pollutants every third year, but
each test must be within 36 months of
the previous performance test.
(c) If a performance test shows
emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission or opacity
limitation for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, fugitive ash, or
opacity, you must conduct annual
performance tests for that pollutant
until all performance tests over a 3-year
period are within 75 percent of the
applicable emission limitation.
64. Section 60.2730 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) and adding
paragraphs (d) through (p) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2730 What monitoring equipment
must I install and what parameters must I
monitor?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you are using something other
than a wet scrubber, activated carbon,
selective non-catalytic reduction, or an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
electrostatic precipitator to comply with
the emission limitations under
§ 60.2670, you must install, calibrate (to
the manufacturers’ specifications),
maintain and operate the equipment
necessary to monitor compliance with
the site-specific operating limits
established using the procedures in
§ 60.2680.
(d) If you use activated carbon
injection to comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must
measure the minimum mercury sorbent
flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic
reduction to comply with the emission
limitations, you must complete the
following:
(1) Following the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or
is required to be completed under
§ 60.2690, whichever date comes first,
ensure that the affected facility does not
operate above the maximum charge rate,
or below the minimum secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to
your CISWI unit) or the minimum
reagent flow rate measured as 3-hour
rolling averages (calculated each hour as
the average of the previous 3 operating
hours) at all times. Operating parameter
limits are confirmed or reestablished
during performance tests.
(2) Operation of the affected facility
above the maximum charge rate, below
the minimum secondary chamber
temperature and below the minimum
reagent flow rate simultaneously
constitute a violation of the nitrogen
oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you
must monitor the voltage and amperage
of the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates and maintain the 3hour block averages at or above the
operating limits established during the
mercury or particulate matter
performance test.
(g) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the hydrogen chloride
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a hydrogen chloride continuous
emissions monitoring system for
conducting the hydrogen chloride
annual performance test, monitoring the
minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent
flow rate and monitoring the minimum
scrubber liquor pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the particulate matter
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system for
conducting the particulate matter
annual performance test and monitoring
the minimum pressure drop across the
wet scrubber, if applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31995
(i) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the dioxin/furan annual
performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the
sample according to EPA Method 23 of
appendix A–7 of this part. This option
to use a continuous automated sampling
system takes effect on the date a final
performance specification applicable to
dioxin/furan from continuous monitors
is published in the Federal Register.
The owner or operator who elects to
continuously sample dioxin/furan
emissions instead of sampling and
testing using EPA Method 23 of
appendix A–7 must install, calibrate,
maintain and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and must
comply with the requirements specified
in § 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a
continuous automated sampling system
for the mercury annual performance
test. You must record the output of the
system and analyze the sample at set
intervals using any suitable
determinative technique that can meet
appropriate performance criteria. This
option to use a continuous automated
sampling system takes effect on the date
a final performance specification
applicable to mercury from monitors is
published in the Federal Register. The
owner or operator who elects to
continuously sample mercury emissions
instead of sampling and testing using
EPA Method 29 of appendix A–8 of this
part, ASTM D6784–02 (2008), Standard
Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle Bound and Total Mercury in
Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method), or an approved alternative
method for measuring mercury
emissions, must install, calibrate,
maintain and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and must
comply with the requirements specified
in § 60.58b(p) and (q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a continuous emissions
monitoring system for the nitrogen
oxides annual performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the
nitrogen oxides emissions limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere and record the output of
the system. The requirements under
performance specification 2 of appendix
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
31996
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
B of this part, the quality assurance
procedure 1 of appendix F of this part
and the procedures under § 60.13 must
be followed for installation, evaluation
and operation of the continuous
emission monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial
performance test for nitrogen oxides is
completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.2690, compliance
with the emission limit for nitrogen
oxides required under § 60.52b(d) must
be determined based on the 24-hour
daily arithmetic average of the hourly
emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system
outlet data. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages must be expressed in parts per
million by volume (dry basis) and used
to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic
average concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated
using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2).
(1) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute
use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the sulfur dioxide annual
performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission
monitoring system for measuring sulfur
dioxide emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the
system. Requirements under
performance specification 2 of appendix
B of this part, the quality assurance
requirements of procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part and the
procedures under § 60.13 must be
followed for installation, evaluation and
operation of the continuous emission
monitoring system.
(2) Following the date that the initial
performance test for sulfur dioxide is
completed or is required to be
completed under § 60.2690, compliance
with the sulfur dioxide emission limit
may be determined based on the 24hour daily geometric average of the
hourly arithmetic average emission
concentrations using continuous
emission monitoring system outlet data.
The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
expressed in parts per million corrected
to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used
to calculate the 24-hour daily geometric
average emission concentrations and
daily geometric average emission
percent reductions. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated
using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units that do
not use a wet scrubber, you must install,
operate, certify and maintain a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
continuous opacity monitoring system
according to the procedures in
paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) of this
section by the compliance date specified
in § 60.2670. Energy recovery units that
use a particulate matter continuous
emissions monitoring system to
demonstrate initial and continuing
compliance according to the procedures
in § 60.2730(n) are not required to
install a continuous opacity monitoring
system and must perform the annual
performance tests for opacity consistent
with § 60.2710(e).
(1) Install, operate and maintain each
continuous opacity monitoring system
according to performance specification
1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation
of each continuous opacity monitoring
system according to the requirements in
§ 60.13 and according to PS–1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in § 60.13(e)(1), each
continuous opacity monitoring system
must complete a minimum of one cycle
of sampling and analyzing for each
successive 10-second period and one
cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity
monitoring system data as specified in
§ 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6minute averages (and 1-hour block
averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with
design capacities greater than 250
MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate
matter testing with EPA Method 5, an
owner or operator must install,
calibrate, maintain and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system
for monitoring particulate matter
emissions discharged to the atmosphere
and record the output of the system. The
owner or operator of an affected facility
who continuously monitors particulate
matter emissions instead of conducting
performance testing using EPA Method
5 must install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a continuous emission
monitoring system and must comply
with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(14) of this
section.
(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month
before starting use of the system.
(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month
before stopping use of the system.
(3) The monitor must be installed,
evaluated and operated in accordance
with the requirements of performance
specification 11 of appendix B of this
part and quality assurance requirements
of procedure 2 of appendix F of this part
and § 60.13.
(4) The initial performance evaluation
must be completed no later than 180
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
days after the final compliance date for
meeting the amended emission
limitations, as specified under § 60.2690
or within 180 days of notification to the
Administrator of use of the continuous
monitoring system if the owner or
operator was previously determining
compliance by Method 5 performance
tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an
affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected
to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
The relationship between oxygen and
carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility must be established according to
the procedures and methods specified
in § 60.2710(r)(5)(i) through (r)(5)(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an
affected facility must conduct an initial
performance test for particulate matter
emissions as required under § 60.2690.
Compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit must be determined by
using the continuous emission
monitoring system specified in
paragraph (n) of this section to measure
particulate matter and calculating a 24hour block arithmetic average emission
concentration using EPA Reference
Method 19, section 4.1.
(7) Compliance with the particulate
matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 24-hour daily
(block) average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system
outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous
monitoring system hourly averages must
be obtained as specified in§ 60.2735(e).
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages
required under paragraph (n)(7) of this
section must be expressed in milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter corrected
to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
(dry basis) and must be used to calculate
the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
emission concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated
using the data points required under
§ 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid continuous emission
monitoring system data must be used in
calculating average emission
concentrations even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of
this section are not met.
(11) The continuous emission
monitoring system must be operated
according to performance specification
11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emission
monitoring system required by
performance specification 11 in
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
appendix B of this part, particulate
matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data must be collected concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) by
both the continuous emission monitors
and the following test methods:
(i) For particulate matter, EPA
Reference Method 5 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as
applicable must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy
determinations and daily calibration
drift tests must be performed in
accordance with procedure 2 in
appendix F of this part.
(14) When particulate matter
emissions data are not obtained because
of continuous emission monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data must be obtained by
using other monitoring systems as
approved by the Administrator or EPA
Reference Method 19 to provide, as
necessary, valid emissions data for a
minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per
calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected
facility is operated and combusting
waste.
(o) For energy recovery units, you
must install, operate, certify and
maintain a continuous emissions
monitoring system for carbon monoxide,
according to the requirements of
performance specification 4B of
appendix B of this part and quality
assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of
this part.
(p) The owner/operator of an affected
source with a bypass stack shall install,
calibrate (to manufacturers’
specifications), maintain and operate a
device or method for measuring the use
of the bypass stack including date, time
and duration.
65. Section 60.2735 is revised to read
as follows:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
§ 60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of
monitoring data I must obtain?
(a) You must conduct all monitoring
at all times the CISWI unit is operating.
(b) You must use all the data collected
during all periods in assessing
compliance with the operating limits.
(c) For continuous emission
monitoring systems for measuring sulfur
dioxide emissions, valid continuous
monitoring system hourly averages must
be obtained as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section for a
minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per
calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected
facility is combusting waste. All valid
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
continuous emission monitoring system
data must be used in calculating average
emission concentrations and percent
reductions even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of this paragraph (c)
are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour
must be used to calculate each 1-hour
arithmetic average.
(2) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour
arithmetic average must be corrected to
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
(d) For continuous emission
monitoring systems for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions, valid
continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages must be obtained as
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
of this section for a minimum of 85
percent of the hours per day, 90 percent
of the hours per calendar quarter, and
95 percent of the hours per calendar
year that the affected facility is
combusting waste. All valid continuous
emission monitoring system data must
be used in calculating average emission
concentrations and percent reductions
even if the minimum continuous
emission monitoring system data
requirements of this paragraph (d) are
not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour
must be used to calculate each 1-hour
arithmetic average.
(2) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour
arithmetic average must be corrected to
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
(e) For continuous emission
monitoring systems for measuring
particulate matter emissions, valid
continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) for a
minimum of 85 percent of the hours per
day, 90 percent of the hours per
calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the
hours per calendar year that the affected
source is combusting waste. All valid
continuous emission monitoring system
data must be used in calculating average
emission concentrations and percent
reductions even if the minimum
continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of this paragraph (c)
are not met.
(1) At least 2 data points per hour
must be used to calculate each one-hour
arithmetic average.
(2) Each particulate matter one-hour
arithmetic average must be corrected to
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31997
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis
using the one-hour arithmetic average of
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
continuous emission monitoring system
data.
66. Section 60.2740 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(c) and (d).
d. Adding paragraphs (n) through (t).
§ 60.2740
What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as
applicable) as specified in paragraphs
(a), (b), and (e) through (t) of this section
for a period of at least 5 years:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that
establish operating limits for controls
other than wet scrubbers under
§ 60.2675(d) through (f) or § 60.2680,
you must maintain data collected for all
operating parameters used to determine
compliance with the operating limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) [Reserved]
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Identification of calendar dates
and times for which data show a
deviation from the operating limits in
table 3 of this subpart or a deviation
from other operating limits established
under § 60.2675(d) through (f) or
§ 60.2680 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations,
and a description of corrective actions
taken.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Maintain records of the annual air
pollution control device inspections
that are required for each CISWI unit
subject to the emissions limits in table
2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 10
of this subpart, any required
maintenance and any repairs not
completed within 10 days of an
inspection or the timeframe established
by the state regulatory agency.
(o) For continuously monitored
pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the
following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of
opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations
of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations
of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations
of carbon monoxide emissions.
(5) All one-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All one-hour average
concentrations of mercury emissions.
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
31998
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(7) All one-hour average
concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(p) Records indicating use of the
bypass stack, including dates, times and
durations.
(q) If you choose to stack test less
frequently than annually, consistent
with § 60.2720(a) through (c), you must
keep annual records that document that
your emissions in the previous stack
test(s) were less than 75 percent of the
applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source
operations including fuel composition
and operation of air pollution control
equipment that would cause emissions
of the relevant pollutant to increase
within the past year.
(r) Records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or
the air pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(s) Records of all required
maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(t) Records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize
emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d),
including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
67. Section 60.2770 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (o) to read as
follows:
§ 60.2770 What information must I include
in my annual report?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If no deviation from any emission
limitation or operating limit that applies
to you has been reported, a statement
that there was no deviation from the
emission limitations or operating limits
during the reporting period.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) If you had a malfunction during
the reporting period, the compliance
report must include the number,
duration, and a brief description for
each type of malfunction that occurred
during the reporting period and that
caused or may have caused any
applicable emission limitation to be
exceeded. The report must also include
a description of actions taken by an
owner or operator during a malfunction
of an affected source to minimize
emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d),
including actions taken to correct a
malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an
emission or operating limitation that
occurs for a CISWI unit for which you
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
are not using a CMS to comply with the
emission or operating limitations in this
subpart, the annual report must contain
the following information.
(1) The total operating time of the
CISWI unit at which the deviation
occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number,
duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if
applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during
which the continuous monitoring
system, including the continuous
emission monitoring system, was out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of
this section, the annual report must
contain the following information for
each deviation from an emission or
operating limitation occurring for a
CISWI unit for which you are using a
continuous monitoring system to
comply with the emission and operating
limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each
malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that
each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous monitoring system was
out-of-control, including start and end
dates and hours and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(4) The date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during
a period of malfunction or during
another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of
the deviation during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a
percent of the total source operating
time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration
of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to control
equipment problems, process problems,
other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of
continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period,
and the total duration of continuous
monitoring system downtime as a
percent of the total operating time of the
CISWI unit at which the continuous
monitoring system downtime occurred
during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each
parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI
unit.
(10) A brief description of the
continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous
monitoring system certification or audit.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(12) A description of any changes in
continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last
reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which
the continuous monitoring system,
including the continuous emission
monitoring system, was not out of
control as specified in paragraph (o) of
this section, a statement that there were
not periods during which the
continuous monitoring system was out
of control during the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is
out of control if any of the following
occur.
(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if
applicable), or high-level calibration
drift exceeds two times the applicable
calibration drift specification in the
applicable performance specification or
in the relevant standard.
(2) The continuous monitoring system
fails a performance test audit (e.g.,
cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy
audit, relative accuracy test audit, or
linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity
monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the
applicable performance specification in
the relevant standard.
68. Section 60.2780 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) and removing
paragraphs (e) and (f).
§ 60.2780 What must I include in the
deviation report?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Durations and causes of the
following:
(1) Each deviation from emission
limitations or operating limits and your
corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective
actions.
*
*
*
*
*
69. Section 60.2795 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2795
reports?
In what form can I submit my
(a) Submit initial, annual and
deviation reports electronically or in
paper format, postmarked on or before
the submittal due dates.
(b) After December 31, 2011, within
60 days after the date of completing
each performance evaluation conducted
to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, the owner or operator of the
affected facility must submit the test
data to EPA by entering the data
electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE
database through EPA’s Central Data
Exchange. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall enter the test data
into EPA’s database using the Electronic
Reporting Tool or other compatible
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
electronic spreadsheet. Only
performance evaluation data collected
using methods compatible with ERT are
subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into EPA’s
WebFIRE database.
70. Section 60.2805 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2805 Am I required to apply for and
obtain a Title V operating permit for my
unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain
incinerator affected by this subpart must
operate pursuant to a permit issued
under Section 129(e) and title V of the
Clean Air Act.
71. Section 60.2860 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.2860 What are the emission
limitations for air curtain incinerators?
After the date the initial stack test is
required or completed (whichever is
earlier), you must meet the limitations
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or
equal to 10 percent opacity (as
determined by the average of three 1hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute
average opacity values), except as
described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or
equal to 35 percent opacity (as
determined by the average of three 1hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute
average opacity values) during the
startup period that is within the first 30
minutes of operation.
72. Section 60.2870 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:
§ 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for air curtain
incinerators?
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) The types of materials you plan to
combust in your air curtain incinerator.
(2) The results (as determined by the
average of three 1-hour blocks
consisting of ten 6-minute average
opacity values) of the initial opacity
tests.
*
*
*
*
*
73. Section 60.2875 is amended by:
a. Adding definitions for ‘‘Burn-off
oven’’, ‘‘Bypass stack’’, ‘‘Energy recovery
unit’’, ‘‘Incinerator’’, ‘‘Kiln’’, ‘‘Minimum
voltage or amperage’’, ‘‘Opacity’’, ‘‘Raw
mill’’, ‘‘Small remote incinerator’’, ‘‘Solid
waste incineration unit’’ and ‘‘Wasteburning kiln’’, in alphabetical order.
b. Revising the definitions for
‘‘Commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) unit’’ and
‘‘Deviation’’.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
c. Removing the definitions for
‘‘Agricultural waste’’, ‘‘Commercial or
industrial waste’’, ‘‘Malfunction’’ and
‘‘Solid Waste’’.
§ 60.2875
What definitions must I know?
*
*
*
*
*
Burn-off oven means any rack
reclamation unit, part reclamation unit,
or drum reclamation unit.
Bypass stack means a device used for
discharging combustion gases to avoid
severe damage to the air pollution
control device or other equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
Commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration (CISWI) unit means
any distinct operating unit of any
commercial or industrial facility that
combusts any solid waste as that term
is defined in 40 CFR part 241. While not
all CISWI units will include all of the
following components, a CISWI unit
includes, but is not limited to, the solid
waste feed system, grate system, flue gas
system, waste heat recovery equipment,
if any, and bottom ash system. The
CISWI unit does not include air
pollution control equipment or the
stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at
the solid waste hopper (if applicable)
and extends through two areas: The
combustion unit flue gas system, which
ends immediately after the last
combustion chamber or after the waste
heat recovery equipment, if any; and the
combustion unit bottom ash system,
which ends at the truck loading station
or similar equipment that transfers the
ash to final disposal. The CISWI unit
includes all ash handling systems
connected to the bottom ash handling
system.
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including but not limited to any
emission limitation, operating limit, or
operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit.
*
*
*
*
*
Energy recovery unit means a
combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) for energy recovery. Energy
recovery units include units that would
be considered boilers and process
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31999
heaters if they did not combust solid
waste.
*
*
*
*
*
Incinerator means any furnace used in
the process of combusting solid waste
(as the term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) for the purpose of reducing the
volume of the waste by removing
combustible matter. Incinerator designs
include single chamber, two-chamber
and cyclonic burn barrels.
*
*
*
*
*
Kiln means an oven or furnace,
including any associated preheater or
precalciner devices, used for processing
a substance by burning, firing or drying.
Kilns include cement kilns, that
produce clinker by heating limestone
and other materials for subsequent
production of Portland cement and lime
kilns, that produce quicklime by
calcination of limestone.
*
*
*
*
*
Minimum voltage or amperage means
90 percent of the lowest test-run average
voltage or amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator measured from the pressure
drop and liquid flow rate monitors
during the most recent particulate
matter or mercury performance test
demonstrating compliance with the
applicable emission limits.
*
*
*
*
*
Opacity means the degree to which
emissions reduce the transmission of
light and obscure the view of an object
in the background.
*
*
*
*
*
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill,
vertical roller mill or other size
reduction equipment, that is not part of
an in-line kiln/raw mill, used to grind
feed to the appropriate size. Moisture
may be added or removed from the feed
during the grinding operation. If the raw
mill is used to remove moisture from
feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also
includes the air separator associated
with the raw mill.
*
*
*
*
*
Small, remote incinerator means an
incinerator that combusts solid waste
(as that term is defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Subtitle D of
RCRA) and has the capacity to combust
1 ton per day or less solid waste and is
more than 50 miles driving distance to
the nearest municipal solid waste
landfill.
Solid waste incineration unit means a
distinct operating unit of any facility
which combusts any solid waste
material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public
(including single and multiple
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
32000
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
residences, hotels and motels). Such
term does not include incinerators or
other units required to have a permit
under section 3005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. The term ‘‘solid waste
incineration unit’’ does not include (A)
materials recovery facilities (including
primary or secondary smelters) which
combust waste for the primary purpose
of recovering metals, (B) qualifying
small power production facilities, as
defined in section 3(17)(C) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B)
of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous
waste (such as units which burn tires or
used oil, but not including refusederived fuel) for the production of
electric energy or in the case of
qualifying cogeneration facilities which
burn homogeneous waste for the
production of electric energy and steam
or forms of useful energy (such as heat)
which are used for industrial,
commercial, heating or cooling
purposes, or (C) air curtain incinerators
provided that such incinerators only
burn wood wastes, yard wastes and
clean lumber and that such air curtain
incinerators comply with opacity
limitations to be established by the
Administrator by rule.
*
*
*
*
*
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that
is heated, in whole or in part, by
combusting solid waste (as that term is
defined by the Administrator pursuant
to Subtitle D of RCRA).
*
*
*
*
*
74. Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part
60 is revised to read as follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
By these datesa
Comply with these increments of progress
Increment 1—Submit final control plan ....................................................
Increment 2—Final compliance ................................................................
(Dates to be specified in state plan).
(Dates to be specified in state plan)b.
a Site-specific
schedules can be used at the discretion of the state.
date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised State plan
or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010.
b The
75. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is
amended by revising the heading and
adding footnote b to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60—
Model Rule—Emission Limitations That
Apply Before. [Date to be specified in
state plan] b
*
*
*
*
*
b The date specified in the state plan
can be no later than 3 years after the
effective date of approval of a revised
state plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
76. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is
amended by:
a. Revising the entry for ‘‘Annual
Report’’.
b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Emission
limitation or operating limit deviation
report’’.
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTSA
Report
Due date
Contents
Reference
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
*
Annual report .............
*
*
*
*
*
No later than 12 months following the sub- • Name and address .....................................
mission of the initial test report. Subse- • Statement and signature by responsible
quent reports are to be submitted no more
official.
than 12 months following the previous re- • Date of report
port.
• Values for the operating limits ...................
• Highest recorded 3-hour average and the
lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, for
each operating parameter recorded for the
calendar year being reported.
• If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the
test.
• If a performance test was not conducted
during the reporting period, a statement
that the requirements of § 60.2720(a) or
(b) were met.
• Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable
for more than 8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
*
§§ 60.2765 and 60.2770.
*
Emission limitation or
operating limit deviation report.
*
*
*
*
*
By August 1 of that year for data collected • Dates and times of deviation .....................
during the first half of the calendar year. • Averaged and recorded data for those
By February 1 of the following year for
dates.
data collected during the second half of • Duration and causes of each deviation
the calendar year.
and the corrective actions taken.
• Copy of operating limit monitoring data
and any test reports.
*
§ 60.2775 and 60.2780
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
32001
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTSA—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
Reference
• Dates, times and causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
*
a This
*
*
*
*
*
*
table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
77. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added
as follows:
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60-MODEL RULE-EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO INCINERATORS ON AND
AFTER [DATE TO BE SPECIFIED IN STATE PLAN] a
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation b
Using this averaging time
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Cadmium ..................................
0.0013 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
2.2 parts per million dry volume.
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
0.031 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.0025 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
29 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.0026 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.0028 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
1% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
Particulate matter filterable ......
34 parts per million dry volume.
13 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
2.5 parts per million dry volume.
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
And determining compliance
using this method
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 10 of appendix A–
4 of this part). Use a maximum allowable
drift of 0.2 ppm and a span gas with a CO
concentration of 10 ppm or less. The span
gas must contain approximately the same
concentration of CO2 expected from the
source.
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Three 1-hour observation periods.
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 29 or 30B of appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a maximum allowable drift of 0.2 ppm and a span gas with
concentration of 5 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
a The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or [THE DATE 5
YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
b All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
78. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is added
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
32002
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO ENERGY RECOVERY
UNITS AFTER [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Cadmium ..................................
0.00041 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
150 parts per million dry volume.
0.75 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.059 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
1.5 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.002 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.00096 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
1% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
Particulate matter filterable ......
130 parts per million dry volume.
9.2 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
4.1 parts per million dry volume.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
Three 1-hour observation periods.
a All
And determining compliance
using this method
Using this averaging time
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
6-minute averages; 1-hour
block average for units that
operate dry control systems.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
Performance test
8 of this part).
ical finish.
Performance test
4 of this part).
Performance test
7 of this part).
(Method 29 of appendix A–
Use ICPMS for the analyt(Method 10 of appendix A–
(Method 23 of appendix A–
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A
of this part).
Continuous opacity monitoring (performance
specification 1 of appendix B of this part),
unless equipped with a wet scrubber.
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part) if the
unit has a design capacity less than or
equal to 250 MMBtu/hr; or PM CEMS (performance specification 11 of appendix B of
this part) if the unit has a design capacity
greater than 250 MMBtu/hr.
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a span gas with a
concentration of 20 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
79. Table 8 to Subpart DDDD is added
as follows:
TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO WASTE-BURNING
KILNS AFTER [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
0.0003 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Cadmium ..................................
710 parts per million dry volume.
2.1 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
0.17 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
1.5 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.0027 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Using this
averaging time
And determining compliance
using this method
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry
standard cubic meters).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part).
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Performance test (Method 10 of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part).
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
32003
TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO WASTE-BURNING
KILNS AFTER [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]—Continued
For the air pollutant
Using this
averaging time
You must meet this emission
limitation a
And determining compliance
using this method
Mercury CEMS (performance specification
12A of appendix B of this part or mercury
sorbent trap method specified in appendix
K of part 75)
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Mercury ....................................
0.024 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
Opacity .....................................
4% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
1100 parts per million dry volume.
60 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Three 1-hour observation periods.
Particulate matter filterable ......
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
Fugitive ash ..............................
a
410 parts per million dry volume.
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 of this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
80. Table 9 to Subpart DDDD is added
as follows:
TABLE 9 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO BURN-OFF OVENS
AFTER [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
0.0045 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Carbon monoxide .....................
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
80 parts per million dry volume.
310 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
25 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
130 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
0.041 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.014 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
2% ..........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
Particulate matter filterable ......
120 parts per million dry volume.
33 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Cadmium ..................................
11 parts per million dry volume.
Fugitive ash ..............................
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
a All
And determining compliance
using this method
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 10, 10A, or 10B of
appendix A–4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Three 1-hour observation periods.
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part. Use a span gas with a
concentration of 50 ppm or less.
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
32004
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
81. Table 10 to Subpart DDDD is
added as follows:
TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO SMALL, REMOTE
INCINERATORS AFTER [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limitation a
Using this averaging time
And determining compliance
using this method
Cadmium ..................................
0.26 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part).
Carbon monoxide .....................
Dioxins/furans (total mass
basis).
78 parts per million dry volume.
1600 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis).
130 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride ....................
150 parts per million dry volume.
Lead .........................................
1.4 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Mercury ....................................
0.0029 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter.
Opacity .....................................
13% ........................................
Oxides of nitrogen ....................
210 parts per million dry volume.
240 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values.
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry
standard cubic meter).
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run).
Three 1-hour observation periods.
Particulate matter filterable ......
Sulfur dioxide ...........................
Fugitive ash ..............................
a All
44 parts per million dry volume.
Visible emissions for no more
than 5% of the hourly observation period.
Performance test (Method 10 of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A–
7 of this part).
Performance test (Method 26A of appendix
A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A–
8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 9 of appendix A–4
of this part).
Performance test (Method 7E of appendix A–
4 of this part).
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A–3 or appendix A–8 of this part).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A–4 of this part).
Visible emission test (Method 22 of appendix
A–7 of this part).
emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7% oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
[FR Doc. 2010–10821 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS4
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\04JNP4.SGM
04JNP4
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31938-32004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10821]
[[Page 31937]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31938]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119; FRL-9148-4]
RIN 2060-AO12
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 1, 2000, EPA adopted new source performance
standards and emission guidelines for commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration units established under Sections 111 and 129 of the
Clean Air Act. In 2001, EPA granted a petition for reconsideration
regarding the definitions of ``commercial and industrial waste'' and
``commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit.'' In 2001,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
granted EPA's voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the 2000 rule. In
2005, EPA proposed and finalized the commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration definition rule which revised the definition of
``solid waste,'' ``commercial and industrial waste,'' and ``commercial
and industrial waste incineration unit.'' In 2007, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and
remanded the 2005 commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
definition rule.
This action provides EPA's response to the 2001 voluntary remand of
the 2000 rule and the vacatur and remand of the commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration definition rule in 2007. In
addition, this action includes the five-year technology review of the
new source performance standards and emission guidelines required under
Section 129. This action also proposes other amendments that EPA
believes are necessary to adequately address air emissions from
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2010.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on or before July 6, 2010.
Public Hearing. We will hold a public hearing concerning this
proposed rule and the interrelated proposed Boiler and RCRA rules,
discussed in this proposal and published in the proposed rules section
of today's Federal Register, on June 21, 2010. Persons requesting to
speak at a public hearing must contact EPA by June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0119, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0119. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0119. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket and may be made available on-line at
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 https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing concerning the
proposed rule on June 21, 2010. Persons interested in presenting oral
testimony at the hearing should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group, at (919) 541-4487 by June 14, 2010. The
public hearing will be held in the Washington, DC area at a location
and time that will be posted at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion. Please refer to this Web site to
confirm the date of the public hearing as well. If no one requests to
speak at the public hearing by June 14, 2010 then the public hearing
will be cancelled and a notification of cancellation posted on the
following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion.
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. All documents in the docket are listed in
the 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, 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, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Charlene Spells, Natural Resource
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
[[Page 31939]]
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5255; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: spells.charlene@epa.gov or Ms. Toni Jones, Natural
Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0316; fax number:
(919) 541-3470; e-mail address: jones.toni@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. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed rules?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions and current controls?
C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and other
combustion rules?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
B. Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
C. EPA's Approach in Conducting the Five-Year Review
D. Other Proposed Amendments
E. Proposed State Plan Implementation Schedule for Existing
CISWI
F. Proposed Changes to the Applicability Date of the 2000 NSPS
and EG
IV. Rationale
A. Rationale for the Proposed Response to the Remand and the
Proposed CAA Section 129(a)(5) Five-Year Review Response
B. Rationale for Proposed Subcategories
C. Rationale for MACT Floor Emission Limits
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
E. Rationale for Other Proposed Amendments
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. What are the primary air impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the secondary air impacts?
E. What are the cost and economic impacts?
F. What are the benefits?
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Section 112(c)(6) of the
CAA
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed action are those which operate commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. The new source performance
standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG), hereinafter referred to
as ``standards,'' for CISWI affect the following categories of sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS Code potentially regulated
entities \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industrial or commercial 211, 212, 486 Mining, oil and gas
facility using a solid waste exploration
incinerator. operations; pipeline
operators.
221 Utility providers.
321, 322, 337 Manufacturers of wood
products;
manufacturers of
pulp, paper and
paperboard;
manufacturers of
furniture and related
products.
325, 326 Manufacturers of
chemicals and allied
products;
manufacturers of
plastics and rubber
products.
327 Manufacturers of
cement.
333, 336 Manufacturers of
machinery;
manufacturers of
transportation
equipment.
42, 44, 45 Wholesale merchants;
retail merchants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart CCCC and 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed
action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that the rule contains definitions of the subcategories
of CISWI units and a list of types of combustion units that are
excluded. For further discussion, see Section III.D.1 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
Ms. Toni Jones, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0119. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
[[Page 31940]]
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the preceding section titled DATES.
3. Docket
The docket number for the proposed action regarding the CISWI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
4. Worldwide Web (WWW)
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the Technology
Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following signature, EPA posted a
copy of the proposed action on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for these proposed rules?
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), entitled ``Solid Waste
Combustion,'' requires EPA to develop and adopt standards for solid
waste incineration units pursuant to CAA Sections 111 and 129. Section
129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to establish performance
standards, including emission limitations, for ``solid waste
incineration units'' generally and, in particular, for ``solid waste
incineration units combusting commercial or industrial waste'' (CAA
Section 129(a)(1)(D)). Section 129 of the CAA defines ``solid waste
incineration unit'' as ``a distinct operating unit of any facility
which combusts any solid waste material from commercial or industrial
establishments or the general public'' (Section 129(g)(1)). Section 129
of the CAA also provides that ``solid waste'' shall have the meaning
established by EPA pursuant to its authority under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Section 129(g)(6)).
In Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250 (DC
Cir. 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated the CISWI Definitions Rule, 70 FR
55568 (September 22, 2005), which EPA issued pursuant to CAA Section
129(a)(1)(D). In that rule, EPA defined the term ``commercial or
industrial solid waste incineration unit'' to mean a combustion unit
that combusts ``commercial or industrial waste.'' The rule defined
``commercial or industrial waste'' to mean waste combusted at a unit
that does not recover thermal energy from the combustion for a useful
purpose. Under these definitions, only those units that combusted
commercial or industrial waste and were not designed to, or did not
operate to, recover thermal energy from the combustion, were subject to
Section 129 standards. In vacating the rule, the Court found that the
definitions in the CISWI Definitions Rule were inconsistent with the
CAA. Specifically, the Court held that the term ``solid waste
incineration unit'' in CAA Section 129(g)(1) ``unambiguously include[s]
among the incineration units subject to its standards any facility that
combusts any commercial or industrial solid waste material at all--
subject to the four statutory exceptions identified [in CAA Section
129(g)(1)].'' NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1257-58.
In response to the Court's vacatur of the CISWI Definitions rule,
EPA initiated a rulemaking to define which non-hazardous secondary
materials are ``solid waste'' for purposes of subtitle D (non-hazardous
waste) of the RCRA when burned in a combustion unit. (See Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (74 FR 41, January 2, 2009) soliciting
comment on whether certain non-hazardous secondary materials used as
alternative fuels or ingredients are solid wastes within the meaning of
Subtitle D of the RCRA). That definition, in turn, would determine the
applicability of CAA Section 129(a) to commercial and industrial
combustion units.
In a parallel action, EPA is proposing a definition of solid waste
pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA. That action is relevant to this
proceeding because some energy recovery units and kilns combust solid
waste as alternative fuels. Such units that combust solid waste (as
defined pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA) would be subject to standards
under the CAA Section 129 CISWI rules rather than under Section 112
rules applicable to boilers and kilns (e.g. cement kilns).
EPA recognizes that it has imperfect information on the exact
nature of the non-hazardous secondary materials which energy recovery
units and kilns combust, including, for example, information as to the
provider(s) of the non-hazardous secondary materials, how much
processing the non-hazardous secondary materials may have undergone, if
any, and other issues potentially relevant in a determination as to
whether non-hazardous secondary materials are solid waste, as the
Administrator has proposed to define that term under RCRA. We
nevertheless used the information currently available to EPA to
determine which materials are solid waste, the burning of which would
subject a unit to CAA Section 129, and which materials are not solid
waste. Energy recovery units and kilns that are burning non-hazardous
secondary materials that are not solid waste would be subject to the
standard under CAA Section 112 that is applicable to such units. We
based the standards in this proposed rule on the sources we determined
would be subject to CISWI because they combust solid waste as defined
in EPA's proposed Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking, which, as noted
above, is being proposed in parallel with this proposed rule.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA (NSPS program) address
emissions from new CISWI units and CAA Sections 111(d) and 129(b) (EG
program) address emissions from existing CISWI units. The NSPS are
directly enforceable Federal regulations and under CAA Section
129(f)(1) become effective six months after promulgation. Under CAA
Section 129(f)(2), the EG become effective and enforceable no later
than three years after EPA approves a state plan implementing the EG or
five years after the date they are promulgated, whichever is earlier.
The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating emissions
from solid waste incinerator units. The statute also provides EPA with
substantial discretion to distinguish among classes, types and sizes of
incinerator units within a category while setting standards. In the
first stage of setting standards, CAA Section 129(a)(2) requires EPA to
establish technology-based emission standards that reflect levels of
control EPA determines are achievable for new and existing units, after
considering costs, non-air quality health and
[[Page 31941]]
environmental impacts and energy requirements associated with the
implementation of the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then
directs EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary
every five years. In the second stage, CAA Section 129(h)(3) requires
EPA to determine whether further revisions of the standards are
necessary in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. See, e.g., NRDC and LEAN v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1079-80
(DC Cir. 2008) (addressing the similarly required two-stage approach
under CAA Sections 112(d) and (f) and upholding EPA's implementation of
same).
In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to establish the
first-stage technology-based standards, CAA Section 129(a)(2) provides
that standards ``applicable to solid waste incineration units
promulgated under Section 111 and this section shall reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of [certain listed air
pollutants] that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable
for new and existing units in each category.'' This level of control is
referred to as a maximum achievable control technology, or MACT
standard.
In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first calculate the
minimum stringency levels for new and existing solid waste incineration
units in a category, generally based on levels of emissions control
achieved or required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum
level of stringency is called the MACT ``floor,'' and CAA Section
129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of minimum stringency that EPA's
standards must achieve, based on whether they regulate new and
reconstructed sources, or existing sources. For new and reconstructed
sources, CAA Section 129(a)(2) provides that the ``degree of reduction
in emissions that is deemed achievable * * * shall not be less
stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by
the best controlled similar unit, as determined by the Administrator.''
Emissions standards for existing units may be less stringent than
standards for new units, but ``shall not be less stringent than the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of units in the category.''
The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory option EPA may
consider in the determination of MACT standards for a source category.
EPA must also determine whether to control emissions ``beyond-the-
floor,'' after considering the costs, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements of such more stringent
control.
In general, all MACT analyses involve an assessment of the
emissions from the best performing units in a source category. The
assessment can be based on actual emissions data, knowledge of the air
pollution control in place in combination with actual emissions data,
or on state regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the
actual performance of the regulated units. For each source category,
the assessment involves a review of actual emissions data with an
appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Other methods of
estimating emissions can be used provided that the methods can be shown
to provide reasonable estimates of the actual emissions performance of
a source or sources. Where there is more than one method or technology
to control emissions, the analysis may result in a series of potential
regulations (called regulatory options), one of which is selected as
MACT.
Each regulatory option EPA considers must be at least as stringent
as the CAA's minimum stringency ``floor'' requirements. EPA must
examine, but is not necessarily required to adopt, more stringent
``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT. Unlike the
floor minimum stringency requirements, EPA must consider various
impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining whether
MACT standards are to reflect ``beyond-the-floor'' requirements. If EPA
concludes that the more stringent regulatory options have unreasonable
impacts, EPA selects the ``floor-based'' regulatory option as MACT. But
if EPA concludes that impacts associated with ``beyond-the-floor''
levels of control are acceptable in light of additional emissions
reductions achieved, EPA selects those levels as MACT.
As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no
less stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice by the
best controlled similar unit. Under CAA Section 129(a)(2), EPA
determines the best control currently in use for a given pollutant and
establishes one potential regulatory option at the emission level
achieved by that control with an appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. More stringent potential beyond-the-floor regulatory
options might reflect controls used on other sources that could be
applied to the source category in question.
For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no less
stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine
some measure of the average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory option.
More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options reflect other or
additional controls capable of achieving better performance.
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions
and current controls?
We are proposing to define a CISWI unit as any combustion unit at a
commercial or industrial facility that is used to combust solid waste
(as defined under the RCRA). See proposed 40 CFR 60.2265 (NSPS) and
60.2875 (EG). In this proposed rule, CISWI units include incinerators
designed to discard waste materials; energy recovery units (e.g., units
that would be boilers if they did not burn solid waste) designed for
heat recovery that combust solid waste materials; kilns and other
industrial units that combust solid waste materials in the manufacture
of a product; and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials off
racks, parts, drums or hooks so that those items can be re-used in
various production processes.
Combustion of solid waste causes the release of a wide array of air
pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed material and are
released unchanged during combustion and some of which are generated as
a result of the combustion process itself. These pollutants include
particulate matter (PM); metals, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and
mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/
dibenzofurans (dioxin, furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides
(NOX); and acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Depending on the type of unit and currently applicable regulations
or permit conditions, units may or may not be equipped with add-on
control devices to control emissions. For example, most of the CISWI
units that operate without heat recovery are not equipped with add-on
controls. Those that are controlled use wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers,
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), or fabric filters, either alone or
in combination. Some energy recovery units that combust solid waste are
not equipped with add-on controls, but most are controlled with one or
more of the following: cyclones or multi-clones, fabric filters, ESPs,
wet scrubbers,
[[Page 31942]]
venturi scrubbers, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or spray
dryers. In addition to add-on controls, many CISWI units are controlled
through the use of pollution prevention measures (i.e., waste
segregation) and good combustion control practices.
Waste segregation is the separation of certain components of the
waste stream in order to reduce the amount of air pollution emissions
associated with that waste when incinerated. The separated waste may
include paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries or metals.
Separation of wastes can reduce the amount of chlorine- and metal-
containing wastes being incinerated, which results in lower emissions
of HCl, dioxin, furans, Hg, Cd and Pb.
Good combustion control practices include proper design,
construction, operation and maintenance practices to destroy or prevent
the formation of air pollutants prior to their release to the
atmosphere. Test data for other types of combustion units indicate that
as secondary chamber residence time and temperature increase, emissions
decrease. Proper mixing of flue gases in the combustion chamber also
promotes complete combustion. Combustion control is most effective in
reducing dioxin, furans, other organic pollutants, PM, NOX
and CO emissions.
The 2000 CISWI standards and the proposed revised standards are
designed to reduce air pollutants, including HCl, CO, Pb, Cd, Hg, PM,
dioxin, furans (total, or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
toxic equivalent (TEQ)), NOX and SO2, emitted
from new and existing CISWI units. Units in the incinerator subcategory
as defined in this proposed rule are currently subject to the 2000
CISWI standards and are already required to be in compliance with the
NSPS or EG. The 2000 CISWI NSPS apply to CISWI units in the incinerator
subcategory if construction of a unit began after November 30, 1999, or
if modification of a unit began after June 1, 2001. The 2000 CISWI NSPS
apply to units in the incinerator subcategory and became effective on
June 1, 2001, and apply as of that date or at start-up of a CISWI
incinerator unit, whichever is later. The 2000 CISWI EG apply to CISWI
units in the incinerator subcategory if construction of a unit began on
or before November 30, 1999, and compliance was required at the latest
by December 2005. This proposed rule would establish revised standards
for units in the incinerator subcategory and establish standards for
the other four subcategories of CISWI units, and the emission
limitations in the proposed revised NSPS and EG would apply at all
times.
C. What is the relationship between this proposed rule and other
combustion rules?
This proposed rule addresses the combustion of solid waste
materials (as defined by the Administrator under the RCRA) in
combustion units at commercial and industrial facilities. If an owner
or operator of a CISWI unit ceases combusting solid waste, the affected
unit would no longer be subject to this regulation under CAA Section
129. A rulemaking under CAA Section 112 is being proposed in a parallel
action that is relevant to this action because it would apply to
boilers and process heaters located at a major source that do not
combust solid waste. EPA has also proposed, but not yet finalized,
revised Section 112 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for cement kilns. See 74 FR 21136 (May 6, 2009)
(proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart LLL). Cement kilns
burning solid waste would be subject to this proposed rule, not the
applicable NESHAP.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Litigation and Proposed Remand Response
1. What is the history of the CISWI standards?
On December 1, 2000, EPA published a notice of final rulemaking
establishing the NSPS and EG for CISWI units (60 FR 75338), hereinafter
referred to as the 2000 CISWI rule. Thereafter, on August 17, 2001, EPA
granted a request for reconsideration, pursuant to CAA Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife
Federation and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, related to
the definition of ``commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
unit'' and ``commercial or industrial waste'' in EPA's CISWI
rulemaking. In granting the petition for reconsideration, EPA agreed to
undertake further notice and comment proceedings related to these
definitions. In addition, on January 30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit challenging EPA's final CISWI rule. On September 6,
2001, the Court entered an order granting EPA's motion for a voluntary
remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. EPA's request for a
voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule was taken to allow the EPA to
address concerns related to EPA's procedures for establishing MACT
floors for CISWI units in light of the Court's decision in Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001) (Cement Kiln).
Neither EPA's granting of the petition for reconsideration, nor the
Court's order granting a voluntary remand, stayed, vacated or otherwise
influenced the effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. Specifically, CAA
Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that ``reconsideration shall not postpone
the effectiveness of the rule,'' except that ``[t]he effectiveness of
the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration * * * by the
Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months.''
Neither EPA nor the Court stayed the effectiveness of the final CISWI
regulations in connection with the reconsideration petition. In
addition, the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA's motion for a
remand without vacatur; therefore, the Court's remand order had no
impact on the implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule.
On February 17, 2004, EPA published a proposed rule soliciting
comments on the definitions of ``solid waste,'' ``commercial and
industrial waste,'' and ``commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration unit.'' On September 22, 2005, EPA published in the
Federal Register the final rule reflecting our decisions with respect
to the CISWI Definitions Rule. The rule was challenged and, on June 8,
2007, the Court vacated and remanded the CISWI Definitions Rule. In
vacating the rule, the Court found that CAA Section 129 unambiguously
includes among the incineration units subject to its standards any
facility that combusts any solid waste material at all, subject to four
statutory exceptions. While the Court vacated the CISWI Definitions
Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remains in effect.
This action provides EPA's response to the voluntary remand of the
2000 CISWI rule and to the 2007 vacatur and remand of the CISWI
Definitions Rule. In addition, this action addresses the five-year
technology review that is required under CAA Section 129(a)(5).
2. What was EPA's MACT floor methodology in the 2000 CISWI rulemaking
and how has the methodology been changed to respond to the voluntary
remand?
In 2000, the methodology that EPA followed to establish the MACT
floors included identification of a ``MACT floor technology'' and
calculation of MACT floors using emission information from all units,
not only the best performing units, that employed the MACT floor
control technology. EPA recognized that this methodology was rejected
by the Court in the Cement Kiln case, which was decided after EPA
[[Page 31943]]
promulgated the 2000 CISWI standards. In light of the court decision,
EPA requested a voluntary remand of the CISWI standards to re-evaluate
those standards in light of the Cement Kiln decision in order to
correct the methodology. See Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d 855 (Finding that
EPA is permitted to account for variability by setting floors at a
level that reasonably estimates the performance of the best controlled
similar unit (or units) under the worst reasonably foreseeable
circumstances, but not the worst foreseeable circumstances faced by any
unit in the source category).
Accordingly, this action does not use the MACT floor methodology
from 2000. Instead, we used emissions test data to calculate the MACT
floors.\2\ For existing units, we ranked individual CISWI units based
on actual performance and established MACT floors based on the average
of the best performing 12 percent of sources for each pollutant and
subcategory, with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability.
That is, the overall 3-run test average values for existing units for
each pollutant were compiled and ranked to identify the best performing
12 percent of sources for each pollutant within each subcategory. Once
identified, the individual test run data for these units were compiled
and analyzed for variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA did receive some additional emissions data earlier this
year, but due to the court-ordered deadline, we did not have time to
review and evaluate that data. We intend to review the data
submitted earlier this year from a quality assurance and
completeness perspective and incorporate that data into the final
standards, as appropriate. To the extent EPA receives additional
emissions data during the comment period, EPA will assess that data
as it develops the final emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in more detail in Section IV.C of this preamble, for
the variability analysis, we first conducted a statistical analyses to
determine whether the data used for the MACT floor calculation had a
normal or log-normal distribution followed by calculation of the
average and the 99th percent upper limit (UL).\3\ The UL represents a
value that 99 percent of the data in the MACT floor data population
would fall below, and therefore accounts for variability between the
individual test runs in the MACT floor data set. The UL is calculated
by the following equation that is appropriate for small data sets:
UL = x + t(0.99,n) * s
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The procedure is the same as used for the Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). While the
HMIWI preamble referred to this measure as the upper confidence
limit (UCL), it used the same equation. In this proposal, we refer
to the measure as the UL, which is a more appropriate statistical
terminology for this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
x = average of the data.
t(0.99,n) = t-statistic.
n = number of data points in the population.
s = standard deviation.
The summary statistics and analyses are presented in the docket and
further described in Section IV.C of this preamble. The calculated UL
values for existing sources (which are based on emissions data from the
best performing 12 percent of sources and evaluate variability) were
selected as the proposed MACT floor emission limits for the nine
regulated pollutants in each subcategory. This statistical approach is
consistent with the methodology used in the October 6, 2009, Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) rule (74 FR 51367). EPA
conducted this MACT floor analysis for each pollutant for each of the
five CISWI subcategories we are establishing in this proposed rule:
Incinerators; energy recovery units; waste-burning kilns; burn-off
ovens; and small, remote incinerators.
To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we used a UL
calculation similar to that for existing sources, except the best
performing unit's data within a subcategory was used to calculate the
MACT floor emission limit for each pollutant instead of the average of
the best performing 12 percent of units. In summary, the approach ranks
individual CISWI units based on actual performance and establishes MACT
floors based on the best performing source for each pollutant and
subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of emissions variability.
In other words, the UL was determined for the data set of individual
test runs for the single best performing source for each regulated
pollutant from each subcategory.
EPA also solicits comment on whether EPA should use an alternate
statistical interval, the 99 percent upper prediction limit (UPL)
instead of the UL. In general, a prediction interval (e.g., a UPL) is
useful in determining what future values are likely to be, based upon
present or past background samples taken. The 99 percent UPL represents
the value that one can expect the mean of future 3-run performance
tests from the best-performing 12 percent of sources to fall below with
99 percent confidence, based upon the results of the independent sample
of observations from the same best performing sources. The 99 percent
UPL value based on the test run data for those units in the best-
performing 12 percent could be calculated using one of the following
spreadsheet equations depending on the distribution of data:
Normal distribution: 99% UPL = AVERAGE(Test Runs in Top 12%) +
[STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of
freedom) x SQRT((1/n) + (1/m))], for a one-tailed upper prediction
limit with a probability of 0.01, sample size of n and number of
runs whose average will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.
Lognormal distribution: 99% UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log Values
of Test Runs in Top 12%) + [STDEV(Natural Log Values of Test Runs in
Top 12%) x TINV(2 x probability, n-1 degrees of freedom) x SQRT((1/
n) + (1/m))]{time} , for a one-tailed upper prediction limit with a
probability of 0.01, sample size of n and number of runs whose
average will be reported to EPA for compliance of m = 3.
In addition to proposing standards for the nine pollutants
discussed above, we are also proposing opacity standards for new and
existing sources in the five subcategories as discussed below.
Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component of data
variability. At very low emissions levels as encountered in the data
used to support this rule, the inherent imprecision in the pollutant
measurement method has a large influence on the reliability of the data
underlying the regulatory floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. Of
particular concern are those data that are reported near or below a
test method's pollutant detection capability. In our guidance for
reporting pollutant emissions used to support this rule, we specified
the criteria for determining test-specific method detection levels.
Those criteria insure that there is about a 1 percent probability of an
error in deciding that the pollutant measured at the method detection
level is present, when in fact, it was absent. Such a probability is
also called a false positive or the alpha, Type I, error. Another view
of this probability is that one is 99 percent certain of the presence
of the pollutant measured at the method detection level. Because of
matrix effects, laboratory techniques, sample size and other factors,
method detection levels normally vary from test to test. We requested
sources to identify (i.e., flag) data which were measured below the
method detection level and to report those values as equal to the test-
specific method detection level.
Variability of data due to measurement imprecision is inherently
and reasonably addressed in calculating the floor or beyond-the-floor
emissions limit when the database represents multiple tests for which
all of the data are measured significantly above the method detection
level. That is less true
[[Page 31944]]
when the database includes emissions occurring below method detection
capabilities and are reported as the method detection level values. The
database is then truncated at the lower end of the measurement range
(i.e., no values reported below the method detection level) and we
believe that a floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit based on a
truncated database or otherwise including values at or near the method
detection level may not adequately account for data measurement
variability. We did not adjust the calculated floor for the data used
for this proposal; although, we believe that accounting for measurement
imprecision should be an important consideration in calculating the
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. We request comment on
approaches suitable to account for measurement variability in
establishing the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit when based
on measurements at or near the method detection level.
As noted above, the confidence level that a value measured at the
detection level is greater than zero is about 99 percent. The expected
measurement imprecision for an emissions value occurring at or near the
method detection level is about 40 to 50 percent. Pollutant measurement
imprecision decreases to a consistent relative 10 to 15 percent for
values measured at a level about three times the method detection
level.\4\ One approach that we believe could be applied to account for
measurement variability would require defining a method detection level
that is representative of the data used in establishing the floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limits and also minimizes the influence of
an outlier test-specific method detection level value. The first step
in this approach would be to identify the highest test-specific method
detection level reported in a data set that is also equal to or less
than the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit calculated for the
data set. This approach has the advantage of relying on the data
collected to develop the floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit
while to some degree minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an
inordinately high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was
too small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive or the
procedure for determining the detection level was other than that
specified).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second step would be to determine the value equal to three
times the representative method detection level and compare it to the
calculated floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. If three times
the representative method detection level was less than the calculated
floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit, we would conclude that
measurement variability is adequately addressed and we would not adjust
the calculated floor or beyond-the-floor emissions limit. If, on the
other hand, the value equal to three times the representative method
detection level was greater than the calculated floor or beyond-the-
floor emissions limit, we would conclude that the calculated floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit does not account entirely for
measurement variability. We then would use the value equal to three
times the method detection level in place of the calculated floor or
beyond-the-floor emissions limit to ensure that the floor or beyond-
the-floor emissions limit accounts for measurement variability. We
request comment on this approach.
As stated above, EPA's solid waste definition rule proposes to
define which non-hazardous secondary materials that are used as fuels
or ingredients in combustion units are solid wastes under Subtitle D of
RCRA. In addition to the primary proposed approach set forth in the
Solid Waste Definition rule, the rule solicits comments on an
alternative approach for determining which secondary materials are
solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA, when combusted. The MACT analysis
discussed above considers only those commercial or industrial units
that are CISWI units (i.e., that are units that combust ``solid waste''
as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA). Based on the
MACT analysis described above, we calculated emission standards under
both the primary proposed approach and the alternative approach
identified in the proposed Solid Waste Definition rule. The only two
subcategories for which the number of units changed under the
alternative approach set forth in the solid waste definition rule were
the energy recovery units and waste-burning kilns subcategories.
Because the number of units in these two subcategories is different
under the alternative approach, the NSPS and EG did change. Based on
the information available to EPA, the number of units in the other
subcategories (i.e., incinerators, burn-off ovens and small, remote
incinerators) remained the same under both the proposed and alternative
approaches, and the NSPS and EG, therefore, did not change under the
alternative approach.
Table 1 of this preamble shows a comparison of the existing source
MACT limits from the 2000 CISWI rule and those developed for the five
subcategories in this action based on the proposed definition of solid
waste. EPA did not establish subcategories in the 2000 CISWI rule and,
for that reason, a direct comparison with the standards proposed today
with the 2000 standards is only possible for the incinerators
subcategory. As stated above, we are proposing to subcategorize CISWI
units for reasons described in Section IV.B of this preamble. The five
subcategories are:
Incinerators, which are those units that are currently
regulated by the 2000 CISWI rule, are units that are used to dispose of
solid waste materials.
Energy recovery units that combust solid waste materials
as a percentage of their fuel mixture. Energy recovery units include
units that would be boilers or process heaters if they did not combust
solid waste.
Waste-burning kilns means a kiln that is heated, in whole
or in part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator under RCRA).
Burn-off ovens that are used to clean residual solid waste
materials off of various metal parts which are then reused.
Small, remote incinerators that combust less than one ton
of waste per day and are farther than 50 miles driving distance to the
closest municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.
The proposed MACT floor emission limits for existing sources in
each subcategory are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
[[Page 31945]]
Table 1--Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
[Based on the primary proposed definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed CISWI subcategories
Incinerators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \1\ (2000 CISWI Energy Waste-burning Small, remote
limit) Incinerators recovery units kilns Burn-off ovens incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).............................................. 62 29 1.5 1.5 130 150
CO (ppmv)............................................... 157 2.2 150 710 80 78
Pb (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.04 0.0026 0.002 0.0027 0.041 1.4
Cd (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.004 0.0013 0.00041 0.0003 0.0045 0.26
Hg (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.47 0.0028 0.00096 0.024 0.014 0.0029
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)................................ 70 13 9.2 60 33 240
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)......................... (no limit) 0.031 0.75 2.1 310 1,600
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................... 0.41 0.0025 0.059 0.17 25 130
NOX (ppmv).............................................. 388 34 130 1,100 120 210
SO2 (ppmv).............................................. 20 2.5 4.1 410 11 44
Opacity (%)............................................. 10 1 1 4 2 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7% oxygen.
ppmv = parts per million by volume.
mg/dscm = milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
After establishing the MACT floors for each subcategory and
pollutant, EPA also assessed options more stringent than the MACT
floors. For reasons described in the rationale section (IV) of the
preamble, we are not proposing limits more stringent than the MACT
floor. However, we are proposing to amend the requirements to qualify
for reduced testing and, thereby, we are providing an incentive for
owners or operators to optimize a unit's carbon injection system and
other operating parameters to further reduce both mercury and dioxin/
furan emissions.
As stated above, the approach for new sources was similar to that
used with the existing sources, except the best performing unit's data
within a subcategory was used to calculate the MACT floor emission
limit instead of the average of the best performing 12 percent of
units. In summary, the approach ranks individual CISWI units based on
actual performance and establishes MACT floors based on the best
performing source for each pollutant and subcategory, with an
appropriate accounting for emissions variability. The new source MACT
floor emission limits for each CISWI subcategory are shown in Table 2
of this preamble.
Table 2--Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
[Based on the primary definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Definition Rule]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed CISWI subcategories
Incinerators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \1\ (2000 limit) Energy Waste-burning Small, remote
Incinerators recovery units kilns Burn-off ovens incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv).............................................. 62 0.074 0.17 1.5 18 150
CO (ppmv)............................................... 157 1.4 3.0 36 74 4.0
Pb (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.04 0.0013 0.0012 0.00078 0.029 1.4
Cd (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.004 0.00066 0.00012 0.00030 0.0032 0.057
Hg (mg/dscm)............................................ 0.47 0.00013 0.00013 0.024 0.0033 0.0013
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)................................ 70 0.0077 4.4 1.8 28 240
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)......................... (no limit) 0.0093 0.034 0.00035 0.011 1,200
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)........................... 0.41 0.00073 0.0027 0.000028 0.00086 94
NOX (ppmv).............................................. 388 19 75 140 16 210
SO2 (ppmv).............................................. 20 1.5 4.1 3.6 1.5 43
Opacity (%)............................................. 10 1 1 1 2 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
3. How is the solid waste definition addressed in this proposed rule?
EPA is proposing to define the non-hazardous secondary materials
that are solid waste in a parallel notice under RCRA and the RCRA
proposal also identifies an ``alternative approach'' for consideration
and comment. The concurrently proposed RCRA solid waste definition is
integral in defining the CISWI source category. As stated above, the
emission limits presented in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble are based
on subcategories established considering sources that are CISWI units
under the ``proposed approach'' for defining when non-hazardous
secondary materials are solid waste, as discussed in a parallel
proposal under RCRA. As stated above, the ``alternative approach''
identified for consideration and comment in the RCRA notice would
result in a different population of units being covered by the
standards for two of the CISWI subcategories. We calculated MACT floors
using emission rates for units that would be CISWI units under the
``alternative approach'' (i.e., for units in the energy recovery units
and waste-burning kilns
[[Page 31946]]
subcategories) and the MACT standard setting procedures previously
described.
Table 3 of this preamble reflects the potential MACT floor limits
for the subcategories (i.e., energy recovery unit and waste-burning
kiln) that would be affected considering the ``alternative approach''
for defining solid waste. The MACT floor limits for the remaining three
subcategories would not be impacted by the ``alternative approach'' and
are reflected in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble.
Table 3--Potential New and Existing MACT Floor Limits for the Energy Recovery Units and Waste-Burning Kiln
Subcategories Using the ``Alternative Approach'' Under Consideration and Comment in the Concurrently Proposed
RCRA Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed MACT floor for Proposed MACT floor for new
existing units units
Pollutant (units) \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Waste-burning Energy Waste-burning
recovery units kilns recovery units kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)...................................... 30 3.6 0.036 3.6
CO (ppmv)....................................... 290 760 3 36
Pb (mg/dscm).................................... 0.15 0.0061 0.000023 0.00078
Cd (mg/dscm).................................... 0.013 0.00070 0.0000011 0.00070
Hg (mg/dscm).................................... 0.0085 0.03 0.00013 0.00081
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)........................ 69 71 3.4 1.8
dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)................. 95 2.2 0.0017 0.00035
dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)................... 7.5 0.18 0.00014 0.000028
NOX (ppmv)...................................... 440 1,100 63 140
SO2 (ppmv)...................................... 1,500 410 0.040 3.6
Opacity (%)..................................... 1 4 1 1
---------------------------
