Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units, 63260-63344 [2010-25122]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63260
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559; FRL–9210–8]
RIN 2060–AP90
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This action proposes how
EPA will address Clean Air Act
requirements to establish new source
performance standards for new units
and emission guidelines for existing
units for specific categories of solid
waste incineration units. In previous
actions, EPA has promulgated new
source performance standards and
emission guidelines for large municipal
waste combustion units, small
municipal waste combustion units,
commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration units, and other solid waste
incineration units. These actions did not
establish emission standards for sewage
sludge incineration units. In this action,
EPA is proposing new source
performance standards and emission
guidelines for sewage sludge
incineration units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before November 15,
2010, unless a public hearing is held. If
a public hearing is held, then comments
must be received on or before November
29, 2010. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, since the Office of
Management and Budget is required to
make a decision concerning the
information collection request between
30 and 60 days after October 14, 2010,
a comment to the Office of Management
and Budget is best assured of having its
full effect if the Office of Management
and Budget receives it by November 15,
2010.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA by October 25, 2010 requesting to
speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold
a public hearing on October 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0559, 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-rDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
Facsimile: Fax your comments to
(202) 566–9744, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559.
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–2009–
0559. 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–2009–
0559. 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–2009–
0559. 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 or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Public Hearing: If a public hearing is
held, it will be held at EPA’s Campus
located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in
Research Triangle Park, NC, or an
alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Joan
Rogers at (919) 541–4487 to request a
hearing, to request to speak at a public
hearing, to determine if a hearing will
be held, or to determine the hearing
location. If no one contacts EPA
requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning this proposed rule by
October 25, 2010, the hearing will be
cancelled, and a notification of
cancellation will be posted on the
following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/eparules.html.
Docket: EPA has established a docket
for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559. 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., Confidential Business Information
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. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143–03),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
0964; fax number: (919) 541–3470;
e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several
acronyms and terms are used in this
preamble. While this may not be an
exhaustive list, to ease the reading of
this preamble and for reference
purposes, the following terms and
acronyms are defined here:
7–PAH 7-polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
AsvArsenic
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and
Materials
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
CAA Clean Air Act
CASS Continuous Automated Sampling
System
CBI Confidential Business Information
Cd Cadmium
CDD/CDF Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems
COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring
System
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring
System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
Cr Chromium
CWA Clean Water Act
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
FF Fabric Filter
FB Fluidized Bed
FGR Flue Gas Recirculation
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious
Waste Incineration
ICR Information Collection Request
ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin
Monitoring System
ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury
Monitoring System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard
Cubic Meter
MH Multiple Hearth
Mn Manganese
MWC Municipal Waste Combustion
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NAICS North American Industrial
Classification System
Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard
Cubic Meter
Ni Nickel
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
OTM Other Test Method
OW Office of Water
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PM Particulate Matter
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPM Parts Per Million
PPMV Parts per Million by Volume
PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specifications
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SBA Small Business Administration
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TMB Total Mass Basis
TPD Tons per Day
TPY Tons per Year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
WWW Worldwide Web
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments?
II. Background
A. What information is included in this
preamble and how is it organized?
B. Where in the CFR will these standards
and guidelines be codified?
C. What is the statutory background?
D. What are the primary sources of
emissions and what are the emissions?
E. How are the EG implemented?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards
B. Summary of the Proposed EG
C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
D. Summary of Performance Testing and
Monitoring Requirements
E. Other Requirements for New and
Existing SSI Units
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
G. Electronic Data Submittal
H. Title V Permit Requirements
I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the
NSPS and EG
IV. Rationale
Solid waste combustors and incinerators ......................................................................................
Sewage treatment facilities ............................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
affected by the proposed action. To
determine whether your facility would
be affected by the proposed action, you
PO 00000
A. Subcategories
B. Format for the Proposed Standards and
Guidelines
C. MACT Floor Determination
Methodology
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor
Alternatives
E. Rationale for Performance Testing and
Monitoring Requirements
F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
G. Rationale for Operator Training and
Qualification Requirements
H. Rationale for Siting Requirements
I. What are the SSM provisions?
J. Delegation of Authority To Implement
and Enforce These Provisions
K. State Plans
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. Impacts of the Proposed Action for
Existing Units
B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New
Units
C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and EG
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to
CAA Sections 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B)(ii)
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to
Other SSI Rules for the Use or Disposal
of Sewage Sludge
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer 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. Although there is
not a specific NAICS code for SSI, these
units may be operated by municipalities
or other entities. The following NAICS
codes could apply:
NAICS code
Category
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
63261
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Examples of potentially
regulated entities
562213
221320
Municipalities with SSI units.
should examine the applicability
criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.4770 of
subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63262
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
60.5005 of subpart MMMM. 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.
Make sure to submit your comments
by the comment period deadline
identified in the preceding section titled
DATES.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments?
The docket number for the proposed
action regarding the SSI NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart LLLL) and EG (40 CFR
part 60, subpart MMMM) is Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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. Amy Hambrick, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer
(Room C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0559. 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
information (e.g., 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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
3. Docket
4. Worldwide Web
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of the
proposed action is available on the
WWW through the TTN Web site.
Following signature, EPA posted a copy
of the proposed action on the TTN Web
site’s policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
Web site provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control.
II. Background
A. What information is included in this
preamble and how is it organized?
In this preamble, EPA summarizes the
important features of these proposed
standards and guidelines that apply to
SSI units. This preamble describes the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of these standards and
guidelines; describes the basis for each
of the decisions made regarding the
proposed standards and guidelines;
requests public comments on certain
issues; and discusses administrative
requirements relative to this action.
B. Where in the CFR will these
standards and guidelines be codified?
The CFR is a codification of the
general and permanent rules published
in the Federal Register by the executive
departments and agencies of the Federal
government. The code is divided into 50
titles that represent broad areas subject
to Federal regulation. These proposed
rules for solid waste incineration units
would be published in Title 40,
Protection of the Environment. Part 60
of title 40 includes standards of
performance for new stationary sources
and EG and compliance times for
existing sources. The table below lists
the subparts in which the standards and
guidelines will be codified.
Subpart in
Title 40,
part 60
Title of the regulation
Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources:
Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Subpart LLLL
Sfmt 4702
Title of the regulation
Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units.
Subpart in
Title 40,
part 60
Subpart
MMMM
C. What is the statutory background?
Section 129 of the CAA, titled, ‘‘Solid
Waste Combustion,’’ requires EPA to
develop and adopt NSPS and EG for
solid waste incineration units pursuant
to CAA sections 111 and 129. A SSI unit
is an incinerator that combusts sewage
sludge for the purpose of reducing the
volume of the sewage sludge by
removing combustible matter.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA
address emissions from new SSI units,
and CAA sections 111(d) and 129 (b)
address emissions from existing SSI
units. The NSPS are directly enforceable
Federal regulations, and under CAA
section 129(f)(1), become effective 6
months after promulgation. Under CAA
section 129(f)(2), the EG become
effective and enforceable 3 years after
EPA approves a State plan
implementing the EG or 5 years after the
date they are promulgated, whichever is
sooner. Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1)
identifies 5 categories of solid waste
incineration units:
• Units that combust municipal waste at a
capacity greater than 250 TPD.
• Units that combust municipal waste at a
capacity equal to or less than 250 TPD.
• Units that combust hospital, medical,
and infectious waste.
• Units that combust commercial or
industrial waste.
• Units that combust waste and which are
not specifically identified in section
129(a)(1)(A) through (D) are referred to in
section 129(a)(1)(E) as ‘‘other categories’’ of
solid waste incineration units.
Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue
of having not been specifically
identified in section 129(a)(1)(A)
through (D), have been interpreted to be
part of the broader category of ‘‘other
categories’’ of solid waste. EPA has
issued emission standards for large and
small MWC, HMIWI, CISWI, and OSWI
units. However, as explained further in
this section of the preamble, none of
those emission standards apply to SSI
units.
Section 129(g)(1) 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)(6) provides that ‘‘solid
waste’’ shall have the meaning
established by EPA pursuant to its
authority under the RCRA.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA issued emission standards for
OSWI units on December 16, 2005 (70
FR 74870). The OSWI standards did not
include emission standards for SSI
units. EPA received a petition for
reconsideration of the OSWI standards
on February 14, 2006, regarding the
exclusion of certain categories,
including SSI.1 While EPA granted the
petition for reconsideration on June 28,
2006, EPA’s final review, which became
effective January 22, 2007, concluded
that no additional changes were
necessary to the 2005 OSWI rule (71 FR
36726). That litigation is currently being
held in abeyance. However, EPA
currently intends to revise the emission
standards for OSWI units in the future,
and that rulemaking would address all
OSWI units except SSI units.
In the OSWI rule issued on December
16, 2005, EPA stated that we were not
issuing emission standards under CAA
section 129 for SSI units (70 FR 74870).
We explained that we would instead
regulate SSI units under CAA section
112 because we interpreted CAA section
129(h)(2) as giving EPA the discretion to
choose the section of the CAA (i.e.,
section 112 or section 129) under which
to regulate these sources. We reiterated
that decision in the response to the
petition for reconsideration on this
issue. In addition, we stated in the final
action, on January 22, 2007, that the 4
specific statutory exemptions from the
definition of ‘‘solid waste incineration
unit’’ in CAA section 129 (g)(1) were not
exclusive, and that section 129(a)(1)(E)
does not require EPA to establish
emission standards for all other types of
incineration units in addition to those
identified in section 129(a)(1)(A)
through (D) (72 FR 2620). However,
since the January 2007 action
responding to the petition for
reconsideration, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (the Court) 2, in June 2007, in a
separate decision related to EPA’s
December 1, 2000, emission standards
for CISWI units, held that any unit
combusting any solid waste must be
regulated under section 129 of the CAA,
as explained below.
As part of EPA’s December 1, 2000,
CISWI rulemaking, EPA defined the
term ‘‘commercial and industrial waste’’
to mean solid waste combusted in an
enclosed device using controlled flame
combustion without energy recovery
that is a distinct operating unit of any
commercial or industrial facility. On
August 17, 2001, EPA granted a request
for reconsideration, pursuant to CAA
1 Sierra Club v. EPA; DC Cir. Nos. 06–1066, 07–
1063.
2 NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257–8.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
section 307(d)(7)(B), 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 Court challenging EPA’s
final CISWI rule. On September 6, 2001,
the Court entered an order granting
EPA’s motion for a voluntary remand of
the CISWI rule, without vacatur. On
remand, EPA solicited comments on the
CISWI Rule’s definitions of ‘‘solid
waste,’’ ‘‘commercial and industrial
waste’’ and ‘‘CISWI unit.’’ On September
22, 2005, EPA issued the CISWI
Definitions Rule, which contained
definitions that were substantively the
same as those issued before
reconsideration. In particular, the 2005
CISWI Definitions Rule defined
‘‘commercial or industrial waste’’ to
include only waste that is combusted at
a facility that cannot or does not use a
process that recovers thermal energy
from the combustion for a useful
purpose.
EPA received a petition for judicial
review of the CISWI Definitions Rule
from several environmental
organizations. The petitioners
challenged the CISWI Definitions Rule
on the grounds that its definition of
‘‘commercial or industrial waste’’ was
inconsistent with the plain language of
CAA section 129, and, therefore,
impermissibly constricted the class of
‘‘solid waste incineration unit[s]’’ that
were subject to the emission standards
of the CISWI Rule. The Court agreed
with petitioners and vacated the CISWI
Definitions Rule.
In its decision, the Court held that
EPA’s definition of ‘‘commercial or
industrial waste,’’ as incorporated in the
definition of CISWI units, conflicted
with the plain language of CAA section
129(g)(1). That provision defines ‘‘solid
waste incineration unit’’ to mean ‘‘any
facility which combusts any solid waste
material’’ from certain types of
establishments, with 4 specific
exclusions. The Court stated that, based
on the use of the term ‘‘any’’ and the
specific exclusions for only certain
types of facilities from the definition of
‘‘solid waste incineration unit,’’ CAA
section 129 unambiguously includes
among the incineration units subject to
its standards, any facility that combusts
any commercial or industrial solid
waste material at all—subject only to the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63263
4 statutory exclusions. The Court held
that the definitions EPA promulgated in
the CISWI Definitions Rule constricted
the plain language of CAA section
129(g)(1), because the CISWI Definitions
Rule excluded from its universe
operating units that combusted solid
waste and were designed for or operated
with energy recovery.
The rationale EPA provided in 2007
for not regulating SSI units under
section 129 is squarely in conflict with
the Court’s 2007 holding in NRDC v.
EPA. Specifically, the Court stated that
the 4 enumerated exemptions in section
129(g)(1) are in fact exclusive, and EPA
lacked authority to create additional
exemptions. The Court also rejected
EPA’s interpretation of section
129(h)(2), as articulated in the 2007
notice. The Court found that section
129(h)(2) ‘‘simply directs EPA in plain
terms to subject a solid waste
combustion facility exclusively to
section 129 standards, and not to
section 112,’’ and that the provision
confers no discretion in this respect 3.
Further, EPA has historically taken
the position that sewage sludge is solid
waste under the RCRA. EPA has taken
this position in an EPA letter dated
February 12, 1988, to Thomas A.
Corbett, Environmental Chemist I, New
York State Department of
Environmental Quality addressing the
regulatory status of certain sewage
sludge, as well as in its 1980
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste rulemaking (45 FR 33097, May
19, 1980) (included in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking).
Finally, on June 4, 2010, EPA
proposed a definition of non-hazardous
solid waste (75 FR 31844) under the
RCRA which is consistent with this
historical interpretation. In that
proposal, EPA explained its
interpretation for purposes of that
definition that sewage sludge is solid
waste, and, therefore, unit(s)
combusting sewage sludge should be
regulated under CAA section 129.
Although EPA has not taken final action
on that proposed rule and will consider
all public comments received before
taking final action, the proposed rule
represents EPA’s most recent
interpretation regarding this issue and is
consistent with its historical
interpretation under the RCRA.
Therefore, EPA is proposing emission
standards for SSI units under CAA
section 129.
On September 9, 2009, EPA received
a letter from the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies stating that SSI
units should be regulated under section
3 NRDC
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1260.
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63264
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
112(d) of the Act (included in the
docket of today’s proposed rulemaking).
The National Association of Clean
Water Agencies claimed that SSI units
are within the scope of the Clean Water
Act’s definition of ‘‘publicly owned
treatment works,’’ and that section
112(e)(5) directs EPA to issue emissions
standards under section 112(d) for
publicly owned treatment works as
defined by the CWA. However, EPA
issued emissions standards for POTW in
1999 and did not include standards for
SSI units in those regulations 4. In fact,
in the proposed emissions standards for
POTW, EPA stated that ‘‘[s]ewage sludge
incineration will be regulated under
section 129 of the CAA, and will be
included in the source category Other
Solid Waste Incinerators[.]’’ 5 Therefore,
EPA has taken the position in its
regulation of POTW under the Clean Air
Act that section 112(e)(5) does not apply
to SSI units and for this reason did not
regulate them in its POTW section
112(d) emissions standards. EPA solicits
comment on National Association of
Clean Water Agencies’ claim.
EPA considers SSI units to be ‘‘other
solid waste incineration units,’’ since
that category is intended to encompass
all solid waste incineration units that
are not included in the first 4 categories
identified in CAA section 129 (a)
through (d). EPA is proposing, and
intends to take final action on, emission
standards for SSI units in advance of its
re-issuance of emission standards for
the remaining OSWI units because these
emission standards are needed as part of
EPA’s fulfillment of its obligations
under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii). Clean Air Act section
112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for EPA to identify
at least 30 HAP which, as the result of
emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the
largest number of urban areas. EPA must
then ensure that sources representing 90
percent of the aggregate area source
emissions of each of the 30 identified
HAP are subject to standards pursuant
to section 112(d) 6. Sewage Sludge
Incineration units are one of the source
categories identified for regulation to
meet the 90 percent requirement for 7–
PAH, Cd, Cr, CDD/CDF, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni
and PCB. EPA is ordered by the Court
to satisfy its obligation under section
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16,
2011 7. Therefore, EPA is proposing and
intends to finalize the SSI standards
prior to taking action on the remaining
source categories that will be regulated
under section 129(a)(1)(E).
4 See
5 See
64 FR 57572 (Oct. 26, 1999).
63 FR 66084, 66087 (Dec. 1, 1998).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
D. What are the primary sources of
emissions and what are the emissions?
Sewage sludge incineration units may
be operated by municipalities or other
entities. Incineration continues to be
used to dispose of sewage sludge, but is
increasingly becoming less common.
Combustion of solid waste, and
specifically sewage sludge, causes the
release of a wide array of air pollutants,
some of which exist in the waste feed
material and are released unchanged
during combustion, and some of which
are generated as a result of the
combustion process itself. The
pollutants for which numerical limits
must be established, as specified in
section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO,
CDD/CDF, HCl, Hg, NOX, opacity
(where appropriate), PM, Pb, and SO2.
Emissions of the CAA section 129
pollutants from SSI units come from the
SSI unit’s stack. Fugitive opacity and
PM emissions also occur from ash
handling. Additional pollution controls
will increase costs for facilities that
continue to use the incineration
disposal method. If the additional costs
are high enough, many entities may
choose to adopt alternative disposal
methods (e.g., surface disposal in
landfills or other beneficial land
applications).
E. How are the EG implemented?
Standards of performance for solid
waste incineration units promulgated
under CAA sections 111 and 129 consist
of both NSPS applicable to new units,
and EG applicable to existing units.
Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not
themselves directly enforceable. Rather,
the EG are implemented and enforced
through either an EPA-approved State
plan or a promulgated Federal plan.
States are required to submit a plan to
implement and enforce the EG to EPA
for approval not later than 1 year after
EPA promulgates the EG (CAA section
129(b)(2)). The State plan must be ‘‘at
least as protective as’’ the EG and must
ensure compliance with all applicable
requirements not later than 3 years after
the State plan is approved by EPA, but
not later than 5 years after the relevant
EG are promulgated. Likewise, the
requirements of the State plan are to be
effective as expeditiously as possible
following EPA approval of the plan, but
must be effective no later than 3 years
after the State plan is approved or 5
years after the EG are promulgated,
whichever is earlier (CAA section
129(f)(2)). EPA’s procedures for
submitting and approving State plans
6 CAA section 112(c)(3) and section
112(k)(3)(B)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
B. When a State plan is approved by
EPA, the plan requirements become
federally enforceable, but the State has
primary responsibility for implementing
and enforcing the plan.
EPA is required to develop,
implement, and enforce a Federal plan
for solid waste incineration units
located in any State which has not
submitted an approvable State plan
within 2 years after the date of
promulgation of the relevant EG (CAA
section 129(b)(3)). The Federal plan
must assure that each solid waste
incineration unit subject to the Federal
plan is in compliance with all
provisions of the EG not later than 5
years after the date the relevant
guidelines are promulgated. EPA views
the Federal plan as a ‘‘place-holder’’ that
remains in effect only until such time as
a State without an approved plan
submits and receives EPA approval of
its State plan. Once an applicable State
plan has been approved, the
requirements of the Federal plan no
longer apply to solid waste incineration
units covered by that State plan.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
This preamble discusses the proposed
standards and guidelines as they apply
to the owner or operator of a new or
existing SSI unit. This preamble also
describes the major requirements of the
SSI regulations. For a full description of
the proposed requirements and
compliance times, see the attached
regulations.
A. Applicability of the Proposed
Standards
The proposed standards and
guidelines apply to owners or operators
of an incineration unit burning solid
waste at wastewater treatment facilities
(as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40
CFR 60.5065). A SSI unit is an enclosed
device using controlled flame
combustion that burns sewage sludge
for the purpose of reducing the volume
of the sewage sludge by removing
combustible matter. The affected facility
is each individual SSI unit. The SSI
standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM
apply to new and existing SSI units that
burn sewage sludge as defined in the
subparts.
B. Summary of the Proposed EG
EPA is proposing 2 subcategories for
existing sources based on their
incinerator design: (1) MH incinerators
and (2) FB incinerators. Table 1 of this
preamble summarizes the proposed
7 Sierra
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emission limits for existing SSI units for
63265
each subcategory. These standards
would apply at all times.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS
Emission
limit for MH
incinerators
Pollutant
Units
Cd ....................................................
CDD/CDF, TEQ ...............................
CDD/CDF, TMB ...............................
CO ....................................................
HCl ...................................................
Hg ....................................................
NOX ..................................................
Opacity .............................................
Pb .....................................................
PM ....................................................
SO2 ..................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
ng/dscm @ 7% 02 .....................................................................................
ng/dscm @ 7% 02 .....................................................................................
Ppmvd @ 7% 02 .......................................................................................
Ppmvd @ 7% 02 .......................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
Ppmvd @ 7% 02 .......................................................................................
% ...............................................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
Ppmvd @ 7% 02 .......................................................................................
C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
regardless of incinerator design, meet
the emission limits based on the bestperforming FB incinerator. Table 2 of
this preamble summarizes the proposed
As explained in IV.C.2, EPA is
proposing to require all new sources,
0.095
0.32
5.0
3,900
1.0
0.02
210
10
0.30
80
26
Emission
limit for FB
incinerators
0.0019
0.056
0.61
56
0.49
0.0033
63
0
0.0098
12
22
emission limits for SSI units subject to
the NSPS. These standards would apply
at all times.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW SSI UNITS
Emission
limit for MH
incinerators
Pollutant
Units
Cd ....................................................
CDD/CDF, TMB ...............................
CDD/CDF, TEQ ...............................
CO ....................................................
HCl ...................................................
Hg ....................................................
NOX ..................................................
Opacity .............................................
Pb .....................................................
PM ....................................................
SO2 ..................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
ng/dscm @ 7% 02 .....................................................................................
ng/dscm @ 7% 02 .....................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% 02 ........................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% 02 ........................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% 02 ........................................................................................
% ...............................................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% 02 ....................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% 02 ........................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Summary of Performance Testing
and Monitoring Requirements
The proposed rule would require all
new and existing SSI units to
demonstrate initial and annual
compliance with the emission limits
and combustion stack opacity limits
using EPA-approved emission test
methods.
For existing SSI units, the proposed
rule would require initial and annual
emissions performance tests (or
continuous emissions monitoring as an
alternative), continuous parameter
monitoring, and annual inspections of
air pollution control devices that may be
used to meet the emission limits.
Additionally, existing units would also
be required to conduct initial and
annual opacity tests for the combustion
stack and a one-time Method 22 (see 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–7) visible
emissions test of the ash handling
operations to be conducted during the
next compliance test.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
For new SSI units, the proposed rule
would require initial and annual
emissions performance tests (or
continuous emissions monitoring as an
alternative), bag leak detection systems
for FF controlled units, as well as
continuous parameter monitoring and
annual inspections of air pollution
control devices that may be used to
meet the emission limits. The proposal
would require all new SSI units to
install a CO CEMS. New units would
also be required to conduct initial and
annual opacity tests for the combustion
stack and Method 22 visible emissions
testing of the ash handling operations
would be required during each
compliance test.
For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO,
HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS;
ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous
sampling with periodic sample analysis)
would be approved alternatives to
parametric monitoring and annual
compliance testing. For new SSI units,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.00051
0.024
0.0022
7.4
0.12
0.0010
26
0
0.00053
4.1
2.0
Emission
limit for FB
incinerators
0.00051
0.024
0.0022
7.4
0.12
0.0010
26
0
0.00053
4.1
2.0
CO CEMS would be required, and use
of Cd, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS;
ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous
sampling, with periodic sample
analysis) would be approved
alternatives to parametric monitoring
and annual compliance testing.
E. Other Requirements for New and
Existing SSI Units
Owners or operators of new or
existing SSI units would be required to
meet operator training and qualification
requirements, which include: Ensuring
that at least 1 operator or supervisor per
facility complete the operator training
course, that qualified operator(s) or
supervisor(s) complete an annual review
or refresher course specified in the
regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually,
regarding training.
Owners or operators of new SSI units
would be required to conduct a siting
analysis, which includes submitting a
report that evaluates site-specific air
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63266
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
pollution control alternatives that
minimize potential risks to public
health or the environment, considering
costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts and any other
factors related to the practicability of the
alternatives.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
Records of the initial and all
subsequent stack or PS tests, deviation
reports, operating parameter data,
continuous monitoring data,
maintenance and inspections on the air
pollution control devices, the siting
analysis (for new units only),
monitoring plan and operator training
and qualification must be maintained
for 5 years. The results of the stack tests
and PS tests and values for operating
parameters would be required to be
included in initial and subsequent
compliance reports.
G. Electronic Data Submittal
Electronic data collection is
commonly employed to collect and
analyze data for a variety of
applications, such as the CAA Acid
Rain Program. Both industry and the
public benefit from electronic data
collection in that it increases the ease of
submitting the data as well as increasing
the accessibility and transparency of
these data.
EPA must have performance test data
to conduct effective reviews of CAA
sections 112 and 129 standards, as well
as for many other purposes including
compliance determinations, emission
factor development and annual
emission rate determinations. In
conducting these required reviews, EPA
has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for
regulatory agencies and source owners
and operators to locate, collect, and
submit emissions test data because of
varied locations for data storage and
varied data storage methods. One
improvement that has occurred in
recent years is the availability of stack
test reports in electronic format as a
replacement for cumbersome paper
copies.
In this action, EPA is proposing a step
to improve data accessibility and
increase the ease and efficiency of
reporting for sources. Specifically, we
are proposing that owners and operators
of SSI facilities be required to submit to
EPA’s ERT database the electronic
copies of reports of certain performance
tests required under this rule. Data will
be entered through an electronic
emissions test report structure called the
ERT that will be used whenever
emissions testing is conducted. The ERT
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
was developed with input from stack
testing companies who generally collect
and compile performance test data
electronically and offices within State
and local agencies that perform field test
assessments. The ERT is currently
available, and access to direct data
submittal to EPA’s electronic emissions
database (WebFIRE) will become
available by December 31, 2011.
The requirement to submit source test
data electronically to EPA would not
require any additional performance
testing and would apply to those
performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT.
The ERT contains a specific electronic
data entry form for most of the
commonly used EPA reference methods.
The Web site listed below contains a
listing of the pollutants and test
methods supported by the ERT. In
addition, when a facility submits
performance test data to WebFIRE, there
will be no additional requirements for
emissions test data compilation.
Moreover, we believe industry will
benefit from development of improved
emission factors, fewer follow-up
information requests, and better
regulation development as discussed
below. The information to be reported is
already required for the existing test
methods and is necessary to evaluate
the conformance to the test method.
One major advantage of submitting
source test data through the ERT is that
it would provide a standardized method
to compile and store much of the
documentation required to be reported
by this rule while clearly stating what
testing information would be required.
Another important benefit of submitting
these data to EPA at the time the source
test is conducted is that it should
substantially reduce the effort involved
in data collection activities in the
future. If EPA had source category data,
there would likely be fewer or less
substantial data collection requests in
conjunction with prospective residual
risk assessments or technology reviews.
This results in a reduced burden on
both affected facilities (in terms of
reduced manpower to respond to data
collection requests) and EPA (in terms
of preparing and distributing data
collection requests).
State/local/tribal agencies may also
benefit from the reduced burden
associated with receipt of electronic
information opposed to having to
process paper forms. Finally, another
benefit of submitting these data to
WebFIRE electronically is that these
data would improve greatly the overall
quality of the existing and new emission
factors by supplementing the pool of
emissions test data upon which the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emission factor is based and by ensuring
that data are more representative of
current industry operational procedures.
A common complaint heard from
industry and regulators is that emission
factors are outdated or not
representative of a particular source
category. Receiving and incorporating
data for most performance tests would
ensure that emission 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 emission factors
development program would save
industry, State/local/tribal agencies and
EPA, time and money and work to
improve the quality of emission
inventories and related regulatory
decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic
database that would be used is EPA’s
WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible
through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE
Web site was constructed to store
emissions test data for use in developing
emission factors. A description of the
WebFIRE database can be found at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/
index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The ERT would be able to transmit
the electronic report through EPA’s CDX
network for storage in the WebFIRE
database. Although ERT is not the only
electronic interface that can be used to
submit source test data to the CDX for
entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal
of data very straightforward and easy. A
description of the ERT can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
ert_tool.html.
H. Title V Permit Requirements
All new and existing SSI units
regulated by the final SSI rule would be
required to apply for and obtain a Title
V permit. These Title V operating
permits would assure compliance with
all applicable requirements for regulated
SSI units, including all applicable CAA
section 129 requirements.8
The permit application deadline for a
CAA section 129 source applying for a
Title V operating permit depends on
when the source first becomes subject to
the relevant Title V permits program. If
a regulated SSI unit is a new unit and
is not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, a complete Title V
permit application must be submitted
on or before the relevant date below.
• For a SSI unit that commenced operation
as a new source on or before the
promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
LLLL, the source must submit a complete
Title V permit application no later than 12
8 40
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart LLLL; or
• For a SSI unit that commences operation
as a new source after the promulgation of 40
CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must
submit a complete Title V permit application
no later than 12 months after the date the SSI
unit commences operation as a new source.9
If the SSI unit is an existing unit and
is not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, then the source
must submit a complete Title V permit
application by the earlier of the
following dates:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
• Twelve months after the effective date of
any applicable EPA-approved CAA section
111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an EPA approved State
or tribal plan that implements the SSI EG);
or
• Twelve months after the effective date of
any applicable Federal plan; or
• Thirty-six months after promulgation of
40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM.
For any existing SSI unit not subject
to an earlier permit application
deadline, the application deadline of 36
months after the promulgation of 40
CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, applies
regardless of whether or when any
applicable Federal plan is effective, or
whether or when any applicable CAA
section 111(d)/129 plan is approved by
EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA
sections 129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and
502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and
71.5(a)(1)(i).)
If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as
a result of some triggering
requirement(s) other than those
mentioned above, for example, a SSI
unit may be a major source (or part of
a major source), then you may be
required to apply for a Title V permit
prior to the deadlines specified above. If
more than 1 requirement triggers a
source’s obligation to apply for a Title
V permit, the 12-month time frame for
filing a Title V permit application is
triggered by the requirement which first
causes the source to be subject to Title
V.10
For additional background
information on the interface between
CAA section 129 and Title V, including
EPA’s interpretation of section 129(e),
information on updating existing Title V
permit applications and reopening
existing Title V permits, see the final
‘‘Federal Plan for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,’’
October 3, 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well
as the ‘‘Summary of Public Comments
and Responses’’ document in the OSWI
docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0156).
9 CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and
71.5(a)(1)(i).
10 CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b),
70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the
NSPS and EG
Under these proposed standards, new
SSI units that commence construction
on or after October 14, 2010 or that are
modified 6 months or more after the
date of promulgation, would have to
meet the NSPS emission limits of 40
CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within 6
months after the promulgation date of
the standards or upon startup,
whichever is later.
Under the proposed EG, and
consistent with CAA section 129(b)(2)
and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, states are
required to submit State plans
containing the existing source emission
limits of subpart MMMM of this part,
and other requirements to implement
and enforce the EG within 1 year after
promulgation of the EG. State plans
apply to existing SSI in the State
(including SSI that are modified prior to
the date 6 months after promulgation)
and must be at least as protective as the
EG.
The proposed EG would require
existing SSI to demonstrate compliance
with the standards as expeditiously as
practicable after approval of a State
plan, but no later than 3 years from the
date of approval of a State plan or 5
years after promulgation of the EG,
whichever is earlier. Consistent with
CAA section 129, EPA expects states to
require compliance as expeditiously as
practicable. However, because we
believe that many SSI units will find it
necessary to retrofit existing emissions
control equipment and/or install
additional emissions control equipment
in order to meet the proposed limits,
EPA anticipates that states may choose
to provide the 3 year compliance period
allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If
EPA does not approve a State plan or
issue a Federal plan, then the
compliance date is 5 years from the date
of the final rule.
EPA intends to develop a Federal plan
that will apply to existing SSI units in
any State that has not submitted an
approved State plan within 2 years after
promulgation of the EG. The proposed
EG would allow existing SSI units
subject to the Federal plan up to 5 years
after promulgation of the EG to
demonstrate compliance with the
standards, as allowed by CAA section
129(b)(3).
IV. Rationale
All standards established pursuant to
CAA section 129(a)(2) must reflect
MACT, the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of certain listed
air pollutants that the Administrator,
taking into consideration the cost of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63267
achieving such emission reduction, and
any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is achievable
for each category. This level of control
is referred to as a MACT standard.
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,
depending on whether they regulate
new or existing sources. For new units,
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent
than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar unit. Emission
standards for existing units may be less
stringent than standards for new units,
but cannot be less stringent than the
average emission limitation achieved by
the best-performing 12 percent of units
in the category. These requirements
constitute the MACT floor for new and
existing sources; however, EPA may not
consider costs or other impacts in
determining the MACT floors. EPA must
consider cost, nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy
requirements in connection with any
standards that are more stringent than
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor
controls).
In general, 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, on 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 and
other relevant emissions information.
For each source category, the
assessment involves a review of actual
emissions data with an appropriate
accounting for emissions variability.
Other methods of estimating emissions
can be used provided that the methods
can be shown to provide reasonable
estimates of the actual emissions
performance of a source or sources.
As stated earlier, the CAA requires
that MACT for new sources be no less
stringent than the emission control
achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar unit. Under CAA
section 129(a)(2), EPA determines the
best control currently in use for a given
pollutant and establishes the MACT
floor at the emission level achieved by
that control with an appropriate
accounting for emissions variability.
Once the MACT floor determinations
are done for new sources, we consider
regulatory options more stringent than
the MACT floor level of control that
could result in reduced emissions. More
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63268
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
stringent potential 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 emission limitation achieved by
the best-performing 12 percent of units
in a source category. EPA must
determine some measure of the average
emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing 12 percent of units in
each subcategory to establish the MACT
floor for existing units. Once the MACT
floor determinations are done for each
subcategory of existing units, we
consider various regulatory options
more stringent than the MACT floor
level of control that could result in
lower emissions. More stringent
beyond-the-floor regulatory options
reflect other or additional controls
capable of achieving better performance.
A. Subcategories
The CAA allows EPA to subcategorize
a source category based on differences
in class, type, or size. EPA is proposing
to subcategorize SSI units into 2
subcategories, based on differences in
the design type of the incineration units.
To EPA’s knowledge, there are 2 types
of incinerators currently used to
combust sewage sludge: MH and FB
incinerators. Of the 218 SSI units in
operation, 55 use the FB design, while
163 use the MH design. These two types
use significantly different combustor
designs. A. MH incinerator consists of a
vertical cylinder containing from 6 to 12
horizontal hearths and a rotating center
shaft with rabble arms. Biosolids (i.e.,
sewage sludge) enter the top hearth and
flow downward while combustion air
flows from the bottom to the top. The
MH is divided into 3 zones. The upper
hearths comprise the drying zone in
which water and some organic
compounds are evaporated from the
biosolids. The middle hearths comprise
the combustion zone. The exposure to
the combustion gas and biosolids to
high temperature is only in this section
and residence time of the gas is short.
The lower hearths form the cooling
zone, where ash is cooled as its heat is
transferred to the incoming combustion
air. Some MH incinerators have an
additional zone above the drying
hearths which can be used as an
afterburner to combust the organics and
CO generated in the lower hearths.
Multiple hearth units are sensitive to
any change in the feed, such as feed
moisture and feed rate. Since the
emissions of CO and organic
compounds are dependent on the
temperature of the top hearth, any
changes occurring in the biosolids input
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
can cause operational upset with
momentary drop in top hearth
temperature and an increase in
emissions. In order to assure proper
startup, shutdown, and modulation of
combustion temperatures, fuels (e.g.,
natural gas and distillate oil) may be
added to the combustion chamber.
In a FB incinerator, the reactor is a
vertical steel shell comprised of 4
sections. The lower section is called the
windbox and acts as a plenum in which
combustion air is received. Above the
windbox is a refractory arch. The
section above the refractory arch is
filled with sand and is called the bed
area or combustion zone. Hot air is
distributed homogeneously throughout
the FB. The intensive mixing of the
solid and gas in the fluidized State
results in a high heat transfer resulting
in rapid combustion of the biosolids.
The section above the bed is the
freeboard or disengagement zone. The
freeboard provides 6 to 7 seconds of gas
residence time, which completes the
combustion of any volatile
hydrocarbons escaping from the bed.
The differences between the 2
combustor designs result in significant
differences in emissions, size of the flue
gas stream, ability to handle variability
in the feeds, control of temperature and
other process variables, auxiliary fuel
use and other characteristics. Generally,
FB incinerators have lower emissions of
NOX, organic compounds, CDD/CDF
and CO than MH incinerators due to the
combustion temperature, mixing, and
residence time differences. Intermittent
operations, involving frequent
shutdown and startup, are generally
easier and more rapid for FB
incinerators than MH incinerators.
Additionally, FB incinerators have
better capability of handling feeds with
varying moisture and volatile contents.
Lower excess air and auxiliary fuel is
required to operate FB incinerators
resulting in smaller flue gas flow rates
and consequently smaller sized
downstream control devices.
To reflect the differences in their
combustion mechanisms, 2
subcategories, FB and MH, were
developed for new and existing SSI
sources.
We are requesting comment on
whether other combustor designs are
used at SSI units, and, if so, we are
requesting emissions information from
stack tests conducted on those units.
We are also aware that sewage sludge
may be incinerated in certain
commercial or industrial units and
energy recovery units that are subject to
the recently proposed CISWI rules (40
CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD
of this part). Therefore, we are
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposing that sewage sludge that is
incinerated in combustion units located
at commercial and industrial facilities
be subject to the CISWI standards rather
than the SSI standards. We are
requesting comment on the
appropriateness of this proposed
decision. While we are not aware of
other combustion units that incinerate
sewage sludge, we are requesting
comment on whether such other units
exist, and, if so, what the content of the
combusted materials is (i.e.,
constituents in the sewage sludge), the
amount of sewage sludge incinerated,
and whether these units should be
subject to SSI standards or subject to
other section 129 standards.
B. Format for the Proposed Standards
and Guidelines
The EPA selected emission
limitations as the format for the
proposed SSI standards and guidelines.
As required by section 129 of the CAA,
the proposed standards and guidelines
would establish numerical emission
limitations for Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, HCl,
Pb, Hg, opacity, NOX, PM, and SO2. For
regulating Cd, Pb, Hg, and total PM, the
EPA is proposing numerical
concentration limits in milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm).
Emission limits of CDD/CDF are in units
of total ng/dscm, based on measuring
emissions of each tetra through octachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin and
dibenzofuran and summing them. For
CO, HCl, NOX, and SO2, the proposed
standards and guidelines are volume
concentrations, ppmvd. Standards and
guidelines for opacity are proposed on
a percentage basis. All measurements
are corrected to 7 percent oxygen to
provide a common basis.
The EPA selected an outlet
concentration format because outlet data
are available for SSI units and
characterize the best performing SSI
units. In addition to numerical emission
limits, the SSI standards include
operator training and qualification
provisions and siting requirements (for
new sources only) as required by section
129.
EPA understands that the metal
emissions from SSI units are influenced
by the metals content in the sludge
burned. It is not clear from the data
available to EPA whether the sludge
burned during the emissions tests (that
were used to establish the MACT floor)
represent typical sludge composition/
concentrations or are closer to minimum
or maximum levels. We are also
requesting additional sludge metals
content information from the best
performing sources collected during
emissions stack tests so that we can
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
appropriately account for any
differences in metal content of the
sludge in the final standards.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. MACT Floor Determination
Methodology
Section 129 (a)(2) of the CAA requires
that EPA determine the emissions
control that is achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar unit when
establishing the MACT floor for new
units, and the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of units when
establishing the MACT floor for existing
units. Section 129(a)(4) states that the
standards promulgated under section
129 shall specify a numerical emissions
limitation for each pollutant
enumerated in that provision. Section
129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish
standards requiring the ‘‘maximum
degree of reduction of emissions.’’
‘‘Maximum degree of reduction of
emissions,’’ in turn is defined in section
129(a)(2) as including a minimum level
of control (known as the MACT floor).
EPA’s long-standing interpretation is
that the combination of section
129(a)(4), requiring numerical standards
for each enumerated pollutant, and
section 129(a)(2), requiring that each
such standard be at least as stringent as
the MACT floor, supports that floors be
derived for each pollutant based on the
emissions levels achieved for each
pollutant.
The emission limits proposed also
account for variability. EPA must
exercise its judgment, based on an
evaluation of the relevant factors and
available data, to determine the level of
emissions control that has been
achieved by the best performing SSI
units under variable conditions. The
Court has recognized that EPA may
consider variability in estimating the
degree of emission reduction achieved
by the best-performing sources and in
setting MACT floors that the best
performing sources can expect to meet
‘‘every day and under all operating
conditions.11
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology and other technology-based
standards are necessarily derived from
short-term emissions test data, but such
data are not representative of the range
of operating conditions that the bestperforming facilities face on a day-today basis. In statistical terms, each test
produces a limited data sample, and not
a complete enumeration of the available
data for performance of the unit over a
11 Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA;
370 F.3d at 1232, 1241–42 DC Cir 2004.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
long period of time 12. EPA, therefore,
often needs to adjust the short-term data
to account for these varying conditions.
The types of variability that EPA
attempts to account for include
operational distinctions between and
within tests at the same unit.
‘‘Between-test variability’’ can occur
even where conditions appear to be the
same when 2 or more tests are
conducted. Variations in emissions may
be caused by different settings for
emissions testing equipment, different
field teams conducting the testing,
differences in sample handling or
different laboratories analyzing the
results. Identifying an achieved
emissions level for best-performing
sources needs to account for these
differences between tests, in order for ‘‘a
uniform standard [to] be capable of
being met under most adverse
conditions which can reasonably be
expected to recur[.]’’ 13
The same types of differences leading
to between-test variability also cause
variations in results between various
runs comprising a single test, or
‘‘within-test variability.’’ A single test at
a unit usually includes at least 3
separate test runs. (See 40 CFR
63.7(e)(3) for MACT standards under
CAA section 112 and 40 CFR 60.8(f) for
NSPS under CAA section 111). Each
data point should be viewed as a
snapshot of actual performance. Along
with an understanding of the factors
that may affect performance, each of
these snapshots gives information about
the normal and unavoidable variation in
emissions that would be expected to
recur over time.
One approach to estimating future
variability that may be used is the UPL.
The UPL is an appropriate statistical
tool to use in determining variability
when there is a limited sampling of the
source category. An UPL (i.e., sample
mean plus a multiplier times the
standard deviation) for a future
observation is the upper end of a range
of values that will, with a specified
degree of confidence, contain the next
(or some other pre-specified) randomly
selected observation from a population.
In other words, UPL estimates the high
end of the range in which future values
will fall, with a certain probability,
based on present or past background
samples taken. Given this definition, the
UPL is the value below which the
average result of a future emissions test
12 Natrella, Experimental Statistics, National
Bureau of Standards Handbook 91, chapter 1
revised ed., 1966.)
13 National Lime Association I, 627 F.2d at 431,
n. 46 and Portland Cement Association, 486 F.2d
at 396, ‘‘a single test offered a weak basis’’ for
inferring that plants could meet the standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63269
consisting of 3 test run observations (3run average) from the source to be tested
is expected to fall below with a stated
level of confidence (e.g., 99 percent).
Therefore, should a future test condition
be selected randomly from any of these
sources, we can be 99 percent confident
that the reported level will fall below a
MACT floor emissions limit calculated
using an UPL. Since a source must
demonstrate compliance with the
MACT floor using the average of a 3-run
test, the appropriate test condition to
use to assess variability is 3 runs. If a
source had to demonstrate compliance
by showing that each individual test run
was below the MACT floor emission
limit, it would be appropriate to use a
future test condition of 1 run. (See
further discussion in section IV.C.2 of
this preamble.) We are soliciting
comment on all aspects of our
variability analysis.
EPA understands that the metal
emissions from a SSI unit may vary due
to the metals content in the sludge
burned. We are requesting additional
sludge metals content information
collected during emissions stack tests so
that we can appropriately account for
any differences in metal content of the
sludge in the final standards.
1. MACT Floor Analyses Data Set
As stated earlier, the CAA requires
that MACT for new sources be no less
stringent than the emissions control
achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar unit. For existing
sources, the CAA requires that MACT be
no less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing 12 percent of units in a
source category. Because the number of
units in different subcategories may be
different, the number of units that
represent the best-performing 12 percent
of sources in 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 bestperforming 5 units even though
rounding conventions would normally
lead to rounding down to 4 units. As
discussed earlier, there are 218 SSI
units, composed of 163 MH incinerators
and 55 FB incinerators. This procedure
results in a top 12 percent comprised of
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20 MH incinerators and 7 FB
incinerators.
Information collection request surveys
were sent to 9 municipalities operating
SSI units to collect emissions
information. To select the surveyed
owners, EPA reviewed the inventory of
SSI units for the control devices being
operated, and identified a subset of
units expected to have the lowest
emissions based on the type of unit and
the installed air pollution controls. EPA
believes these controls achieve the most
reductions possible for the CAA section
129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA
to identify for each pollutant the units
with the lowest emissions. For example,
units were selected that operated more
than one of the following technologies:
activated carbon injection to reduce Hg
and CDD/CDF; regenerative thermal
oxidizer or afterburners to reduce CO
and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine
particulate; high efficiency scrubbers
such as packed bed scrubbers and
impingement tray scrubbers to reduce
PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg and acid
gases such as HCl and SO2; and units
with multiple control devices that could
reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such
as a venturi scrubber in combination
with an impingement scrubber and a
wet ESP or another particulate control
device. See the memorandum ‘‘MACT
Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Source Category,’’ which is
in the SSI docket for a list of
municipalities that were sent an ICR
and their controls.
In contrast to MWC units or CISWI
units, SSI units receive a homogenous
type of waste to burn. There are
variations in the amount of each of the
CAA section 129 pollutants present, but
because all SSI units are required to
meet the CWA SSI discharge and
emission requirements (40 CFR part
503), the variations are not as significant
as variations that would occur if
different types of materials were
combusted (e.g., sewage sludge, coal,
wood). Part 503 establishes daily
average concentration limits for Pb, Cd,
and other metals in sewage sludge that
is disposed of by incineration. Part 503
also requires that SSI meet the National
Emission Standards for Beryllium and
Hg in subparts C and E, respectively, of
40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40
CFR part 503 standards, facilities are
already incorporating management
practices and measures to reduce waste
and limit the concentration of pollutants
in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as
segregating contaminated and
uncontaminated wastes and establishing
discharge limits or pre-treatment
standards for non-domestic users
discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
SSI units burn a relatively homogenous
waste, and non-technology measures to
reduce emissions are already being
taken. As a result, the data used to
develop the MACT emission limits
reflect the control technologies used at
each facility, and the other HAP
emission reduction approaches, such as
management practices each facility is
following to comply with the CWA part
503 standards. For this reason, we
believe that the sources identified for
testing and the resulting emissions
information received from the surveyed
SSI units represent the best-performing
SSI units.
From the 9 surveyed municipalities,
EPA collected data from 16 units that
were in operation (11 MH incinerators
and 5 FB incinerators). The surveyed
information was supplemented with test
information for 9 MH SSI units
collected from State environmental
agencies public databases. In total,
emissions information was collected
from 5 FB incinerators and 20 MH
incinerators from facilities responding
to the ICR and additional test reports
provided by State environmental
agencies. However, not every test report
contained information on all pollutants.
Except for CDD/CDF and SO2, test
information for most of the 9 CAA
section 129 pollutants was available
from 5 FB incinerators. For CDD/CDF
and SO2, data from only 3 FB
incinerators were available. Depending
on the pollutant, the number of MH
incinerators with emissions information
ranges from 5 to 19. The MACT floor
analysis was then conducted using all
the emissions information for each
pollutant in each subcategory (i.e., all 5
FB incinerators for Cd and all 14 MH
incinerators for Cd), as this information
includes emissions data from the
population of best-performing units.
Test results from each of these units
are based on the results of at least 3
individual runs per test, meaning that
one would expect MACT floor
calculations based on a population of 21
FB runs (7 FB multiplied by 3 runs per
FB) and on a population of 60 MH runs
(20 MH FB multiplied by 3 runs per
MH). While EPA does not have actual
emissions test data for the population of
units that represent the best-performing
12 percent, the statistical technique
described below is the approach we
used to establish the existing source
MACT floor. The MACT floor
calculations are based on all the actual
data received, for example, a population
of 15 MH runs from 5 MH incinerators
for CDD/CDF. Because the emissions
data are normally distributed, or can be
transformed to be normally distributed
(using the log-normal transformation of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the data), EPA is able to employ
statistical techniques to determine the
minimum number of observations
needed to accurately characterize the
distribution of the best performing 12
percent of units in each subcategory.
This technique is necessary to assure
that the characteristics of the sampled
data set mirror those of the bestperforming 12 percent of units in the
source category.
EPA used this statistical technique
because of the lack of data from the full
set of the best-performing 12 percent of
sources. While Congress adopted
identical language describing the MACT
floor calculation in section 129(a)(2) as
it did in section 112(d)(3), the latter
section includes a provision stating that
the MACT floor for existing sources
cannot be less stringent than ‘‘the
average emission limitation achieved by
the best-performing 12 percent of the
existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions
information).’’ Section 129, however,
simply states that the existing source
MACT floor cannot be less stringent
than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12
percent of the existing sources in the
category. Therefore, while we believe
Congress intended for the MACT floor
calculation under each section of the
CAA to be the same, this difference in
the text of the 2 sections requires us to
establish the MACT floor for section 129
source categories based on the bestperforming 12 percent of sources in the
category. Because we do not have that
data at this time, the statistical
technique described below is the only
manner in which we can establish the
existing source MACT floor on that
basis. We request that commenters
provide additional emissions stack test
data and supporting documentation, as
that may enable us to establish a final
MACT floor based on a more complete
data set.
In order to assess whether or not the
minimum number of samples collected
adequately characterizes the population,
a statistical equation was applied for
each subcategory. If the number of
observations collected equals or exceeds
the required minimum number of
observations calculated using the
statistical equation, then the MACT
floor calculations of the sampled data
set are consistent with what the MACT
floor calculations would have been had
they been performed on the complete
data set from the best-performing 12
percent of the population. The sample
size calculation is discussed in more
detail in the memorandum ‘‘MACT
Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Source Category,’’ which is
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
information on the outcome of this
review, please refer to the ‘‘MACT Floor
Analysis for the Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Source Category,’’
memorandum, which is in the SSI
docket.
2. Variability Calculation
To conduct the existing source MACT
floor analysis for each pollutant,
individual SSI units in each subcategory
for which we had emissions test data
were ranked based on their average
emission levels of the pollutant from
lowest to highest. The MACT floor was
calculated as the average of the test runs
from the best-performing (i.e., lowest
emitting) 12 percent of sources. For the
SSI source category, all the qualityassured emissions information from the
ICR responses and additional test
reports collected were used in the
MACT floor calculation. That is, for
each pollutant, the MACT floor
emission level was calculated as the
average emission limit for all the test
runs from the quality assured emissions
data collected.
The first step in the statistical analysis
includes a determination of whether the
data used for each MACT floor
calculation were normally or lognormally distributed. If the data were
normally distributed (e.g., similar to a
typical bell curve), then further
variability analyses could be conducted
on the data set. If the data were not
normally distributed (for example, if the
data were asymmetric or skewed to the
⎛1 1 ⎞
UPL = x +t (0.99 ,n − 1) × s2 × ⎜ + ⎟
⎝n m⎠
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
n = Number of test runs (i.e., sample size)
m = Number of test runs in the compliance
average
s = Standard deviation of the emissions test
data
x = Mean, i.e., average of the emissions test
data
t0.99, (n¥1) = t-statistic for 99 percent
significance and a sample size of n.
This calculation was performed using
the following 2 Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet functions:
Normal distribution: 99 percent UPL
= AVERAGE (Test Runs in Top 12
percent) + [STDEV(Test Runs in Top 12
percent) × TINV(2 * 0.99, n¥1 degrees
of freedom)*SQRT((1/n)+1/3))], for a
one-tailed t-value (with 2 × probability),
probability of 0.01, and sample size of
n.
Lognormal distribution: 99 percent
UPL = EXP{AVERAGE(Natural Log
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(Eq. 1)
Values of Test Runs in Top 12 percent)
+ [STDEV(Natural Log Values of Test
Runs in Top 12 percent) × TINV(2 *
0.99, n¥1 degrees of freedom) *
SQRT((1/n)+1/3))]}, for a one-tailed tvalue (with 2 × probability), probability
of 0.01, and sample size of n.
The 99 percent UPL represents the
value which 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.
In establishing the limits, the UPL
values were rounded up to 2 significant
figures. For example, a value of 1.42
would be rounded to 1.5 because a limit
of 1.4 would be lower than the
calculated MACT floor value.
The summary statistics and analyses
are presented in the docket and further
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
right or left), then the type of
distribution (e.g., log-normal) was
determined and a data transformation
was performed (e.g., taking the natural
log of the data) to normalize the data
prior to conducting the variability
analysis. Two statistical measures,
skewness and kurtosis, were examined
to determine if the data were normally
or log-normally distributed. For details
on the statistical analysis, see the
memorandum ‘‘MACT Floor Analysis
for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator
Source Category,’’ which is in the SSI
docket.
For the existing source variability
analysis, all the emissions test runs
reported for the best-performing 12
percent of units in each subcategory
were identified. By including multiple
emissions tests from units with a test
average in the top 12 percent, EPA can
evaluate intra-unit variability of
emissions tests over time, considering
variability in control device
performance, unit operations, and fuels
fired during the test. As discussed
previously, the UPL was used for the
SSI MACT floor variability analysis.
For the existing source analysis, the
99 percent UPL values were calculated
for each pollutant and for each
subcategory using the test run data for
those units in the best-performing 12
percent. Since compliance with the
MACT floor emission limit is based on
the average of a 3-run test, Equation 1
shows the UPL is calculated as follows:
described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5
of this preamble. The calculated UPL
values for existing sources (which are
based on emissions data from the
sources representing the bestperforming 12 percent of sources and
evaluate variability) were selected as the
proposed MACT floor emission limits
for the 9 regulated pollutants in each
subcategory.
To determine the MACT floor for new
sources, we used an UPL calculation
similar to that for existing sources,
except the best-performing similar
source’s data were 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 SSI units based on actual
performance and establishes MACT
floors based on the best-performing
similar source for each pollutant and
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
EP14OC10.000</MATH>
in the SSI docket. The results of the
calculation show that for the population
of 7 FB incinerators, which comprises
12 percent of the source category, the
minimum number of test runs that need
to be collected is 10, and the actual
number collected, for the pollutant with
the least amount of test data, including
late arriving data, is 12. Similarly, the
calculation shows that for the
population of 20 MH incinerators which
comprise 12 percent of the source
category, the minimum number of test
runs that need to be collected is 14, and
the actual number collected, for the
pollutant with the least amount of test
data, is 15. Based on EPA’s assessment,
the data set meets the minimum size
needed to characterize the population of
12 percent of the best-performing units
for all pollutants, when late-arriving
data are included. EPA determined that
the number of observations of data
collected accurately represent the 12
percent of the best-performing sources
in each subcategory. Data received too
late to incorporate in the analysis for the
proposed rule will be included in the
analysis for the final rule along with any
relevant data received during the
comment period. However, EPA
conducted a preliminary review of the
late data received subsequent to the
final analyses, e.g., MACT floor ranking,
impacts, etc., and determined that based
on this preliminary review, the data
would have minimal impact on the
proposed standards. For more
63271
63272
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
subcategory, with an appropriate
accounting of emissions variability. In
other words, the UPL was determined
for the data set of individual test runs
for the single best-performing source for
each regulated pollutant from each
subcategory.
For the FB new source subcategory,
we considered the best-performing FB
incinerator to be the best-performing
similar source. For the MH new source
subcategory, we also considered the
best-performing FB incinerator to be the
best-performing similar source because
these types of units are both operated
for the same purpose (e.g. to incinerate
sewage sludge and similar control
technologies can be used on both). We
chose not to treat the best-performing
MH incinerator as the best-performing
similar source for the MH new source
subcategory because we are not aware of
any new MH sources that have been
constructed in the last 20 years. During
that period, however, over 40 new FB
incinerators have been installed, with at
least 11 replacing MH incinerators.
Information provided by the industry
indicates that future units that will be
constructed are likely to be FB
incinerators. Information provided by
the industry also indicates that new FB
units have more efficient combustion
characteristics resulting in lower
emissions. Therefore, we believe it is
appropriate to consider the bestperforming FB incinerator as the bestperforming similar source for the MH
new source subcategory. We are aware
that owners and operators with
modified MH units may have concerns
regarding meeting the new source
limits. We request comment on this
proposed approach. To assist
commenters with their evaluation of the
proposal, we have calculated what the
MACT floor emission limits would be
based on the best-performing MH
incinerator, and the emission limits for
FB and MH incinerators are shown in
Table 3. These potential limits were
developed by analyzing the MH test
data using the same new source MACT
floor methodology as discussed earlier
in this section of this preamble. See the
MACT floor memorandum in the docket
for additional details.
TABLE 3—POTENTIAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW MH UNITS BASED ON BEST-PERFORMING MH INCINERATOR
Potential
emission limit
for new MH
incinerators
Pollutant
Units
Cd ...........................................................
CDD/CDF, TEQ ......................................
CDD/CDF, TMB .....................................
CO ..........................................................
HCl .........................................................
Hga .........................................................
NOX ........................................................
Opacity ...................................................
Pb ...........................................................
PM ..........................................................
SO2 .........................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .................................................................................................
ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ..................................................................................................
ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ..................................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% O2 .....................................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% O2 .....................................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .................................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% O2 .....................................................................................................
% .............................................................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .................................................................................................
mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .................................................................................................
ppmvd @ 7% O2 .....................................................................................................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a Calculation
results in a limit of 0.069 which is greater than the existing source beyond the floor limit.
The MACT floor limits for opacity
from combustion stacks were
determined slightly differently from
other pollutants. The opacity data
available for FB and MH SSI units were
obtained using EPA Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–4, for 3 FB
incinerators (providing 10 observations
or test runs) and 10 MH incinerators
(providing 29 observations). Similar to
the amount of data collected for other
regulated pollutants, this constitutes
less than 12 percent of the sources, but
meets or exceeds the minimum sample
size needed to characterize the
population of the best-performing 12
percent of units. Under Method 9, the
opacity of emissions from stationary
sources is determined visually by a
qualified observer. Opacity observations
are recorded to the nearest 5 percent at
15-second intervals on an observational
record sheet and the average opacity of
the observation period is calculated. For
FB incinerators, all of the available
average opacity measurements were
reported as 0 percent. Consequently, the
MACT floor for opacity from existing FB
incinerators and all new units is 0
VerDate Mar<15>2010
0.0011
0.0022
0.024
45
0.36
0.02
150
0
0.0020
5.8
6.9
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
percent opacity. For MH incinerators, 60
percent of the available average opacity
measurements were greater than 0
percent and 40 percent were reported as
0 percent. A review of the opacity data
for MH incinerators indicated that they
are not normally distributed. However,
because the MH opacity data contain
zero values, the log-normal
transformation of the data could not be
calculated to normalize the data set.
Consequently, the procedures used to
assess the variability of the data were
modified. For MH incinerators, the
variability analysis for existing sources
was conducted on the opacity data set
without transforming the data using the
log normal calculation. Additionally,
because the opacity readings are in 5
percent increments, the calculated UPL
was rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5. The analysis results in an opacity
limit of 10 percent for existing sources.
We request comment on the
methodology used to set the opacity
limit. We are also requesting additional
opacity information from SSI units.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Incorporation of Non-Detect Data
Non-detect values comprise more
than 50 percent of the emissions data for
HCl from FB incinerators and CDD/CDF
from both MH and FB incinerators. For
these pollutants, EPA developed a
methodology to account for the
imprecision introduced by
incorporating non-detect data into the
MACT floor calculation.
At very low emission levels where
emissions tests result in non-detect
values, the inherent imprecision in the
pollutant measurement method has a
large influence on the reliability of the
data underlying the MACT floor
emission limit. Because of sample and
emission matrix effects, laboratory
techniques, sample size, and other
factors, method detection levels
normally vary from test to test for any
specific test method and pollutant
measurement. The confidence level that
a value, measured at the detection level
is greater than zero, is about 99 percent.
The expected measurement imprecision
for an emissions value occurring at or
near the method detection level is about
40 to 50 percent. Pollutant measurement
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
imprecision decreases to a consistent
level of 10 to 15 percent for values
measured at a level about 3 times the
method detection level.14
One approach that we believe can be
applied to account for measurement
variability in this situation starts with
defining a method detection level that is
representative of the data used in the
data pool. 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 average emission calculated for
the data set. This approach has the
advantage of relying on the data
collected to develop the MACT floor
emission limit, while to some degree,
minimizing the effect of a test(s) with an
inordinately high 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 is to determine the
value equal to 3 times the representative
method detection level and compare it
to the calculated MACT floor emission
limit. If 3 times the representative
method detection level were less than
the calculated MACT floor emission
limit, we would conclude that
measurement variability is adequately
addressed, and we would not adjust the
calculated MACT floor emission limit.
If, on the other hand, the value equal to
3 times the representative method
detection level were greater than the
calculated MACT floor emission limit,
we would conclude that the calculated
MACT floor emission limit does not
account entirely for measurement
variability. We would, therefore, use the
value equal to 3 times the method
detection level in place of the calculated
MACT floor emission limit to ensure
that the MACT floor emission limit
accounts for measurement variability
and imprecision.
The approach discussed above was
used to calculate the proposed MACT
floor limit for HCl. The following
additional procedures were followed for
CDD/CDF, TMB, and TEQ basis limits.
To calculate a TMB limit, all the 17
congeners of interest were identified
and non-detect values that are
associated with each were indicated.
The mean of the non-detect values was
calculated and multiplied by 17 (for the
total number of congeners of interest).
The mean value was then used as the
detection limit of the run. Then, each
data set was reviewed to identify the
highest test-specific method detection
63273
level reported that was also equal to or
less than the average emission level (i.e.,
unadjusted for probability confidence
level) calculated for the data set. The
second step discussed above and also
used for HCl was used to set the limit.
To calculate a limit on a TEQ basis,
first, the mean of the non-detect values
was calculated. Then the TEF for each
congener was multiplied by the mean to
determine the TEQ for each congener.
Toxic Equivalencies for each congener
were summed to calculate a TEQ sum
value. The TEQ sum was then used as
the detection limit for the test run. The
second step discussed above and also
used for HCl was used to set the limit.
4. EG MACT Floor
Once the sources that represent the
best 12 percent of units were identified
for each subcategory 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 summary results of the UPL
analysis and the MACT floor emission
limits for existing units are presented in
Table 4 of this preamble for each
subcategory and each pollutant.15
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS
FB Incinerators
Pollutant
Cd .....................................
CDD/CDF TEQ .................
CDD/CDF TMB .................
CO .....................................
HCl ....................................
Hg .....................................
NOX ...................................
Opacity ..............................
Pb ......................................
PM .....................................
SO2 ...................................
Units
Avg of top
12%
mg/dscm@7% O2 .............
ng/dscm@7% O2 ..............
ng/dscm@7% O2 ..............
ppmvd@7% O2 .................
ppmvd@7% O2 .................
mg/dscm@7% O2 .............
ppmvd@7% O2 .................
% ......................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 .............
mg/dscm@7% O2 .............
ppmvd@7% O2 .................
0.00055
0.027
0.32
28
0.17
0.0019
30
0
0.0030
2.6
3.3
MH Incinerators
99% of UPL
MACT floor
emission
limit a
0.00189
0.0559
0.602
55.1
0.489
0.00325
62.4
0
0.0098
11.9
21.5
0.0019
0.056
0.61
56
0.49
0.0033
63
0
0.0098
12
22
Avg of top
12%
0.030
0.047
0.69
1,013
0.53
0.10
130
2.0
0.082
42.6
9.4
99% of UPL
MACT floor
emission
limit a
0.0947
0.314
4.95
3,885
0.982
0.162
207
6.4
0.295
79.8
25.7
0.095
0.32
5.0
3,900
1.0
0.17
210
10
0.30
80
26
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures except that opacity limits were rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 for reasons explained in
section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
Information gathered indicates that all
of the units have some level of air
pollution control and management
practice in place either as a result of
CWA part 503, State and local
requirements, or previous Federal
standards to address air emissions.
MACT floor emissions reductions were
calculated assuming that units needing
to meet the limits for Cd and Pb would
install a FF, units needing to meet the
limits for Hg and CDD/CDF would apply
activated carbon injection, and units
needing to meet the limits for HCl and
SO2 would apply a packed bed scrubber.
We are requesting comment on whether
there are space constraints at
wastewater treatment facilities that
would affect the feasibility and cost of
installing air pollution control devices.
The results of the analysis indicate that
all existing FB and MH units would
meet the MACT floor levels of control
for NOX, CO, and PM without applying
any additional control. (However, PM
would be reduced from applying
controls to meet the Cd and Pb
emissions limits.) Additionally, all
existing MH units would also meet the
MACT floor levels of control for CDD/
14 American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Reference Method Accuracy and Precision
(ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February
2001.
15 EPA interprets CAA section 129 as supporting
the pollutant-by-pollutant approach (74 FR 51380,
Oct. 6, 2009).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63274
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CDF without applying any additional
control. These results for NOX, CO, PM,
and CDD/CDF are attributable to the
relatively high 99 percent UPL values
computed from the submitted data. The
small sample sizes and the high degree
of variability observed in the data for
these pollutants resulted in large 99
percent UPL values.
Given the smaller than desired data
sets for these pollutants, we computed
the 95 percent UPL values to account for
the influence of the limited data set. The
results are presented in Table 5 of this
preamble. We are requesting comment
on whether it is appropriate to use these
alternative UPLs for this source category
due to the limited availability of data.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS USING ALTERNATIVE PERCENT UPL a
FB Incinerators
MH Incinerators
95% Of UPL
Pollutant
95% Of UPL
Units
Cd ................................................
CDD/CDF TEQ ............................
CDD/CDF TMB ............................
CO ................................................
HCl ...............................................
Hg ................................................
NOX ..............................................
Opacity .........................................
Pb .................................................
PM ................................................
SO2 ..............................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 ..............................................................................
ng/dscm@7% O2 ...............................................................................
ng/dscm@7% O2 ...............................................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 .................................................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 .................................................................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 ..............................................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 .................................................................................
% .......................................................................................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 ..............................................................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 ..............................................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 .................................................................................
0.0011
0.046
0.51
47
b 0.49
0.0018
48
0
0.0052
6.1
8.6
0.048
0.12
1.8
2,200
0.84
0.14
190
10
0.14
69
17
a Limits were rounded up to 2 significant figures except that opacity limits were rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5 for reasons explained in
section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
b Value shown is the result of the non-detect analysis, which results in using the limit that is based on 3 times the highest detection limit that is
less than the average of the data. The calculated UPL values without the non-detect analysis are 0.25, 0.23, and 0.22 for percent UPLs of 95
percent, 90 percent, and 85 percent, respectively.
5. NSPS MACT Floor
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 bestperforming 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 emissions test data for each
pollutant. To determine the MACT floor
for new sources, an UPL calculation
other words, the UPL was determined
for the data set of individual test runs
for the single best-performing source for
each regulated pollutant from each
subcategory. As discussed in IV.C.2,
EPA is proposing 2 subcategories for
new sources. However, we are
proposing to require that all new
sources meet the emission limits for the
best-performing FB incinerator. Table 6
of this preamble presents the analysis
summaries and the new source MACT
floor limits.
similar to that for existing sources was
conducted, except the best-performing
unit’s data within a subcategory were
used to calculate the MACT floor
emission limit for each pollutant. The
best-performing unit was identified as
the lowest emitting source with at least
3 test runs. In summary, the approach
ranks individual SSI units based on
actual performance and establishes
MACT floors based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant
and subcategory, with an appropriate
accounting of emissions variability. In
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR EMISSION LIMITS FOR ALL NEW SSI UNITS (FB AND MH)
Pollutant
All new SSI units
(fluidized bed and multiple hearth)
Units
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Avg of top 12%
Cd .....................................
CDD/CDF TEQ .................
CDD/CDF TMB .................
CO ....................................
HCl ....................................
Hg .....................................
NOX ..................................
Opacity .............................
Pb .....................................
PM ....................................
SO2 ...................................
1 Limits
mg/dscm@7% O2 .......................................................
ng/dscm@7% O2 ........................................................
ng/dscm@7% O2 ........................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 ...........................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 ...........................................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 .......................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 ...........................................................
% .................................................................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 .......................................................
mg/dscm@7% O2 .......................................................
ppmvd@7% O2 ...........................................................
99% of UPL
0.00017
0.00094
0.0095
2.6
0.044
0.00036
14.9
0
0.00031
1.4
0.62
0.000510
0.00213
0.0226
7.31
0.111
0.000992
25.3
0
0.000527
4.06
1.99
MACT floor limit 1
0.00051
0.0022
0.024
7.4
0.12
0.0010
26
0
0.00053
4.1
2.0
were rounded up to 2 significant figures.
6. Assessment of PM2.5 Data
EPA’s collection of emissions
information also included filterable
PM2.5 measured using OTM 27 and
condensable PM measured using OTM
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
28. Other Test Method 27 and OTM 28
are equivalent to the proposed revisions
of Methods 201A and 202. Emissions
information for PM2.5 and condensable
PM was obtained from 5 FB incinerators
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and 6 MH incinerators. Other Test
Method 27/OTM 28 combination testing
can be used to determine primary PM2.5,
which includes filterable PM from OTM
27 and condensibles from OTM 28. A
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
variability analysis was conducted on
the data to calculate a MACT floor level
63275
of control, and the results are provided
in Table 7 of this preamble.
TABLE 7—VARIABILITY CALCULATION FOR PM2.5
[Mg/Dscm@7%O2]
Subcategory
Avg of top 12%
Existing FB Incinerators .............................................................................................
Existing MH Incinerators ............................................................................................
All New Units .............................................................................................................
Potential New MH Incinerators (See Discussion In IV.C.2) ......................................
There are potential concerns with the
emissions data and whether it is
appropriate to set PM2.5 standards for
SSI units. Other Test Method 27 is not
an appropriate test method for sizing
particulate at 2.5 μm when there are
entrained water droplets in the stack
gas, which will bias the measurements.
All SSI units use wet scrubbers to
control emissions, and water droplet
entrainment may be an issue at some
portion of these sources, resulting in
them not being able to measure PM2.5
using OTM 27. A review of the
temperature and moisture data collected
during the PM2.5 emissions tests
indicates that water droplet entrainment
is not an issue with the emissions data
collected from the sources tested. Other
test reports, at sources with stack gas
moisture levels in excess of the vapor
capacity, and thus with entrained water
droplets, did not provide PM2.5
information. Additional information on
the emission characteristics would be
necessary to make a conclusion about
general stack gas parameters in the SSI
source category.
Because of this concern, we decided
not to include PM2.5 standards in this
proposal. We are requesting comment
on whether the PM2.5 limits in Table 6
of this preamble should be set for the
promulgated rule, and whether the
combination of OTM 27 and 28 are
appropriate measurement techniques.
We are also requesting additional PM2.5
emissions stack test data and supporting
documentation for both MH and FB
incinerators.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor
Alternatives
As discussed above, EPA may adopt
emission 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, nonair quality health
and environmental impacts and energy
requirements when considering beyondthe-floor standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
4.2
17
1.5
2.6
1. Beyond-the-Floor-Analysis for
Existing Sources
In order to identify beyond-the-floor
options, we first identified control
requirements for each pollutant that
would be more stringent than required
to meet the MACT floor level of control
and determined whether they were
technically feasible. If the more
stringent controls were technically
feasible, a cost and emission impacts
analysis was conducted for applying
them. The cost, emission reduction, and
cost-effectiveness of the technically
feasible controls were reviewed, and
controls that were relatively costeffective in reducing emissions were
selected as possible beyond-the-floor
control options.
The control technologies that would
be needed to achieve the MACT floor
levels (i.e., FF and packed bed
scrubbers) are generally the most
effective controls available for reducing
PM, Cd, Pb, HCl and SO2. Therefore, no
beyond-the-floor technologies were
identified for these pollutants. We
analyzed options of applying FF and
packed bed scrubbers to units that did
not have these controls already or did
not need them to meet the MACT floor
emissions limits. A preliminary cost and
emission reduction analysis was
performed for these options. The results
indicate that the application of FF (to
control Cd and Pb), or application of a
packed bed scrubber (to control HCl and
SO2), as a beyond-the-floor option
results in high costs for the emission
reduction achieved, and is not costeffective. Consequently, the FF and
packed bed beyond-the-floor options
were not further analyzed. This analysis
is documented in the memorandum
‘‘Analysis of Beyond the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units’’
found in the SSI docket. We identified
and analyzed impacts of beyond-thefloor technologies for the other
pollutants (CO, NOX, Hg, and CDD/
CDF). These analyses are summarized in
the following paragraphs.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
99% of UPL
11.7
57.6
2.29
10.7
Limit
12
58
2.3
11
As discussed in section IV.C.4 of this
preamble, our analysis indicates that all
existing FB and MH units would meet
the MACT floor levels of control for
NOX and CO without applying any
additional control; therefore, no control
technologies were costed for these
pollutants at the MACT floor level. For
the beyond-the-floor analysis, we
analyzed applicable controls, as
discussed below, to provide reductions
of NOX and CO from all SSI units.
For NOX, we reviewed add-on control
technologies that achieve NOX
reduction at other combustion sources,
such as MWC units, CISWI units, and
boilers. These include SCR, SNCR, and
FGR. However, none of these
technologies were determined to be
appropriate for SSI units. To our
knowledge, SSI units do not use SCR or
SNCR. Additionally, we are not aware of
any successful applications of SCR
technology to waste combustion units.
This may be due to the difficulties
operating SCR where there is significant
PM or sulfur loading in the gas stream.
Application of SNCR also may not be
technically feasible because the
combustion mechanism of MH
incinerators provides inadequate mixing
of combustion gas and SNCR reagent.
Additionally, SSI operating conditions
(e.g., low temperatures and residence
times for MH incinerators and low
uncontrolled NOX emissions for FB
incinerators) are not well suited for
application of SNCR. Flue gas
recirculation has been used on
combustion devices to reduce NOX
emissions. Emissions information
collected by EPA contains data from one
MH incinerator with FGR. However, its
emission levels are similar to units
without FGR. Therefore, no conclusion
could be made on FGR performance.
Additionally, there are no FB
incinerators that currently use any addon NOX control because, due to their
design, FB incinerators achieve low
NOX emission levels without add-on
controls.
With regard to Hg and CDD/CDF, the
most effective control technology to
reduce these emissions is activated
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63276
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
carbon injection. We estimate that this
source category is currently the sixth
highest Hg emitting source category in
the United States, emitting about 3.1
TPY of Hg (or about 3 percent of the
total Hg emissions from anthropogenic
sources in the United States). This
category emits about 0.0001 TPY of
dioxin (or 0.0000081 tons of dioxin
TEQ), which is about 1 percent of the
total estimated dioxin emissions in the
U.S.
Our analysis indicates that 53 SSI
units would need to use activated
carbon injection to meet the MACT floor
level of control, so costs for activated
carbon injection were included in the
cost analysis for the MACT floor for
such units. All of these units, except for
two, are FB units. Control of the FB
units at the MACT floor will result in
estimated emissions reductions of about
0.06 tons of Hg and 0.0000065 tons
dioxins TEQ. However, the other units
(especially the MH units) would not
need additional control to meet the
‘‘floor’’ level of control. Additional
beyond-the-floor reductions for the MH
units would be achieved by applying
activated carbon injection. Data
gathered by EPA indicate that activated
carbon injection applied to combustion
sources with particulate control can
achieve 85–95 percent reduction of Hg,
depending on the type of particulate
control, with higher reductions
achieved by units with FF and lower
reductions achieved by units with
electrostatic precipitators or venturi
scrubbers. Based on these data, a
beyond-the-floor reduction of 88 percent
for Hg was used for carbon injection
applied to existing MH unit controls,
resulting in an emission level of 0.02
mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
Previous EPA studies also show that
CDD/CDF can be reduced by as much as
98 percent using activated carbon
injection.
For CO, the MACT floor emission
level for existing MH sources is 3,900
ppmvd corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
An add-on combustion device, such as
an afterburner, was analyzed as a more
stringent control device that could be
applied. Some units may use a RTO to
comply with the CWA ‘‘503 Rule’’ (40
CFR part 503). We request comment on
the use of an afterburner or RTO as a
means to control CO from MH SSI units.
Carbon monoxide emissions data
collected show that MH incinerators
using an add-on afterburner or RTO can
achieve CO emission levels less than
100 ppmv. The CWA part 503 Rule
limits SSI to 100 ppmv THC as propane,
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
averaged for 30 days. The CWA part 503
Rule allows substitution of 100 ppmv
CO dry basis, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen for the THC originally required.
The 100 ppm CO level was selected
because this level was determined to be
a level that would be indicative of THC
concentrations below 100 ppmv. This
allows the use of a lower cost, easier to
maintain CO monitor in place of the
difficult to keep on-line THC monitor.
Consistent with the CWA part 503
regulations for disposal of sewage
sludge, for the beyond-the-floor
analysis, a value of 100 ppmv was used
as the emission level that a MH
incinerator with an afterburner could
achieve. Although we do not have data
to quantify the impacts, the afterburner
is also expected to reduce emissions of
organic compounds, such as 7–PAH. We
also evaluated whether there were any
beyond-the-floor options for CO for
existing FB incinerators. The proposed
SSI MACT floor CO level for existing FB
incinerators (56 ppmv) is well below the
100 ppmv emission level of the CWA
part 503 Rule. We determined that
application of an afterburner to FB units
would not achieve appreciable CO
reduction from the proposed limit for
the cost incurred. This analysis is
documented in the memorandum
‘‘Analysis of Beyond the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.’’
Therefore, no beyond-the-floor CO limit
was analyzed for the FB subcategory.
Table 8 of this preamble summarizes
the costs of the MACT floor emission
level (referred to as option 1), and 2
beyond-the-floor options. Option 2 is
the same as option 1 plus application of
activated carbon injection with existing
particulate control to reduce Hg
emissions. Option 3 is the same as
option 2 plus applying an afterburner to
MH units to reduce CO emissions.
TABLE 8—COSTS EXPECTED FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS TO COMPLY WITH MACT CONTROL OPTIONS (2008$)
Total capital costs
($)
Option
1—MACT Floor ............................................................................................................................................
2—Option 1 + Activated carbon injection ....................................................................................................
3—Option 2 + CO Afterburner ....................................................................................................................
a Calculated
Total annualized
costs ($/Yr) a
220,000,000
225,000,000
370,000,000
73,000,000
105,000,000
148,000,000
using a 7 percent discount factor.
Table 9 of this preamble summarizes
the emission reductions of each
pollutant for the MACT control options.
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING UNITS TO COMPLY WITH THE MACT CONTROL OPTIONS
SOURCES
Emission reductions for each MACT option (TPY)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Pollutant
Option 1
Cd ............................................................................................................................................................
CDD/CDF TEQ ........................................................................................................................................
CDD/CDF TMB ........................................................................................................................................
CO ............................................................................................................................................................
HCl ...........................................................................................................................................................
Hg ............................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..........................................................................................................................................................
Pb .............................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
Option 2
Option 3
1.41
0.0000065
0.000079
0
93
0.09
4.3
2.63
1.41
0.0000078
0.000099
0
93
2.71
4.3
2.63
1.41
0.0000078
0.000099
25,691
93
2.71
4.3
2.63
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
63277
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING UNITS TO COMPLY WITH THE MACT CONTROL OPTIONS
SOURCES—Continued
Emission reductions for each MACT option (TPY)
Pollutant
Option 1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
PM ............................................................................................................................................................
SO2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
The results provided in Tables 8 and
9 of this preamble were calculated using
data gathered for each source, as well as
default emissions, sludge capacity, and
vent gas flow rate information for
sources where data were unavailable.
We estimate that applying activated
carbon injection to all MH units to
control Hg and CDD/CDF would result
in total annualized costs of $32 million
dollars (using a discount rate of
7 percent) and would achieve Hg
reductions of 2.62 TPY and CDD/CDF
reductions of 0.000020 TPY. The
incremental cost-effectiveness of adding
activated carbon injection to all MH
units is estimated to be $12 million per
ton of pollutants (Hg and CDD/CDF)
removed (or $6,000 per pound). More
than 99.9 percent of these estimated
reductions are for Hg, thus these cost
estimates mainly reflect the costs of Hg
removal (i.e., about $6,000 per pound of
Hg removed). However, it is important
to note that activated carbon injection
cannot be applied alone. It requires
particulate control devices to remove
the carbon that is injected to adsorb the
Hg. Based on our available data, all of
these units have some type of PM
control device in place so they would
not need to install new PM control
equipment. We believe this beyond-thefloor option is cost-effective for Hg,
which is a persistent bio-accumulative
toxic (PBT) pollutant. Thus, we are
proposing this beyond-the-floor limit for
Hg of 0.02 mg/dscm corrected to
7 percent oxygen. Because more than
99.9 percent of the emissions reduction
is associated with Hg, a specific beyondthe-floor option of controlling CDD/CDF
emissions using activated carbon
injection was not further considered.
However, co-control of CDD/CDF would
occur from the option of applying
activated carbon injection to meet the
beyond-the-floor emission limit for Hg.
Information collected by EPA shows
that several FB units, but no MH units,
currently use activated carbon injection.
We believe activated carbon injection is
applicable to both types of SSI
combustors and do not know of any
technical reason that activated carbon
injection could not be applied to reduce
Hg emissions at MH units. We are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
requesting comment and additional
information on the feasibility of using
this technology on MH units.
Thus, given the factors discussed
above, we are proposing limits for Hg
based on the beyond-the-floor option
described above. However, we are
requesting comment on this approach
and the beyond-the-floor limits for Hg at
MH units and request information on
other factors and any data available that
we should consider in our final
rulemaking.
We also considered whether we
should set beyond-the-floor emission
limits for CO. The emissions reductions
and cost associated with this are
referred to as option 3 in Tables 8 and
9 of this preamble. We estimate that to
apply MACT control option 3, which
would require either the use of an
afterburner or thermal oxidizer, could
require as much as 1,700 million cubic
feet of natural gas a year to be burned,
resulting in NOX and CO emissions of
84 and 70 TPY, respectively. Therefore,
given these factors, we are not
recommending going beyond-the-floor
with option 3. We are requesting
comment on whether to require MH
units to meet the 100 ppmv CO limit,
considering the potential emissions of
NOX and the cost impacts on
municipalities of applying this option.
The results of the beyond-the-floor
analysis are documented in the
memorandum ‘‘Analysis of Beyond the
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for
Existing SSI Units’’ found in the SSI
docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559).
Table 1 in this preamble summarizes the
proposed emissions limits for existing
SSI units.
2. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for New
Sources
We did not identify any technologies
or methods to achieve emission limits
more stringent than the MACT floor
limits for new units based on the lowest
emitting FB incinerators. The control
technologies necessary to achieve the
MACT floor levels are generally the
most effective controls available: FF for
PM, Cd and Pb control; packed bed
scrubbers for SO2 and HCl control;
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
318
2,192
Option 2
318
2,192
Option 3
318
2,192
afterburners for CO control; and
activated carbon injection for CDD/CDF
and Hg control. In addition, 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. Data gathered do
not indicate that any FB incinerators
operate NOX controls, such as SNCR,
SCR, or FGR because the NOX emissions
are already low. In light of the technical
feasibility, costs, energy, and nonair
quality health and environmental
impacts discussed in this section, we
have determined it is not reasonable to
establish beyond-the-floor limits for
existing and new SSI units. Table 2 in
this preamble summarizes the proposed
emissions limits for new SSI units.
E. Rationale for Performance Testing
and Monitoring Requirements
We are proposing that all new and
existing SSI units meet the following
requirements:
• Initial and annual emissions
performance tests (or continuous emissions
monitoring as an alternative).
• Annual inspections of scrubbers, FF, and
other air pollution control devices that may
be used to meet the emission limits.
• Annual visual emissions test of ash
handling procedures.
• Control device parameter monitoring for
wet scrubbers, FF, ESP, activated carbon
injection, and afterburners, and other
approved control devices.
• Monitoring of bypass stack use if
installed at an affected unit.
• Periodic performance evaluations of
continuous monitoring systems.
These proposed requirements were
selected to provide additional assurance
that sources continue to operate at the
levels established during their initial
performance test. The visual emissions
test of ash handling procedures and
annual control device inspections have
been adopted for HMIWI, another CAA
section 129 source category. Hospital,
Medical, and Infectious Waste
Incineration 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\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63278
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The large and small MWC standards
also have similar fugitive ash
monitoring requirements. In addition,
the CISWI rule requires a Method 22 (of
appendix A–7) visible emissions test of
the ash handling operations to be
conducted during the annual
compliance test for all subcategories
except waste-burning kilns, which do
not have ash handling systems. We
propose to require the fugitive ash
monitoring provisions that are
contained in the HMIWI, CISWI, and
MWC rules. The HMIWI, CISWI, and
MWC units are incineration devices
combusting waste and have ash
handling similar to SSI units.
Consequently, we believe that the
requirements for fugitive ash handling
in the HMIWI and MWC standards can
be applied to SSI units. We request
comment on whether the ash handling
requirements for MWC and HMIWI are
appropriate for SSI, and if not, what
requirements should be imposed.
The proposed rules would allow
sources to use the results of emissions
tests conducted within the previous 2
years to demonstrate initial compliance
with the proposed emission limits for
all the CAA section 129 pollutants 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 SSI rules and
must be the most recent tests performed
on the unit. Those sources, whose
previous emissions tests do not
demonstrate compliance with 1 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.
Information collected by EPA shows
tests have been conducted on SSI for
Title V, State testing requirements, and
OW 503 rule requirements for many of
the CAA section 129 pollutants. We
seek comment on the appropriateness of
the use of previously-conducted
performance tests.
The proposed rule also would allow
for reduced testing of PM, Cd, Pb, Hg,
SO2, HCl, NOX and CO (for existing
sources only). We are proposing to
allow facilities with test data for listed
pollutants that show emissions are less
than 75 percent of the applicable
emission limits to be able to qualify for
testing for these pollutants once every 3
years. The reduced testing allowance
and compliance margin provides
flexibility and incentive to sources that
operate well within the emission
standard, and timelier follow-through
on assuring that sources that are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
marginally in compliance will remain in
compliance.
The proposed rule would allow for
the following optional CEMS use: CO
CEMS for existing sources; and NOX
CEMS, SO2 CEMS, PM CEMS, HCl
CEMS, multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS,
CDD/CDF CEMS, ISTMMS and ISTDMS
for existing and new sources and COMS.
Some existing SSI units may have CO
CEMS, NOX CEMS, or SO2 CEMS
already to meet other regulatory or
permit requirements, and we propose to
allow them to continue to use these
monitors to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the SSI standards. The
optional use of HCl CEMS, multi-metals
CEMS, CDD/CDF CEMS, ISTMMS, and
ISTDMS would be available on the date
a final PS for these monitoring systems
is published in the Federal Register.
The proposed monitoring provisions are
discussed in more detail below.
Monitoring Provisions for All Control
Devices. The proposed rules would
require monitoring the dry sludge feed
rate, combustion chamber temperature
(or afterburner temperature), and sludge
moisture content to ensure that the
incinerator operation parameters
measured during the compliance test are
continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for Wet
Scrubbers. The proposed rules would
require monitoring the scrubber liquor
flow rate and pH, and the minimum
pressure drop across each scrubber (or
amperage to each scrubber), to ensure
that the scrubber operation parameters
measured during the compliance test are
continually maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for Activated
Carbon Injection (Hg sorbent injection).
The proposed rules would require
monitoring of activated carbon (i.e., Hg
sorbent) injection rate and carrier gas
flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop)
to ensure that the minimum sorbent
injection rate, measured during the
compliance test, is continually
maintained.
Monitoring Provisions for FF. The
proposed rules would require bag leak
detection system monitoring to ensure
that the FF is operating properly and
that leaks in the filter media are quickly
identified and corrected on a
continuous basis.
Monitoring Provisions for Electrostatic
Precipitators. The proposed rules would
require monitoring of the secondary
voltage and secondary amperage of the
collection plates, calculating the
secondary power input to the collection
plates (voltage multiplied by amperage)
per ESP section, and effluent water flow
rate at the outlet of the ESP (for wet
ESP) to ensure that the ESP operating
parameters measured during the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compliance test are maintained on a
continuous basis.
Monitoring Provisions for
Afterburners. The proposed rules would
require monitoring of the temperature of
afterburners.CO CEMS. The proposed
rules would require the use of CO CEMS
on new SSI units. The proposed rules
would allow the use of CO CEMS on
existing sources. Owners and operators
that 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. The proposed rules
incorporate the use of 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 annual stack tests
and compliance would be demonstrated
by stack tests. The change to use
continuously-operated CO CEMS for
measurement and enforcement of the
stack test-based 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 4 hours and 24
hours based on statistical analysis of
long-term CEMS data for a particular
subcategory. Because CO CEMS data
available for SSI to perform such an
analysis are insufficient to determine an
emission level that would correspond to
a shorter averaging period, EPA is
proposing the use of a 24-hour block
average as appropriate to address
potential changes in CO emissions. The
24-hour block average would be
calculated using Equation 19–19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of 40 CFR part 60.
Existing facilities electing to use CO
CEMS as an optional method would be
required to notify EPA 1 month before
starting use of CO CEMS and 1 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 SSI.
PM CEMS. The proposed rules would
allow the use of PM CEMS as an
alternative testing and monitoring
method. Owners or operators who
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
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 ESP and scrubbers used to
comply with the PM emission limit for
the following operating parameters: Wet
scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquor
flow rate, scrubber liquor pH, secondary
voltage of ESP collection plates,
secondary amperage of ESP collection
plates, effluent water flow rate at the
outlet of the ESP, and opacity
monitoring or testing to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the opacity
limits. These operating parameters may
still need to be monitored to
demonstrate compliance for other
pollutants (e.g., HCl). 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 use of PS–
11 (Specifications and Test Procedures
for Particulate Matter Continuous
Emissions 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 (normally
distributed or transferred to be normally
distributed) annual stack tests and
compliance would generally be
demonstrated by stack tests. The use of
PM CEMS for measurement and
enforcement of the same stack test-based
emission limits must be carefully
considered in relation to an appropriate
averaging period for data reduction.
Because PM CEMS data are unavailable
for SSI, EPA is proposing that the use
of a 24-hour block average is
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 using Equation 19–19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Method 19 of
appendix A–7 of 40 CFR part 60. An
owner or operator of a SSI unit who
wishes to use PM CEMS would be
required to notify EPA 1 month before
starting use of PM CEMS and 1 month
before stopping use of the PM CEMS.
Other CEMS and Monitoring Systems.
EPA also is proposing the optional use
of NOX CEMS, SO2 CEMS, HCl CEMS,
multi-metals CEMS, Hg CEMS, CDD/
CDF CEMS, ISTMMS, and ISTDMS as
alternatives to the existing monitoring
methods for demonstrating compliance
with the NOX, SO2, HCl, Pb, Cd and Hg,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
and CDD/CDF emission limits. Because
CEMS data for SSI 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 24hour block averages would be calculated
using Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1
of EPA Method 19 of appendix A of 40
CFR part 60. The proposed amendments
incorporate the use of PS–2 of appendix
B of 40 CFR part 60 for NOX and SO2
CEMS. Although final PS are not yet
available for HCl CEMS and multimetals CEMS, EPA is considering
development of PS. The proposed rule
specifies that these options would be
available to a facility on the date a final
PS is published in the Federal Register.
The use of HCl CEMS would allow
the discontinuation of monitoring of the
following operating parameters
associated with scrubbers used to
comply with the HCl emission limits:
scrubber liquor flow rate, scrubber
liquor pH, pressure drop across the
scrubber (or amperage to the scrubber),
and the annual testing requirements for
HCl. However, some of these monitoring
parameters may still be necessary to
demonstrate compliance with other
pollutant emission limits. These
parameter monitoring requirements
were designed to ensure the scrubber
continues to operate in a manner that
reduces HCl emissions and would not
be necessary if HCl emissions are
directly measured on a continuous
basis. 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 PS–13 can serve as
the basis for HCl CEMS use at SSI. 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
SSI. EPA has monitored side-by-side
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63279
evaluations of multi-metals CEMS with
EPA Method 29 of appendix A–8 of 40
CFR part 60 at industrial waste
incinerators and found good correlation.
EPA also approved the use of multimetals CEMS as an alternative
monitoring method at hazardous waste
combustors. EPA believes that 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 PS to allow the use of
multi-metals CEMS at SSI is an
appropriate alternative. We request
comment on the appropriateness of
using multi-metals CEMS as a substitute
for Cd and Pb performance testing. 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.
EPA proposes the optional use of Hg
CEMS (Performance Specification
12A—Specifications and Test
Procedures for Total Vapor Phase
Mercury Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources) or ISTMMS (Performance
Specification 12B—Specifications and
Test Procedures for Total Vapor Phase
Mercury Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems from Stationary
Sources Using a Sorbent Trap
Monitoring System or Appendix K of
part 75).16 An owner or operator of a SSI
unit who wishes to use any CEMS or
CASS would be required to notify EPA
1 month before starting use of the CEMS
or CASS and 1 month before stopping
use of the CEMS or CASS. The source
would also have to perform the annual
performance test within 60 days of
ceasing to use the CEMS or CASS for
compliance with the standard. Mercury
sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow
rate (or carrier gas pressure drop)
monitoring could be eliminated in favor
of a multi-metals CEMS or Hg CEMS;
however CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate
and carrier gas monitoring would still
be required as an indicator of CDD/CDF
16 EPA originally added PS–12A and PS–12B to
Part 75 as part of the Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR). The United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated CAMR on
grounds unrelated to the PS. New Jersey v. EPA; 517
F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008). The Court’s decision did
not, in any way, address the appropriateness of the
procedures set forth in Appendix K. In 2009, as part
of the Portland Cement MACT, EPA proposed
amending part 75 to add PS–12A and PS–12B. EPA
currently intends to finalize those specifications at
the same time it takes final action on the Portland
cement MACT rule.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63280
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
control if ISTDMS or CDD/CDF CEMS
are not used.
The ISTMMS would entail use of a
CASS with analysis of the samples at set
intervals using any suitable
determinative technique that can meet
appropriate criteria. The option to use a
CASS would take effect on the date a
final PS is published in the Federal
Register. As with Hg and multi-metal
CEMS, use of integrated sorbent trap
monitoring would eliminate the
requirement to monitor Hg sorbent
injection rate but would not eliminate
the requirement to monitor CDD/CDF
sorbent injection rate because it also is
an indicator of CDD/CDF control.
The ISTDMS would entail use of a
CASS 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 CASS would take effect
on the date a final PS is published in the
Federal Register. Dioxin/furan sorbent
injection rate and carrier gas flow rate
(or carrier gas pressure drop) monitoring
and CDD/CDF annual testing could be
eliminated in favor of ISTDMS, but Hg
sorbent injection rate monitoring would
not be eliminated because it also is an
indicator of Hg control.
If integrated sorbent trap monitoring
of CDD/CDF as well as multi-metals
CEMS, Hg CEMS, or ISTMMS are used,
both Hg sorbent injection rate
monitoring and CDD/CDF sorbent
injection rate monitoring could be
eliminated. These parameter monitoring
requirements were designed to ensure
that control devices continue to be
operated in a manner to reduce CDD/
CDF, metals and Hg 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 and CASS discussed
above. Table 10 of this preamble
presents a summary of the SSI operating
parameters, the pollutants influenced by
each parameter and alternative
monitoring options for each parameter.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF SSI OPERATING PARAMETERS AND CONTROL DEVICE INSPECTIONS, POLLUTANTS INFLUENCED
BY EACH PARAMETER AND ALTERNATIVE MONITORING OPTIONS FOR EACH PARAMETER
Operating parameter (control device type associated with monitoring
requirement)
Pollutants influenced by operating
parameter/control device
Sludge feed rate (All) ..............................................................................
All ...................................................
None.
Sludge moisture level (All) ......................................................................
All ...................................................
None.
Temperature of combustion chamber (or afterburner combustion
chamber) (All).
All ...................................................
None.
CDD/CDF sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon injection) .......................
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop (Activated carbon injection using CDD/CDF sorbent).
CDD/CDF .......................................
ISTDMS or CDD/CDF CEMS.
Hg sorbent flow rate (Activated carbon injection) ...................................
Hg ..................................................
ISTMMS, Hg CEMS, or multi-metals CEMS.
Scrubber pressure drop from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) .................
PM, Cd, Pb ....................................
PM CEMS, Pb CEMS, or Cd
CEMS.
Scrubber liquor flow rate from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ...............
PM, Cd, Pb ....................................
PM CEMS, multi-metals CEMS,
Cd CEMS, or Pb CEMS.
Scrubber liquor flow rate from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ...............
HCl, SO2 ........................................
HCl CEMS or SO2 CEMS.
Scrubber liquor pH from each scrubber (Wet scrubber) ........................
Secondary voltage and secondary amperage of collection plates (All
ESP).
Effluent flow rate (Wet ESP).
HCl, SO2 ........................................
PM, Cd, Pb, Hg .............................
HCl CEMS or SO2 CEMS.
PM CEMS, Pb CEMS, or Cd
CEMS.
Temperature of afterburner .....................................................................
CO .................................................
None.
Bag leak detection monitoring system alarm time (FF) ..........................
PM, Cd, Pb, Hg .............................
None.
Air pollution control device inspections ...................................................
All ...................................................
None.
Time of visible emissions from ash handling ..........................................
PM .................................................
None.
Opacity from combustion stacks .............................................................
PM .................................................
PM CEMS or COMS (only if wet
scrubber is not used).
Alternative monitoring options
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop (Activated carbon injection using Hg sorbent).
Table 11 of this preamble presents a
summary of the SSI test methods and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
approved alternative compliance
methods.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
63281
TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF SSI TEST METHODS AND APPROVED ALTERNATIVE TEST METHODS
Pollutant/parameter
Test Methods 1
Approved Alternative methods 1
Comments
Cd ...............................
Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.
Cd CEMS or Multi-metals CEMS ........
CDD/CDF ...................
Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7.
CO CEMS (new sources) and Method
10, 10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60
appendix A–4.
ISTDMS ...............................................
Cd CEMS or multi-metal CEMS are
optional for all sources in lieu of annual Cd test.
ISTDMS are optional for all sources in
lieu of annual CDD/CDF testing.
CO CEMS are optional for existing
sources in lieu of annual CO test;
CO CEMS are required for new
sources.
Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–2.
Method 26 or Method 26A at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–8.
Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.
ASME PTC 19.10–1981 part 10 .........
CO ..............................
Flue and exhaust gas
analysis.
HCl ..............................
Hg ...............................
NOX ............................
CO CEMS (for existing sources) ........
HCl CEMS ...........................................
Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (when published in the
Federal
Register);
Multi-metals
CEMS; Hg CEMS (PS–12A);
ISTMMS (PS–12B of Appendix B of
part 75); or 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).
NOX CEMS .........................................
Opacity .......................
Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–4.
Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4.
Pb ...............................
Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.
Pb CEMS or Multi-metals CEMS ........
PM ..............................
Method 5, at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3; Method 26A or 29 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8.
Bag leak detection system or PM
CEMS.
Method 6 or Method 6C at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–4.
Method 22 of appendix A–7 of this
part.
PM CEMS ...........................................
PM, Pb, Cd, Hg ..........
SO2 .............................
Visible emissions of
fugitive ash.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 EPA
PM CEMS, COMS ..............................
..............................................................
HCl CEMS ...........................................
HCl CEMS are optional for all sources
in lieu of annual HCl test.
Multi-metal CEMS, Hg CEMS, or
ISTMMS are optional for all sources
in lieu of annual Hg test.
NOX CEMS are optional for all
sources in lieu of annual NOX test.
PM CEMS and COMS are optional for
all sources in lieu of annual opacity
testing.
PB CEMS or multi-metal CEMS are
optional for all sources in lieu of annual Pb test.
PM CEMS are optional for all sources
in lieu of annual PM test required.
Bag leak detection systems are required for units equipped with FF.
SO2 CEMS are optional for all
sources in lieu of annual SO2 test.
None ....................................................
Reference Methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
This proposal contains no specific
data availability requirements for
continuous monitoring systems.
Generally, monitoring must be
conducted and emissions data must be
collected at all times the SSI unit is
operating, except for periods of
monitoring system malfunction, repairs
associated with monitoring system
malfunction, and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality
control activities. We seek comment on
approaches to provide this data, e.g.,
redundant CEMS, prescribed missing
data procedures, owner- or operatordeveloped missing data procedures, or
parametric monitoring. EPA is
considering changing the averaging
times for all CEMS and CASS from 24hour block averages to 12-hour rolling
averages to be consistent with the
averaging times of the PS tests. We are
requesting comment on the change.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
Additionally, we seek comment on the
proposed 4-hour rolling averaging time
for compliance with operating limits.
The proposed rules would require
repeat performance tests and updates to
the monitoring plan if any of the
following process changes occur: (1) A
change in the process employed at the
wastewater treatment facility that affects
the SSI unit, (2) a change in the air
pollution control devices used to
comply with the emission limits and (3)
an increase in the allowable wastewater
received from an industrial source to the
wastewater treatment facility. We are
requesting comment on these
requirements and on the designation of
what a process change is at a SSI unit.
The OW 503 standards allow
compliance demonstration by analyzing
the pollutant concentration in the
sludge ensuring the concentrations are
sufficiently low that emission limits
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
may be met. We request comment on
whether facilities should be allowed to
comply with the EG and NSPS based on
monitoring the content of the sludge
entering the SSI unit.
In previous CAA section 129
standards, a waste management plan
was required to identify both the
feasibility and the approach to
separating certain components of solid
waste from the waste stream to reduce
the amount of toxic emissions from
incinerated waste. Elements of the waste
management plan included identifying
reasonably available additional waste
management measures, the cost and
emission reductions of the additional
measures and other associated
environmental or energy impacts.
As previously discussed, all SSI units
are required to meet the EPA’s OW part
503 standards. Part 503 establishes daily
average concentration limits for Pb, Cd
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63282
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and other metals in sewage sludge that
is disposed of by incineration. Part 503
also requires that SSI units meet the
National Emission Standards for
Beryllium and Mercury in subparts C
and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61.
In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503
standards, facilities are already
incorporating management practices
and measures to reduce waste and limit
the concentration of pollutants in the
sludge sent to SSI units, such as
segregating contaminated and
uncontaminated wastes and establishing
discharge limits or pre-treatment
standards for non-domestic users
discharging wastewater to POTW. We
are requesting comment on the need for
a waste management plan for SSI units
in the promulgated rules.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
Section 129 of the CAA requires the
EPA to develop regulations that include
requirements for reporting the results of
testing and monitoring performed to
determine compliance with the
standards and guidelines. The
requirements must specify the form and
frequency of the reports demonstrating
compliance. If there are no exceedances,
compliance reports are submitted
annually. However, if there is an
exceedance, reports showing the
exceedance of any standard or guideline
must be submitted separately for review
and potential enforcement action.
Copies of testing and monitoring results
must be maintained on file at the
affected facility. Other types of records
are necessary to ensure that all
provisions of the standards or
guidelines are being met. Examples
include siting analyses and operator
training and qualification records.
G. Rationale for Operator Training and
Qualification Requirements
The proposed standards and
guidelines include operator training and
qualification requirements for SSI unit
operators. These requirements provide
flexibility by allowing State approved
training and qualification programs.
Where there are no State approved
programs, the proposed regulations
include minimum requirements for
training and qualification. The
minimum requirements include
completion of a training course covering
specified topics.
In developing these requirements,
training and qualification programs
currently proposed or promulgated for
other types of solid waste incineration
units were reviewed to develop
requirements appropriate for the SSI
source category.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
H. Rationale for Siting Requirements
Section 129 of the CAA states that
performance standards for new solid
waste incineration units must
incorporate siting requirements that
minimize, on a site-specific basis and to
the maximum extent practicable,
potential risks to public health or the
environment. In accordance with
section 129, the EPA is proposing site
selection criteria for SSI units that
commence construction on or after the
date of proposal of this rule (i.e., ‘‘new’’
units). The siting requirements would
not apply to existing SSI units.
The siting requirements in this
proposal would require the owner or
operator of a new unit to prepare an
analysis of the impacts of the new unit.
The owner or operator must consider air
pollution control alternatives that
minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the
maximum extent practicable, potential
risks to public health or the
environment. In considering such
alternatives, the owner or operator may
consider costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts, or any other
factors related to the practicability of the
alternatives. To avoid duplication,
analyses of facility impacts prepared to
comply with State, local, or other
Federal regulatory requirements may be
used to satisfy this requirement,
provided they include the consideration
of air pollution control alternatives
specified previously. Such State, local,
or Federal requirements may include,
but are not limited to, State-specific
criteria or national criteria established
by the National Environmental Policy
Act or new source review permitting
requirements. The owner or operator
must submit the siting information to
EPA prior to commencing construction
of the facility.
I. What are the SSM provisions?
The United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated portions of 2 provisions in
EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically,
the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1), (the ‘‘General Provisions
Rule,’’) that EPA promulgated under
section 112 of the CAA. When
incorporated into CAA section 112(d)
regulations for specific source
categories, these 2 provisions exempt
sources from the requirement to comply
with the otherwise applicable CAA
section 112(d) emission standard during
periods of SSM. The Court found that
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the definition of ‘‘emission standards,’’
which appears at 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and
which applies equally to sections 112
and 129, requires EPA to apply MACT
emissions standards on a continuous
basis, thereby precluding exemptions
applied for malfunctions or other
singular events.17 Thus, the legality of
source category-specific SSM
exemptions in rules promulgated
pursuant to section 129 is questionable.
Therefore, consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, EPA is proposing that the
standards in this rule apply at all times.
EPA has attempted to ensure that we
have not incorporated into proposed
regulatory language any provisions that
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant in the absence of a SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking
comment on whether there are any such
provisions that we have inadvertently
incorporated or overlooked. If we
receive relevant data that would warrant
different standards, we may set those
standards in the final rule.
We note that the General Provisions of
40 CFR part 60 include provisions that
are inconsistent with the proposed
requirement that the SSI emissions
standards apply at all times. For
example, the General Provisions states
that exceedances during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction are
generally not considered violations of
the standards.18 To avoid confusion
between the General Provisions and the
SSI emissions regulations, we are
proposing that, in circumstances where
the requirements of the General
Provisions are inconsistent with the
requirements of the SSI emissions
regulations, the provisions in the SSI
regulations will control.
In establishing the standards in this
rule, EPA has taken into account startup
and shutdown periods and, for the
reasons explained below, has not
established different standards for those
periods.
We are not proposing a separate
emission standard for the source
category that applies during periods of
startup and shutdown. Based on the
information available at this time, we
believe that SSI units will be able to
meet the emission limits during periods
of startup. Units we have information on
use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate
oil to start the unit and add waste once
the unit has reached combustion
temperatures. Emissions from burning
natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel
oil are expected to generally be lower
than from burning solid wastes.
Emissions during periods of shutdown
17 551
18 See
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
F.3d at 1027.
40 CFR 60.8(c).
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
are also generally lower than emissions
during normal operations because the
materials in the incinerator would be
almost fully combusted before
shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the
approach for establishing MACT floors
for SSI units ranked individual SSI
units based on actual performance for
each pollutant and subcategory, with an
appropriate accounting of emissions
variability. Because we accounted for
emissions variability, we believe we
have adequately addressed any minor
variability that may potentially occur
during startup or shutdown.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
However, by contrast, 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 63.2). 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
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
significant 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
SSI. As noted above, by definition,
malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events, and it would be
difficult to set a standard that takes into
account the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all
sources in the category. Moreover,
malfunctions can vary in frequency,
degree, and duration, further
complicating standard setting.
For the SSI standards, malfunctions
are required to be reported in deviation
reports. We will then review the
deviation reports to determine if the
deviation is a violation of the standards.
In the event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
129 standards as a result of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.’’ 19
Moreover, EPA recognizes that even
equipment that is properly designed and
maintained can fail and that such failure
can sometimes cause an exceedance of
the relevant emission standard.20 EPA is
therefore proposing to add to the final
rule an affirmative defense to civil
penalties for exceedances of emission
limits that are caused by malfunctions.21
We also added other regulatory
provisions to specify the elements that
are necessary to establish this
affirmative defense; the source must
prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that it has met all of the
elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860
and in 40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria
ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that
causes an exceedance of the emission
limit meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonable preventable
and not caused by poor maintenance
and or careless operation). The criteria
also are designed to ensure that steps
are taken to correct the malfunction, to
minimize emissions in accordance with
section 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL
and 40 CFR part 60 subpart MMMM and
to prevent future malfunctions. In any
judicial or administrative proceeding,
the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and,
if the respondent has not met its burden
of proving all of the requirements in the
affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance
19 40
CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy
Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20,
1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,
Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983).
21 See proposed definition 40 CFR 60.4930 and 40
CFR 60.5250 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to
mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding,
a response or defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of
proof, and the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding).
20 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63283
with section 113 of the Clean Air Act
(see also 40 CFR Part 22.77).
J. Delegation of Authority To Implement
and Enforce These Provisions
We are proposing a section on
delegation of authority to clarify which
authorities can be delegated or
transferred to State, local, and tribal air
pollution control agencies in this
rulemaking and which are retained by
EPA. For previous rules, there has been
some confusion about what authority
can be delegated to and exercised by
State, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies and what authority
must be retained by EPA. In some cases,
State, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies were making decisions,
such as allowing waivers of some
provisions of this subpart, which cannot
be delegated to those agencies.
In the proposed SSI NSPS, the
authorities that would be retained by
EPA are listed in 40 CFR 60.4785 of
subpart LLLL. They include authorities
that must be retained by EPA for all
NSPS: Approval of alternatives to the
emission limits, approval of major
alternatives to test methods, or
monitoring and approval of major
alternatives to recordkeeping and
reporting. The list also specifically
includes establishment of operating
limits for control devices other than
those listed in the rule per proposed 40
CFR 60.4855; and review of status
reports submitted when no qualified
operators are available per proposed 40
CFR 60.4835(b)(2). It also includes the
approval of performance test and data
reduction waivers under 40 CFR 60.8(b)
and preconstruction siting analysis in
proposed 40 CFR 60.4800. These
authorities may affect the stringency of
the emission standards or limitations,
which can only be amended by Federal
rulemaking; thus they cannot be
transferred to State, local, or tribal air
pollution control agencies. We are also
including 40 CFR 60.5050 in the
proposed EG to make the provisions
regarding the implementation and
enforcement authorities in both subparts
LLLL and MMMM 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.
K. 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 proposed 40 CFR 60.5045
that will clarify how states and eligible
tribes can fulfill the obligation under
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63284
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CAA 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
60.5045 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. Impacts of the Proposed Action for
Existing Units
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential
emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the
proposed emission limits. Table 12 of
this preamble summarizes the emission
reductions for MACT compliance for
each pollutant. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum
‘‘Analysis of Beyond the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.’’
TABLE 12—PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS IF ALL ENTITIES COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED
EMISSION LIMITS
Reductions achieved
through meeting MACT by
subcategory (TPY)
Pollutant
Total
reductions
(TPY)
Fluidized
bed
Multiple
hearth
Cd ............................................................................................................................................................
CDD/CDF TEQ ........................................................................................................................................
CDD/CDF TMB ........................................................................................................................................
CO ............................................................................................................................................................
HCl ...........................................................................................................................................................
Hg ............................................................................................................................................................
NOX ..........................................................................................................................................................
Pb .............................................................................................................................................................
PM ............................................................................................................................................................
SO2 ..........................................................................................................................................................
0.0010
0.0000065
0.000079
0
1.5
0.058
0
0.0053
41
60
1.4
0.0000013
0.000020
0
92
2.7
4.3
2.6
278
2,100
1.4
0.0000078
0.000099
0
93
2.7
4.3
2.6
319
2,200
Total ..................................................................................................................................................
102
2,510
2,610
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. What are the water and solid waste
impacts?
We anticipate affected sources would
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 346 million gallons per
year of additional wastewater would be
generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased
sorbents.
Likewise, the addition of PM controls
or improvements to controls already in
place would increase the amount of
particulate collected that would require
disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon
injection may be utilized by some
sources, which would result in
additional solid waste needing disposal.
The annual amounts of solid waste that
would require disposal are anticipated
to be approximately 364 TPY from PM
capture and 11,400 TPY from activated
carbon injection. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum
‘‘Secondary Impacts for the Sewage
Sludge Incineration Source Category.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
3. 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
improved air pollution control devices.
For example, increased scrubber pump
horsepower may cause slight increases
in electricity consumption; sorbent
injection controls would likewise
require electricity to power pumps and
motors. We anticipate that an additional
33,800 megawatt-hours per year would
be required for the additional and
improved control devices. The analysis
is documented in the memorandum
‘‘Secondary Impacts for the Sewage
Sludge Incineration Source Category.’’
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For SSI units adding controls to meet
the proposed emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air
impacts. The combustion of fuel needed
to generate additional electricity would
yield slight increases in emissions,
including NOX, CO, PM and SO2 and an
increase in CO2 emissions. Since NOX
and SO2 are covered by capped
emissions trading programs, and
methodological limitations prevent us
from quantifying the change in CO and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PM, we do not estimate an increase in
secondary air impacts for this rule from
additional electricity demand.
5. What are the cost and economic
impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs
for all existing units to add the
necessary controls, monitoring
equipment, inspections, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to comply
with Option 2 (i.e., the proposed SSI
standards). Based on this analysis, we
anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $225 million with an
associated total annualized cost of $105
million, in 2008 dollars (and using a
discount rate of 7 percent), as shown in
Table 13 of this preamble. We anticipate
that owner/operators will need to install
1 or more air pollution control devices
for 214 of the 218 affected units to meet
the proposed emission limits. We are
requesting comment on whether there
are space constraints at wastewater
treatment facilities that would affect the
feasibility and cost of installing air
pollution control devices. The analysis
is documented in the memorandum
‘‘Analysis of Beyond the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units.’’
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
63285
TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR EXISTING SSI IF ALL ENTITIES COMPLY WITH PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS
[Millions of 2008$]
Capital cost
($ million)
Subcategory
Annualized cost
($ million/yr) a
Fluidized Bed ...............................................................................................................................................
Multiple Hearth .............................................................................................................................................
86.7
138.0
32.3
72.7
Total ......................................................................................................................................................
224.7
105.0
a
Calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent.
Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge
Disposal. We have also evaluated the
possibility that existing SSI owners
would dispose of sewage sludge through
alternative methods rather than
incineration, such as landfilling, land
application, or sending sewage sludge to
another SSI unit. The alternative
method we analyzed was landfilling,
which is generally more expensive than
land application, but would provide a
more conservative estimate of the cost of
alternative disposal.
We conducted this analysis by
determining the cost of landfilling and
then subtracting the existing cost of
operating the SSI unit (because this cost
would no longer be incurred). The cost
of landfilling sewage sludge included
landfill tipping fees as well as
transportation costs. The cost of storing
dewatered sewage sludge on-site for up
to four days was also included in the
landfilling cost. Sewage sludge
incineration unit operating costs were
obtained from ICR questionnaires sent
to 9 facilities. These costs are discussed
in more detail in the memorandum
‘‘Cost and Emission Reduction of the
MACT Floor Level of Control,’’ which is
in the SSI docket. We request comment
on the assumptions and cost estimates
used for the landfilling option. The
results of the analysis shows that, for
most facilities, landfilling sewage sludge
is a more economically advantageous
disposal option than continuing to
operate their SSI unit. It was assumed
that smaller sources presented with the
option of applying MACT controls or
landfilling would select landfilling
because the analysis shows a cost
savings, even when not considering the
additional cost of MACT controls. If the
cost of the MACT controls were also
included, it would be even more
advantageous to landfill.
However, there are several
uncertainties with the analysis that may
significantly impact the results. These
include:
• The operating cost information was
based on only the 9 ICR respondents, which
are larger units. Smaller units may have
lower or different operating costs that are not
captured in the operating cost factors or
different capacity utilizations or operating
hours.
• For some SSI units, the nearest landfill
accepting sewage sludge may be farther than
assumed in the analysis.
To confirm the results of the analysis,
we contacted 9 owners of wastewater
treatment facilities that would be
considered small entities, that is, the
population of the municipalities or
regional authorities that own the facility
were less than or equal to 50,000
people. We also reviewed company Web
sites for other small entities to find the
status of the SSI units. The results of the
data collection showed that the majority
of small entities have shut down their
SSI unit and are either land applying or
landfilling. Others are planning on
landfilling in the future. The data
collection, as well as the cost estimate
for the landfilling option is discussed in
the memorandum, ‘‘Cost and Emission
Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of
Control.’’
While we are able to confirm this
analysis for smaller entities, we were
unable to conduct it for larger entities.
We also believe that facilities that use
larger SSI units may have more
difficulty in landfilling sewage sludge
due to potential capacity issues at
landfills. This may result in higher
tipping fees and transportation costs to
find landfills with available capacity. As
a result of these concerns, we do not
believe that larger entities would
necessarily find it more advantageous to
landfill sewage sludge.
We believe that smaller entities (i.e.,
with populations less than 50,000
people) are likely to landfill. This would
result in lowered costs of compliance
with the MACT for existing sources, as
well as minor changes in the emission
reductions achieved. We also believe
that based on our estimates there will be
no increased cost to small entities using
this alternative option. However, it does
not change the result that option 2
(MACT floor levels plus meeting the
beyond-the-floor Hg limit of 0.02 mg/
dscm) would be appropriate due to the
significant Hg emissions reductions that
would still occur for larger sources. The
analysis is documented in the
memorandum ‘‘Analysis of Beyond the
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for
Existing SSI Units.’’
Table 14 of this preamble summarizes
the costs associated with small entities
landfilling and large entities complying
with the MACT control levels. For the
option selected, we estimate that 196
(90%) of the affected units will need to
install 1 or more air pollution control
devices.
TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS IF LARGE ENTITIES COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED EMISSION
LIMITS AND SMALL ENTITIES UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL (i.e., LANDFILL)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
[Millions of 2008$]
Capital cost
($ million)
Subcategory
Annualized cost
($ million/yr) a
Fluidized Bed .................................................................................................................................................
Multiple Hearth ...............................................................................................................................................
70.0
130.9
26.2
62.5
Total ........................................................................................................................................................
200.9
88.7
a Calculated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
using a discount factor of 7 percent.
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63286
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
We have estimated the potential
emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the
proposed emission limits. For the case
where small entities choose to landfill,
some emission reductions are offset by
landfilling are subtracted from the total
reductions resulting from units
complying or shutting down. Table 15
of this preamble summarizes the net
emission reductions for each pollutant.
emissions resulting from hauling,
landfill gas generation, and flaring. The
estimation of these emissions is
documented in the memorandum ‘‘Cost
and Emission Reduction of the MACT
Floor Level of Control.’’ Emissions from
TABLE 15—PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING SSI IF LARGE ENTITIES COMPLY WITH THE EMISSION
LIMITS AND SMALL ENTITIES UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL (i.e., LANDFILL)
Reductions achieved
through meeting
MACT by subcategory
(TPY)
Pollutant
Emissions
from hauling
(TPY)
Emissions
from
landfill
and flare
(TPY)
Total
reductions
(TPY)
Fluidized
bed
Multiple
hearth
Cd ............................................................................................................
CDD/CDF TEQ ........................................................................................
CDD/CDF TMB ........................................................................................
CO ............................................................................................................
HCl ...........................................................................................................
Hg ............................................................................................................
Pb .............................................................................................................
PM ............................................................................................................
NOX ..........................................................................................................
SO2 ..........................................................................................................
0.0028
0.0000065
0.000080
19
1.8
0.061
0.15
43
53.0
77
1.55
0.0000013
0.000020
3,100
95
2.7
3.0
350
794
2,200
0
0
0
6.0
0
0
0
1.3
22
0.052
0
0
0
240
0.38
0.00000023
0
0.90
2.1
0.75
1.6
0.0000078
0.000099
2,900
96
2.8
3.0
390
823
2,300
Total ..................................................................................................
190
6,410
30
244
6,330
With respect to water and solid waste
impacts in the case where large entities
comply and small entities landfill, we
estimate an annual requirement of 319
million gallons per year of additional
wastewater would be generated as a
result of operating additional controls or
increased sorbents for the units that add
controls to comply with the rule.
Additionally, the annual amounts of
solid waste that would require disposal
are anticipated to be approximately 324
TPY from PM capture and 10,000 TPY
from activated carbon injection. The
largest impact on solid waste, however,
would come from small entities
choosing to discontinue the use of their
SSI and instead send the waste to a
landfill. We estimate approximately
359,000 TPY of waste would be diverted
to landfills. The analysis is documented
in the memorandum ‘‘Secondary
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge
Incineration Source Category.’’ We
request comment on whether landfilling
is more advantageous environmentally
than the incineration of sewage sludge.
As described in section V.A.3 of this
preamble, the energy impacts associated
with meeting the proposed emission
limits would consist primarily of
additional electricity needs to run
added or improved air pollution control
devices. For the scenario where only
large entities comply, we anticipate that
an additional 29,200 megawatt-hours
per year would be required for the
additional and improved control
devices. The analysis is documented in
the memorandum ‘‘Secondary Impacts
for the Sewage Sludge Incineration
Source Category.’’
For SSI units adding controls to meet
the proposed emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air
impacts. As previously noted, in the
case where small entities choose to
landfill, there would be additional air
impacts due to emissions generated by
trucks hauling waste and emissions
from landfill gas and flaring. Table 16 of
this preamble summarizes the estimated
results.
TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR EXISTING SOURCES IF LARGE ENTITIES COMPLY WITH THE
PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS AND SMALL ENTITIES UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL (i.e., LANDFILL)
Secondary air impacts from
diverting SSI waste to
landfills (TPY)
Pollutant
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Wastehauling
vehicles
Cd ......................................................................................................................................................
CDD/CDF, TEQ .................................................................................................................................
CO ......................................................................................................................................................
HCl .....................................................................................................................................................
Hg ......................................................................................................................................................
NOX ....................................................................................................................................................
Pb .......................................................................................................................................................
PM ......................................................................................................................................................
PM2.5 ..................................................................................................................................................
SO2 ....................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
—
—
6.03
—
—
21.84
—
1.30
1.12
0.05
14OCP2
Landfill gas
and flare
—
—
240.2
0.38
0.000000233
2.11
—
0.90
—
0.75
Total
secondary
impacts
(ton/yr)
—
—
246.23
0.38
0.000000233
23.95
—
2.20
1.12
0.80
63287
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FOR EXISTING SOURCES IF LARGE ENTITIES COMPLY WITH THE
PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS AND SMALL ENTITIES UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL (i.e., LANDFILL)—Continued
Secondary air impacts from
diverting SSI waste to
landfills (TPY)
Pollutant
Wastehauling
vehicles
Total ............................................................................................................................................
Because the proposed regulatory
option affects governmental entities (96
of the 97 owners are governmental
entities) providing services not provided
in a market, the economic analysis
focused on the comparison of control
cost to total governmental revenue. (See
Table 17 of this preamble.) Table 17 sets
forth the overall costs to large and small
municipalities and shows that there will
Landfill gas
and flare
30.35
Total
secondary
impacts
(ton/yr)
244.3
274.65
be no increased costs to small
municipalities and a net, relatively
small, increase for large municipalities.
TABLE 17—REVENUE TESTS FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IF LARGE ENTITIES COMPLY WITH THE EMISSION LIMITS AND
SMALL ENTITIES UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL (i.e., LANDFILL)
Sample statistic for cost-revenue-ratios
Small
Mean ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Median .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Minimum ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Maximum .................................................................................................................................................................................
Number of Entities ...................................................................................................................................................................
Number of Entities >1% ..........................................................................................................................................................
Number of Entities >3% ..........................................................................................................................................................
¥0.6%
¥0.2%
¥2.6%
0.7%
18
0
0
Large
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
1.0%
79
0
0
None of the entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than 1 percent.
B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for
New Units
As discussed in section IV.C.2 of this
preamble, based on trends of SSI units
constructed and replaced, technical
advantages of FB incinerators, and
information provided by the industry on
likely units constructed, we believe that
new SSI units constructed are likely to
be FB incinerators.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential
emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the
proposed emission limits on 2 new FB
incinerators potentially being
constructed in the next 5 years. Table 18
of this preamble summarizes the
emission reductions for MACT
compliance for each pollutant. The
analysis is documented in the
memorandum ‘‘Estimation of Impacts for
New Units Constructed Within 5 Years
After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
TABLE 18—EMISSION REDUCTIONS
FOR 2 NEW SSI UNITS (i.e., FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATORS) CONSTRUCTED
Pollutant
Emission reduction
(TPY)
Cd .............................................
CDD/CDF, TEQ ........................
CDD/CDF, TMB ........................
CO ............................................
HCl ............................................
Hg .............................................
NOX ..........................................
Pb .............................................
PM ............................................
PM2.5 .........................................
SO2 ...........................................
0.00047
0.00000038
0.0000044
3.022
0.033
0.0036
1.07
0.0031
2.43
2.76
1.01
Total ..........................................
10.33
2. What are the water and solid waste
impacts?
We anticipate affected sources would
need to apply controls in addition to
what they would have planned to
include in the absence of this rule to
meet the proposed emission limits.
These controls may utilize water, such
as wet scrubbers, which would need to
be treated. We estimate an annual
requirement of 18.2 million gallons per
year of additional wastewater would be
generated as a result of operating
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
additional controls or increased
sorbents for the 2 new units expected to
come online in the next 5 years. The
analysis is documented in the
memorandum ‘‘Analysis of New Units
for the Sewage Sludge Incineration
Source Category Analysis of Secondary
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge
Incineration Source Category.’’
Likewise, the application of PM
controls results in particulate collected
that would require disposal.
Furthermore, activated carbon injection
may be used by some sources, which
would result in solid waste needing
disposal. The annual amounts of solid
waste that would require disposal are
anticipated to be approximately 4 TPY
from PM capture and 97 TPY from
activated carbon injection for the 2
units.
3. 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
improved air pollution control devices.
For example, increased scrubber pump
horsepower may cause slight increases
in electricity consumption. Sorbent
injection controls would likewise
require electricity to power pumps and
motors. By our estimate, we anticipate
that an additional 1,350 megawatt-hours
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63288
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
per year would be required for the
additional and improved control
devices for the 2 new units modeled to
come online in the next 5 years. The
analysis is documented in the
memorandum ‘‘Analysis of Secondary
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge
Incineration Source Category Analysis
of New Units for the Sewage Sludge
Incineration Source Category.’’
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For SSI units adding controls to meet
the proposed emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air
impacts. The analysis is documented in
the memorandum ‘‘Analysis of
Secondary Impacts for the Sewage
Sludge Incineration Source Category.’’
5. What are the cost impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs
for new SSI units coming online in the
next 5 years. This analysis is based on
a model plant, the assumption that 2
new units will come online and will
add the necessary controls, monitoring
equipment, inspections, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to comply
with the proposed SSI standards. Based
on this analysis, we anticipate an
overall total capital investment of $7.81
million (2008$) with an associated total
annualized cost of $2.70 million (2008$
and using a 7 percent discount rate).
This analysis assumes that new SSI
units constructed are only FB
incinerators, as discussed in section
IV.C.2 of this preamble.
C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and
EG
We estimate the monetized benefits of
this proposed regulatory action to be
$130 million to $320 million (2008$, 3
percent discount rate) in the
implementation year (2015). The
monetized benefits of the proposed
regulatory action at a 7 percent discount
rate are $120 million to $290 million
(2008$). These estimates reflect energy
disbenefits valued at $0.5 million. Using
alternate relationships between PM2.5
and premature mortality supplied by
experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between
these 2 estimates.22 A summary of the
monetized benefits estimates at discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in
Table 19 of this preamble.
TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR NEW AND EXISTING SSI UNITS IN 2015
[Millions of 2008$] 1
Total
monetized
benefits
(3% discount rate)
Estimated
emission
reductions
(TPY)
Pollutant
Total
monetized
benefits
(7% discount
rate)
PM2.5 ..............................................................................
254
$58 to $140 ...................................................................
$52 to $130.
PM2.5 Precursors:
SO2 .........................................................................
NOX ........................................................................
2,298
824
$68 to $170 ...................................................................
$4.0 to $9.8 ...................................................................
$61 to $150.
$3.6 to $8.8.
Total ........................................................................
........................
$130 to $320 .................................................................
$120 to $290.
1 All
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to 2 significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. All fine
particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to come online by 2015, and the assumption that some small entities will landfill. These estimates do not include the energy
disbenefits valued at $0.5 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits were calculated using the social cost of carbon,
which is discussed further in the RIA.
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 laid out in Fann et al.
(2009).23
To generate the benefit-per-ton
estimates, we used a model to convert
emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in ambient
PM2.5 levels and another model to
estimate the changes in human health
associated with that change in air
quality. Finally, the monetized health
benefits were divided by the emission
reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. These models assume that all
fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally
potent in causing premature mortality
because there is no clear scientific
evidence that would support the
development of differential effects
estimates by particle type. Directly
emitted PM, SO2, and NOX are the
primary PM2.5 precursors affected by
this rule. Even though we assume that
all fine particles have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates
vary between precursors because each
ton of precursor reduced has a different
propensity to form PM2.5. For example,
SO2 has a lower benefit-per-ton estimate
than direct PM2.5 because it does not
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 on both
empirical (epidemiological) studies and
judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty
in the relationship between PM2.5
concentrations and premature mortality.
For this proposed rule, we cite two key
22 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.
23 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
empirical studies, one based on the
American Cancer Society cohort
study 24 and the extended Six Cities
cohort study.25 In the RIA for this
proposed rule, which is available in the
docket, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert
judgments and other assumptions.
EPA strives to use the best available
science to support our benefits analyses.
We recognize that interpretation of the
science regarding air pollution and
health is dynamic and evolving. After
reviewing the scientific literature and
recent scientific advice, we have
determined that the no-threshold model
is the most appropriate model for
assessing the mortality benefits
associated with reducing PM2.5
exposure. Consistent with this recent
advice, we are replacing the previous
threshold sensitivity analysis with a
new ‘‘LML’’ assessment. While an LML
assessment provides some insight into
the level of uncertainty in the estimated
PM mortality benefits, EPA does not
view the LML as a threshold and
continues to quantify PM-related
mortality impacts using a full range of
modeled air quality concentrations.
Most of the estimated PM-related
benefits in this rule would accrue to
populations exposed to higher levels of
PM2.5. Using the Pope, et al., (2002)
study, 85 percent of the population is
exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 μg/
m3. Using the Laden, et al., (2006)
study, 40 percent of the population is
exposed above the LML of 10 μg/m3. It
is important to emphasize that we have
high confidence in PM2.5-related effects
down to the lowest LML of the major
cohort studies. This fact is important,
because as we estimate PM-related
mortality among populations exposed to
levels of PM2.5 that are successively
lower, our confidence in the results
diminishes. However, our analysis
shows that the great majority of the
impacts occur at higher exposures.
This analysis does not include the
type of detailed uncertainty assessment
found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA
because we lack the necessary air
quality input and monitoring data to run
the benefits model. In addition, we have
not conducted any air quality modeling
for this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
benefits analysis 26 provides an
24 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.
25 Laden et al., 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine
Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
173: 667–672.
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
HAP have not been monetized in this
analysis, including reducing 2,900 tons
of CO, 96 tons of HCl, 3.0 tons of Pb,
1.6 tons of Cd, 5,500 pounds of Hg and
78 grams of total CDD/CDF each year.
Although we do not have sufficient
information or modeling available to
provide monetized estimates for this
rulemaking, we include a qualitative
assessment of the health effects of these
air pollutants in the RIA for this
proposed rule, which is available in the
docket.
In addition, the monetized benefits
estimates provided in Table 19 do not
reflect the disbenefits associated with
increased electricity and fuel
consumption to operate the control
devices. We estimate that the increases
in emissions of CO2 would have
disbenefits valued at $0.5 million for the
proposed option assuming that small
entities landfill at a 3 percent discount
rate. CO2-related disbenefits were
calculated using the social cost of
carbon, which is discussed further in
the RIA. However, these disbenefits do
not change the rounded total monetized
benefits of the proposed option, which
are still $130 million to $320 million
and $120 million to $290 million, at
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent, respectively.
The social costs of this proposed
rulemaking are estimated to be $92
million (2008$) in the implementation
year and the monetized benefits
including energy disbenefits are $130
million to $320 million (2008$, 3
percent discount rate) for that same
year. The monetized benefits including
energy disbenefits at a 7 percent
discount rate are $120 million to $290
million (2008$). Thus, net benefits of
this rulemaking including energy
disbenefits estimated at $37 million to
$220 million (2008$, 3 percent discount
rate) and $26 million to $190 million
(2008$, 7 percent discount rate).
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action
to CAA Sections 112(c)(3) and
112(k)(3)(B)(ii)
Clean Air Act sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii) instruct EPA to identify and
list area source categories representing
Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. October.
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
ecas/ria.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63289
at least 90 percent of the emissions of
the 30 ‘‘listed’’ HAP (64 FR 38706, July
19, 1999), that are, or will be, subject to
standards under section 112(d) of the
CAA. The 30 HAP are the result of
emissions from area sources that pose
the greatest threat to public health in the
largest number of urban areas. Under
the provisions of section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA, SSI was added
to the inventory. Each of the source
categories added, including SSI,
contributes a certain percentage of the
total area source emissions for at least
1 of the 30 area source HAP and makes
progress towards meeting our
requirement to address 90 percent of the
emissions of each of the 30 area source
HAP.
As required by the statute, the CAA
section 129 SSI standards include
numeric emission limits for the 9
pollutants specified in section 129(a)(4)
and opacity. The combination of
wastewater pretreatment, good
combustion practices and add-on air
pollution control devices (e.g., FF,
scrubbers, activated carbon injection,
afterburners) effectively reduces
emissions of the pollutants for which
emission limits are required under CAA
section 129: Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, HCl, Hg,
Pb, NOX, PM and SO2.
Although, CAA section 129 standards
for SSI will not set separate specific
numerical emission limits for sections
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) urban air HAP,
the SSI standards will result in
substantial reductions of 7–PAH, Cr,
Mn, Ni, and PCB. These additional
emission reductions are due to cocontrol of pollutants by the same air
pollution control devices used to
comply with the CAA section 129 SSI
standard. Air pollution control devices
are necessary to comply with the
requirements of the SSI NSPS and EG.
Add-on air pollution control devices to
control PM will also reduce emissions
of compounds that coalesce to form on
PM (e.g., Mn, Ni, Cr, etc.). The addition
of any post-combustion device to
control organics such as CO and CDD/
CDF will also reduce emissions for any
byproducts of incomplete combustion
such as additional organic pollutants
(e.g., 7–PAH and PCB). The addition of
wet scrubbers will also reduce
emissions of compounds that are water
soluble. Additionally, the NSPS
emission limits will promote the
construction of new FB incinerators
rather than MH incinerators. Fluidized
bed incinerators have significantly
lower emissions of all organic
compounds and NOX.
While the proposed rule does not
identify specific numerical emission
limits for 7–PAH, Cr, Mn, Ni and PCB,
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63290
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
emissions of those pollutants are for the
reasons noted above, nonetheless,
subject to regulation for the purposes of
section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) of the
CAA. In lieu of establishing numerical
emission limits for pollutants such as
PCB and 7–PAH, CAA section 129 (a)(4)
allows EPA to regulate surrogate
substances. While we have not
identified specific numerical limits for
7–PAH or PCB, we believe CO serves as
an effective surrogate of those
pollutants, because CO, like 7–PAH and
PCB, is formed as a byproduct of
combustion. We believe that CDD/CDF
also serve as an effective surrogate for
PCB, because the compounds act
similarly and, thus, are expected to be
controlled similarly using SSI emission
control devices (e.g., wet scrubbers, FF,
activated carbon injection).
VII. Relationship of the Proposed
Action to Other SSI Rules for the Use
or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
Under authority of section 405(d) and
(e) of the CWA, as amended 33 U.S.C.A.
1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated
regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40
CFR part 503 designed to protect public
health and the environment from any
reasonably anticipated adverse effects of
certain pollutants that may be present in
sewage sludge. The part 503 regulations
establish requirements for the final use
and disposal of sewage sludge when: (1)
The sludge is applied to the land for a
beneficial use (e.g., for use in home
gardens); (2) the sludge is disposed on
land by placing it on surface disposal
sites; and (3) the sewage sludge is
incinerated. The standards apply to
POTW that generate or treat domestic
sewage sludge, as well as to any person
who uses or disposes of sewage sludge
from such treatment works.
The part 503 requirements for firing
sewage sludge in a SSI are in subpart E
of the regulations. Subpart E includes
general requirements; pollutant limits;
operational standards; management
practices; and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
These part 503 regulations require
that SSI meet the National Emission
Standards for Beryllium and Hg in
subparts C and E, respectively, of 40
CFR part 61. The regulations also
require that the allowable concentration
of 5 other inorganic pollutants be
calculated using equations in the
regulation. The inorganic pollutants
included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The
terms in the equations must be
determined on a case-by-case basis,
except for the risk-specific
concentration for the inhalation
exposure pathway to protect individuals
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
when these pollutants are inhaled. The
site-specific variables for the equations
(incinerator type, dispersion factor,
control efficiency, feed rate, and stack
height) must be used to calculate
allowable daily concentrations of As,
Cd, Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge
fed to the incinerator.
Also included in subpart E is an
operational standard for THC. The value
for THC in the final part 503 regulation
cannot be exceeded in the exit gas from
the SSI stack. Management practices
and frequency of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements are also included in this
subpart.
Under today’s proposed rule, EPA is
establishing limits for 3 of the inorganic
pollutants covered by the current part
503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and the
following 7 additional pollutants: HCl,
CO, opacity, NOX, SO2, PM, and total
CDD/CDF. Besides the pollutants
covered here, there are other differences
between the part 503 regulations and
this proposed rule. The emission limits
for inorganic pollutants under part 503
are risk-based numbers rather than
technology-based. Also, part 503 does
not distinguish between new and
existing units or between incinerator
types (i.e., MH or FB incinerator) for
setting emission limits since emission
limits are based on risks to a highly
exposed individual.
Because both part 503 and this
proposed rule cover the same universe
of facilities, there are certain issues that
arise in terms of potential impacts to
current SSI facilities. First, we expect
that the regulation of sewage sludge
under CAA section 129 under the
proposed rule would result in stricter
emission standards than under the
current CWA rule. Consequently, a
potential impact of this rule is that some
of the estimated 112 facilities that
operate SSI as the primary means of
disposal could discontinue this practice
and would instead landfill their sewage
sludge (see earlier discussion in section
V of this preamble on the analysis of
alternative sewage sludge disposal).
Second, one must consider the available
capacity of surface disposal sites to
receive additional sewage sludge and
the potential for added costs if the use
of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI would
be subject to 2 different sets of
requirements (numeric standards,
operational standards, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting) under the
2 different statutes if the proposed rule
is implemented, creating an additional
burden to these facilities unless
alternative regulatory approaches are
implemented. EPA plans to evaluate the
requirements under both statutes once
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this proposed rule is finalized to
determine what changes, if any, should
be made to the part 503 regulations.
EPA requests comments on other
potential impacts of this proposed rule
on SSI.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to 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. In addition, EPA prepared a
RIA of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.
When estimating the PM2.5- and
ozone-related human health benefits
and compliance costs in Table 20 below,
EPA applied methods and assumptions
consistent with the State-of-the-science
for human health impact assessment,
economics, and air quality analysis.
EPA applied its best professional
judgment in performing this analysis
and believes that these estimates
provide a reasonable indication of the
expected benefits and costs to the nation
of this rule. The RIA available in the
docket describes in detail the empirical
basis for EPA’s assumptions and
characterizes the various sources of
uncertainties affecting the estimates
below.
When characterizing uncertainty in
the PM-mortality relationship, EPA has
historically presented a sensitivity
analysis applying alternate assumed
thresholds in the PM concentrationresponse relationship. In its synthesis of
the current State of the PM science,
EPA’s ‘‘2009 Integrated Science
Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter’’
concluded that a no-threshold log-linear
model most adequately portrays the PMmortality concentration-response
relationship. In the RIA accompanying
this rule, rather than segmenting out
impacts predicted to be associated
levels above and below a ‘bright line’
threshold, EPA includes a ‘‘LML’’ that
illustrates the increasing uncertainty
that characterizes exposure attributed to
levels of PM2.5 below the LML for each
study. Figures provided in the RIA show
the distribution of baseline exposure to
PM2.5, as well as the lowest air quality
levels measured in each of the
epidemiology cohort studies. This
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
information provides a context for
considering the likely portion of PMrelated mortality benefits occurring
above or below the LML of each study;
in general, our confidence in the size of
the estimated reduction PM2.5-related
premature mortality diminishes as
baseline concentrations of PM2.5 are
lowered. Using the Pope, et al., (2002)
study, 85 percent of the population is
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at
or above the LML of 7.5 μg/m3. Using
the Laden, et al., (2006) study, 40
percent of the population is exposed
above the LML of 10 μg/m3. While the
LML analysis provides some insight into
the level of uncertainty in the estimated
PM mortality benefits, EPA does not
view the LML as a threshold and
continues to quantify PM-related
63291
mortality impacts using a full range of
modeled air quality concentrations.
A summary of the monetized benefits,
social costs and net benefits for the
proposed option, as well as a less
stringent option and more stringent
option, at discount rates of 3 percent
and 7 percent is in Table 18 of this
preamble.
TABLE 20—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SSI
UNITS IN 2015
[Millions of 2008$] 1
3% Discount rate
7% Discount rate
Proposed: Option 2 MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Controls for Hg and CDD/CDF
Total Monetized Benefits 2 ......................................................................
Total Social Costs 3 .................................................................................
Net Benefits .............................................................................................
$120 to $310 .................................
$92 .................................................
$33 to $220 ...................................
Non-monetized Benefits ..........................................................................
2,900 tons of CO.
96 tons of HCl.
5,500 pounds of Hg.
1.6 tons of Cd.
3.0 tons of Pb.
90 grams of CDD/CDF.
Health effects from NOX and SO2 exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
$110 to $280.
$92.
$23 to $190.
Option 1 MACT Floor
Total Monetized Benefits 2 ......................................................................
Total Social Costs 3 .................................................................................
Net Benefits .............................................................................................
$120 to $310 .................................
$63 .................................................
$62 to $240 ...................................
Non-monetized Benefits ..........................................................................
2,900 tons of CO.
96 tons of HCl.
820 pounds of Hg.
1.6 tons of Cd.
3.0 tons of Pb.
74 grams of CDD/CDF.
Health effects from NOX and SO2 exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
$110 to $280.
$63.
$52 to $220.
Option 3 MACT Floor, Beyond-the-Floor Controls for Hg and CDD/CDF, and Beyond-the-Floor Controls for CO
$120 to $300 .................................
$132 ...............................................
¥$9.6 to $170 ...............................
Non-monetized Benefits ..........................................................................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Total Monetized Benefits 2 ......................................................................
Total Social Costs 3 .................................................................................
Net Benefits .............................................................................................
26,000 tons of CO.
96 tons of HCl.
5,500 pounds of Hg.
1.6 tons of Cd.
3.0 tons of Pb.
90 grams of CDD/CDF.
Health effects from NOX and SO2 exposure.
Ecosystem effects.
Visibility impairment.
$110 to $280.
$132.
¥$18 to $150.
1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to 2 significant figures. These results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to come on-line by 2015 and the assumption that small entities will landfill.
2 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM
2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects
associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Pope, et al., (2002) to Laden, et al., (2006). These models assume that all
fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by particle type. These results include 2 new FB incinerators anticipated to come online by 2015, as well as energy disbenefits of $4.5 to $9.7 million.
3 The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs for
both discount rates.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63292
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
For more information on the benefits
analysis, please refer to the RIA for this
rulemaking, which is available in the
docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB
under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The ICR documents prepared by EPA
have been assigned EPA ICR number
2369.01 for subpart LLLL, and 2403.01
for subpart MMMM.
The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in this proposed rule
would be based on the information
collection requirements in CAA section
129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provisions
(40 CFR part 60, subpart A). The
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the General Provisions
are mandatory pursuant to CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
other than emissions data submitted to
EPA pursuant to the information
collection requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to CAA section
114(c) and EPA’s implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The requirements in this proposed
action result in industry recordkeeping
and reporting burden associated with
review of the amendments for all SSI
and initial and annual compliance with
the emission limits using EPA approved
emissions test methods. The burden also
includes continuous parameter
monitoring and annual inspections of
air pollution control devices that may be
used to meet the emission limits.
Operators are required to obtain
qualification and complete annual
training. New units are also required to
submit a report prior to construction,
including a siting analysis.
The annual average burden associated
with the EG over the first 3 years
following promulgation of this proposed
action is estimated to be $14.2 million.
This includes 21,900 hours at a total
annual labor cost of $1.2 million and
total annualized capital/startup and
O&M costs of $13 million per year,
associated with the monitoring
requirements, storage of data and
reports and photocopying and postage
over the 3-year period of the ICR. The
annual inspection costs are included
under the recordkeeping and reporting
labor costs.
The annual average burden associated
with the NSPS over the first 3 years
following promulgation of this proposed
action is estimated to involve 518 hours
at a total annual labor cost of $29,000.
The total annualized capital/startup
costs are estimated at $292,000 per year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
This gives a cumulative annual burden
of $321,000 per year for the NSPS.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it currently displays a valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’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 rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
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 October 14, 2010, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by November 15, 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 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, a small entity is defined as
follows: (1) A small business as defined
by the SBA regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; or (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise that
is independently-owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than 1 percent.
Thus, this is not considered to be a
significant impact.
Although the 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 by
allowing optional CEMS instead of
requiring them, allowing information
from tests conducted in recent years to
show compliance rather than require all
new testing and allowing reduced
testing with continued compliance.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, requires Federal agencies,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector.
This rule contains a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any 1 year.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under
section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement that is summarized in this
section of the preamble. A copy of the
UMRA written statement can be found
in the docket. The UMRA written
statement further describes EPA’s
statutory authority, a qualitative and
quantitative cost-benefits assessment,
and a description of the extent of EPA’s
prior consultation with elected
representatives (or their designated
authorized employees) of the affected
State, local, and tribal governments, and
a summary of their oral or written
comments and concerns and EPA’s
evaluation of them.
EPA’s statutory authority for this
action is contained in CAA section 129,
as described in section II.C of this
preamble and in the UMRA written
statement in the docket. These emission
standards are also needed as part of
EPA’s fulfillment of its obligations
under CAA section 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii). Regarding the cost-benefits
assessment, 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: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units’’ in the
docket. Based on estimated compliance
costs 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 $92 million (2008$).
The estimated costs account for 18 small
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
entities choosing alternative disposal
methods to SSI.
Consistent with the intergovernmental
consultation provisions of section 204 of
the UMRA, EPA has initiated
consultations with governmental
entities affected by this proposed rule.
EPA invited 10 organizations of elected
State and local officials who have been
identified by EPA as the ‘‘Big 10’’
organizations appropriate to contact for
purposes of consultation with elected
officials. The following national
organizations representing State and
local officials attended a meeting held
on May 27, 2010, in Washington, DC: (1)
National Governors’ Association, (2)
National Conference of State
Legislatures, (3) National League of
Cities, (4) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (5)
National Association of Counties, (6)
Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials, (7)
Council of State Governments and (8)
Environmental Council of the States, to
inform them and seek their input for
this rulemaking. Two of the Big 10
organizations were unable to attend.
Additionally, the National Association
of Clean Water Agencies, the National
Association of Clean Air Agencies and
the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
participated, to serve as technical
advisors to the national organizations
during this consultation.
The purpose of the consultation was
to provide general background on the
proposal, answer questions, and solicit
input from State and local governments.
Prior to the meeting, EPA provided the
officials with a copy of the SSI
inventory and presentation. During the
meeting, officials expressed uncertainty
with regards to how EPA calculated the
costs to comply with the standard.
Officials also expressed uncertainty
with regards to how viable the
alternative to the standard is with
respect to small governments and
entities located in certain geographic
regions. Technical memoranda, which
can be found in the docket, document
EPA’s cost analysis, beyond-the-floor
options, and the regulatory impacts
analysis. EPA determined that the
alternative to the standard is a viable
option for some entities.
Consistent with section 205 of the
UMRA, EPA has identified and
considered a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives. Incineration
continues to be used to dispose of
sewage sludge, but is increasingly
becoming less common. Additional
pollution controls will increase costs for
facilities that continue to use the
incineration disposal method. If the
additional costs are high enough, many
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
POTW may choose to adopt alternative
disposal methods (e.g., surface disposal
in landfills or other beneficial land
applications). However, the use of
alternative disposal methods may be
limited in some areas because of landfill
capacity constraints, local geography, or
other legal or economic constraints.
One alternative option is landfilling.
Landfilling, in some cases, provides a
simple and low-cost option for sewage
sludge disposal. Sewage sludge may be
placed in landfills used for other
municipal solid waste or in landfills
constructed specifically for sewage
sludge. The landfill disposal option is
attractive for low-volume incinerators;
landfill capacity constraints limit
disposal opportunities for large sludge
volumes.
Land application is a second
alternative. Sewage sludge that has
undergone treatment to make it safe for
use on other land application (e.g.,
fertilizer) is commonly referred to as
biosolids. Biosolids can be sold to
agricultural or landscaping entities for
land application, so the organic material
in biosolids is reused to contribute to
crop production. Land application has
also been used in mine reclamation to
re-establish vegetation.
Further analysis can be found in the
‘‘Regulatory Impacts Analysis.’’ The
regulatory alternative selected is
landfilling. EPA recognizes that the
landfilling option may be utilized by
some facilities but not all depending on
a number of factors such as cost,
geographic location, and State
regulations.
This proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
While some small governments may
have SSI units that would be affected by
this rule, EPA’s analysis shows that for
the more likely scenario that small
governmental entities switch to
landfilling, none of the ratios was
greater than 1 percent. Because the
proposed rule’s requirements apply
equally to SSI units owned and/or
operated by governments or SSI units
owned and/or operated by private
entities, there would be no requirements
that uniquely apply to such government
or impose any disproportionate impacts
on them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63293
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 will have
federalism implications, as defined by
Agency guidance for implementing the
Order, due to substantial direct
compliance costs on State or local
governments. As specified by the Order,
EPA must consult with elected State
and local government officials, or their
representative national organizations,
when developing regulations and
policies that impose substantial
compliance costs on State and local
governments. Pursuant to Agency
policy, EPA conducted a briefing for the
Big 10 intergovernmental organizations
representing elected State and local
government officials, to formally request
their comments and input on the action.
Please reference the UMRA discussion
above for further details regarding the
Big 10 consultation.
The Big 10 is currently in the process
of providing EPA with feedback on its
proposed standards and EG for SSI
units. 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 SSI
owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials in the proposal period via
the National Tribal Air Association and
other mechanisms.
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
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63294
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance. We note
however, that reductions in air
emissions by these facilities will
improve air quality, with expected
positive impacts for children’s health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not 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 SSI
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 29,200 megawatthours per year of additional electricity
being used.
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
regards 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.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995,
Public Law 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use VCS in its
regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
EPA conducted searches for the
‘‘Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units’’ through the
Enhanced National Standards Service
Network Database managed by the
ANSI. We also contacted VCS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
organizations and accessed and
searched their databases.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. EPA has decided to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual
methods of measuring the oxygen or
carbon dioxide content of the exhaust
gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10–
1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA
Methods 6, 7. This standard is available
from the ASME, Three Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10016–5990.
Another VCS, ASTM D6784–02,
‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total
Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method)’’ is an acceptable alternative to
Method 29 and 30B. The EPA has also
decided to use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C,
7, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 22, 23, 26A, 29
and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA
Method 9 and 22.
During the search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS
described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to
EPA’s reference method, the 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 for this
rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
After reviewing the available standards,
EPA determined that 23 candidate VCS
(ASME B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO
9096:1992 (2003), ANSIIASME PTC
PTC™38–1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/
D3685M–98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1–
M1977, ANSIIASME PTC 19–10–1981,
ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001,
ASTM D5835–95 (2007), ASTM D6522–
00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86
(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998,
ASTM D1608–98 (2003), ISO
I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24–MI983,
CAN/CSA Z223.21–MI978, ASTM
D3162–94 (2005), EN 1948–3 (1996), EN
1911–1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735–01, EN
13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26–MI987)
identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would
not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
data, and other important technical and
policy considerations.
Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS
General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, PS, or procedures in
the final rule and any amendments.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and
specifically invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable VCS 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 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 and lowincome populations in the United
States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income populations.
Additionally, the Agency has reviewed
this proposed rule to determine if there
was existing disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations that could be
mitigated by this rulemaking. An
analysis of demographic data showed
that the average of populations in close
proximity to the sources, and thus most
likely to be effected by the sources, were
similar in demographic composition to
national averages.
In determining the aggregate
demographic makeup of the
communities near affected sources, EPA
used census data at the block group
level to identify demographics of 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 distributions of
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
different socio-demographic groups in
the locations of the expected emission
reductions from this rule. The review
identified those census block groups
within a circular distance of a half, 3,
and 5 miles of affected sources and
determined the demographic and socioeconomic composition (e.g., race,
income, education, etc.) of these census
block groups. The radius of 3 miles (or
approximately 5 kilometers) has been
used in other demographic analyses
focused on areas around potential
sources.27–30 EPA’s demographic
analysis has shown that these areas in
aggregate have similar proportions of
American Indians, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Whites, and ‘‘Other and
Multi-racial’’ populations, and similar
proportions of families with incomes
below the poverty level as the national
average.31
This proposed action establishes
national emission standards for new and
existing SSI units. The EPA estimates
that there are approximately 218 such
units covered by this rule. The proposed
rule will reduce emissions of all the
listed HAP emitted from this source.
This includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb,
Hg, and CDD/CDF. Adverse health
effects from these pollutants include
cancer, irritation of the lungs, skin and
mucus membranes, effects on the
central nervous system and damage to
the kidneys and acute health disorders.
The rule will also result in substantial
reductions of criteria pollutants such as
CO, NOX, PM and PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur
dioxide and NOX are precursors for the
formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing
these emissions will reduce ozone and
PM2.5 formation and associated health
effects, such as adult premature
mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis,
asthma and other respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases. For additional
information, please refer to the RIA
contained in the docket for this
rulemaking. EPA defines
‘‘Environmental Justice’’ to include
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
27 U.S.
GAO (Government Accountability Office).
Demographics of People Living Near Waste
Facilities. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office; 1995.
28 Mohai P, Saha R. ‘‘Reassessing Racial and
Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental
Justice Research.’’ Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–
399.
29 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.
30 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al.
Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987–2007. United
Church of Christ. March 2007.
31 The results of the demographic analysis are
presented in ‘‘Review of Environmental Justice
Impacts,’’ June 2010, a copy of which is available
in the docket.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. To promote
meaningful involvement, EPA 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
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: September 30, 2010.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 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. Part 60 is amended by adding
subparts LLLL and MMMM to read as
follows:
Subpart LLLL—Standards of
Performance for New Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units
Sec.
Introduction
60.4760 What does this subpart do?
60.4765 When does this subpart become
effective?
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63295
Applicability and Delegation of Authority
60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my
sewage sludge incineration unit?
60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge
incineration unit?
60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration
units are exempt from this subpart?
60.4785 Who implements and enforces this
subpart?
60.4790 How are these new source
performance standards structured?
60.4795 Do all nine components of these
new source performance standards apply
at the same time?
Preconstruction Siting Analysis
60.4800 Who must prepare a siting
analysis?
60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
Operator Training and Qualification
60.4810 What are the operator training and
qualification requirements?
60.4815 When must the operator training
course be completed?
60.4820 How do I obtain my operator
qualification?
60.4825 How do I maintain my operator
qualification?
60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed
operator qualification?
60.4835 What if all the qualified operators
are temporarily not accessible?
60.4840 What site-specific documentation
is required and how often must it be
reviewed by qualified sewage sludge
incineration unit operators and other
plant personnel who may operate the
unit according to the provisions of
§ 60.4835(a)?
Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and
Operating Limits
60.4845 What emission limits and
standards must I meet and by when?
60.4850 What operating limits must I meet
and by when?
60.4855 How do I establish operating limits
if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric
filter, electrostatic precipitator, or
activated carbon injection, or if I limit
emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission
standards, and operating limits apply
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
60.4861 How do I establish affirmative
defense for exceedance of an emission
limit or standard during malfunction?
Initial Compliance Requirements
60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission
limits and standards?
60.4870 How do I establish my operating
limits?
60.4875 By what date must I conduct the
initial air pollution control device
inspection and make any necessary
repairs?
60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific
monitoring plan for my continuous
monitoring systems and bag leak
detection system and by what date must
I conduct an initial performance
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63296
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
evaluation of my continuous monitoring
systems and bag leak detection system?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous
compliance with my operating limits?
60.4895 By what date must I conduct
annual air pollution control device
inspections and make any necessary
repairs?
Performance Testing, Monitoring, and
Calibration Requirements
60.4900 What are the performance testing,
monitoring, and calibration requirements
for compliance with the emission limits
and standards?
60.4905 What are the monitoring and
calibration requirements for compliance
with my operating limits?
Recordkeeping and Reporting
60.4910 What records must I keep?
60.4915 What reports must I submit?
Title V Operating Permits
60.4920 Am I required to apply for and
obtain a title V operating permit for my
unit?
60.4925 When must I submit a title V
permit application for my new SSI unit?
Definitions
60.4930 What definitions must I know?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—
Emission Limits and Standards for New
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—
Operating Parameters for New Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units
Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic
Equivalency Factors
Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—
Summary of Reporting Requirements for
New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Introduction
§ 60.4760
What does this subpart do?
This subpart establishes new source
performance standards for sewage
sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the
extent any requirement of this subpart is
inconsistent with the requirements of
subpart A of this part, the requirements
of this subpart will apply.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.4765 When does this subpart become
effective?
This subpart takes effect on [THE
DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Some of the requirements in this
subpart apply to planning an SSI unit
and must be completed even before
construction is initiated on an SSI unit
(i.e., the preconstruction requirements
in §§ 60.4800 and 60.4805). Other
requirements such as the emission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply after the SSI unit
begins operation.
Applicability and Delegation of
Authority
§ 60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my
sewage sludge incineration unit?
Yes, your SSI unit is an affected
source if it meets all the criteria
specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section.
(a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for
which construction commenced after
October 14, 2010 or for which
modification commenced after [THE
DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as
defined in § 60.4930.
(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under
§ 60.4780.
§ 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge
incineration unit?
(a) A new SSI unit is an SSI unit that
meets either of the two criteria specified
in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
section.
(1) Commenced construction after
October 14, 2010.
(2) Commenced modification after
[THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(b) Physical or operational changes
made to your SSI unit to comply with
the emission guidelines in subpart
MMMM of this part (Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) do not qualify as a modification
under this subpart.
§ 60.4780 What sewage sludge
incineration units are exempt from this
subpart?
This subpart exempts combustion
units that incinerate sewage sludge that
are located at an industrial or
commercial facility subject to subpart
CCCC of this part, provided the owner
or operator of such a combustion unit
notifies the Administrator of an
exemption claim under this section.
§ 60.4785 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the Administrator, as
defined in § 60.2, or a delegated
authority such as your State, local, or
tribal agency. If the Administrator has
delegated authority to your State, local,
or tribal agency, then that agency (as
well as the Administrator) has the
authority to implement and enforce this
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subpart. You should contact your EPA
Regional Office to find out if this
subpart is delegated to your State, local,
or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority of this subpart to
a State, local, or tribal agency, the
authorities contained in paragraph (c) of
this section are retained by the
Administrator and are not transferred to
the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be
delegated to State, local, or tribal
agencies are specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the
emission limits and standards in Table
1 to this subpart and operating limits
established under § 60.4850.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to
test methods.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to
monitoring.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to
recordkeeping and reporting.
(5) The requirements in § 60.4855.
(6) The requirements in
§ 60.4835(b)(2).
(7) Performance test and data
reduction waivers under § 60.8(b).
(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in
§ 60.4800 and § 60.4805.
§ 60.4790 How are these new source
performance standards structured?
These new source performance
standards contain the nine major
components listed in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of this section.
(a) Preconstruction siting analysis.
(b) Operator training and
qualification.
(c) Emission limits, emission
standards, and operating limits.
(d) Initial compliance requirements.
(e) Continuous compliance
requirements.
(f) Performance testing, monitoring,
and calibration requirements.
(g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(h) Definitions.
(i) Tables.
§ 60.4795 Do all nine components of these
new source performance standards apply at
the same time?
No. You must meet the
preconstruction siting analysis
requirements before you commence
construction of the SSI unit. The
operator training and qualification,
emission limits, emission standards,
operating limits, performance testing,
and compliance, monitoring, and most
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are met after the SSI unit
begins operation.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Preconstruction Siting Analysis
§ 60.4800 Who must prepare a siting
analysis?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis
if you plan to commence construction of
an SSI unit after October 14, 2010.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis
if you are required to submit an initial
application for a construction permit
under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40
CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
modification of your SSI unit.
§ 60.4805
What is a siting analysis?
(a) The siting analysis must consider
air pollution control alternatives that
minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the
maximum extent practicable, potential
risks to public health or the
environment, including impacts of the
affected SSI unit on ambient air quality,
visibility, soils, and vegetation. In
considering such alternatives, the
analysis may consider costs, energy
impacts, nonair environmental impacts,
or any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s
impacts that are prepared to comply
with State, local, or other Federal
regulatory requirements may be used to
satisfy the requirements of this section,
provided they include the consideration
of air pollution control alternatives
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) You must complete and submit the
siting requirements of this section as
required under § 60.4915(a)(3) prior to
commencing construction.
Operator Training and Qualification
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.4810 What are the operator training
and qualification requirements?
(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated
unless a fully trained and qualified SSI
unit operator is accessible, either at the
facility or can be at the facility within
1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit
directly or be the direct supervisor of
one or more other plant personnel who
operate the unit. If all qualified SSI unit
operators are temporarily not accessible,
you must follow the procedures in
§ 60.4835.
(b) Operator training and qualification
must be obtained through a Stateapproved program or by completing the
requirements included in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(c) Training must be obtained by
completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a
minimum, the three elements described
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed
in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x) of this
section.
(i) Environmental concerns, including
types of emissions.
(ii) Basic combustion principles,
including products of combustion.
(iii) Operation of the specific type of
incinerator to be used by the operator,
including proper startup, sewage sludge
feeding, and shutdown procedures.
(iv) Combustion controls and
monitoring.
(v) Operation of air pollution control
equipment and factors affecting
performance (if applicable).
(vi) Inspection and maintenance of
the incinerator and air pollution control
devices.
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions
or to prevent conditions that may lead
to malfunctions.
(viii) Bottom and fly ash
characteristics and handling procedures.
(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and
local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration workplace standards.
(x) Pollution prevention.
(2) An examination designed and
administered by the State-approved
program.
(3) Written material covering the
training course topics that may serve as
reference material following completion
of the course.
§ 60.4815 When must the operator training
course be completed?
The operator training course must be
completed by the later of the two dates
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) Six months after your SSI unit
startup.
(b) The date before an employee
assumes responsibility for operating the
SSI unit or assumes responsibility for
supervising the operation of the SSI
unit.
§ 60.4820 How do I obtain my operator
qualification?
(a) You must obtain operator
qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under
§ 60.4810(b).
(b) Qualification is valid from the date
on which the training course is
completed and the operator successfully
passes the examination required under
§ 60.4810(c)(2).
§ 60.4825 How do I maintain my operator
qualification?
To maintain qualification, you must
complete an annual review or refresher
course covering, at a minimum, the five
topics described in paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63297
(a) Update of regulations.
(b) Incinerator operation, including
startup and shutdown procedures,
sewage sludge feeding, and ash
handling.
(c) Inspection and maintenance.
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or
conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
(e) Discussion of operating problems
encountered by attendees.
§ 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed
operator qualification?
You must renew a lapsed operator
qualification by one of the two methods
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years,
you must complete a standard annual
refresher course described in § 60.4825.
(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you
must repeat the initial qualification
requirements in § 60.4820(a).
§ 60.4835 What if all the qualified
operators are temporarily not accessible?
If a qualified operator is not at the
facility and cannot be at the facility
within 1 hour, you must meet the
criteria specified in either paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section, depending on the
length of time that a qualified operator
is not accessible.
(a) When a qualified operator is not
accessible for more than 8 hours, the SSI
unit may be operated for less than 2
weeks by other plant personnel who are
familiar with the operation of the SSI
unit who have completed a review of
the information specified in § 60.4840
within the past 12 months. However,
you must record the period when a
qualified operator was not accessible
and include this deviation in the annual
report as specified under § 60.4915(d).
(b) When a qualified operator is not
accessible for 2 weeks or more, you
must take the two actions that are
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator of this
deviation in writing within 10 days. In
the notice, State what caused this
deviation, what you are doing to ensure
that a qualified operator is accessible,
and when you anticipate that a qualified
operator will be accessible.
(2) Submit a status report to the
Administrator every 4 weeks outlining
what you are doing to ensure that a
qualified operator is accessible, stating
when you anticipate that a qualified
operator will be accessible, and
requesting approval from the
Administrator to continue operation of
the SSI unit. You must submit the first
status report 4 weeks after you notify
the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63298
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(i) If the Administrator notifies you
that your request to continue operation
of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI
unit may continue operation for 30
days, and then must cease operation.
(ii) Operation of the unit may resume
if a qualified operator is accessible as
required under § 60.4810(a) and you
notify the Administrator within 5 days
of having resumed operations and of
having a qualified operator accessible.
§ 60.4840 What site-specific
documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified sewage
sludge incineration unit operators and other
plant personnel who may operate the unit
according to the provisions of § 60.4835(a)?
(a) You must maintain at the facility
the documentation of the operator
training procedures specified under
§ 60.4910(c)(1) and make the
documentation readily accessible to all
SSI unit operators.
(b) You must establish a program for
reviewing the information listed in
§ 60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified
incinerator operator and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit
according to the provisions of
§ 60.4835(a), according to the following
schedule:
(1) The initial review of the
information listed in § 60.4910(c)(1)
must be conducted within 6 months
after the effective date of this subpart or
prior to an employee’s assumption of
responsibilities for operation of the SSI
unit, whichever date is later.
(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the
information listed in § 60.4910(c)(1)
must be conducted no later than 12
months following the previous review.
Emission Limits, Emission Standards,
and Operating Limits
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.4845 What emission limits and
standards must I meet and by when?
You must meet the emission limits
and standards specified in Table 1 to
this subpart within 60 days after your
SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which
it will operate or within 180 days after
its initial startup, whichever comes first.
The emission limits and standards
apply at all times the unit is operating,
including, and not limited to, periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
The emission limits and standards
apply to emissions from a bypass stack
or vent while sewage sludge is being
charged to the SSI unit.
§ 60.4850 What operating limits must I
meet and by when?
You must meet the operating limits
specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section, according to the schedule
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
this section. The operating parameters
are listed in Table 2 to this subpart. The
operating limits apply at all times the
unit is charging sewage sludge,
including periods of malfunction.
(a) You must meet site-specific
operating limits for maximum dry
sludge feed rate, sludge moisture
content, and minimum temperature of
the combustion chamber (or afterburner
combustion chamber) that you establish
in § 60.4870.
(b) If you use a wet scrubber,
electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection to comply with an
emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you
establish in § 60.4870 for each operating
parameter associated with each air
pollution control device.
(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply
with the emission limits, you must
install the bag leak detection system
specified in § 60.4905(b)(3)(i) and
operate the bag leak detection system
such that the alarm does not sound
more than 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period. You must
calculate the alarm time as specified in
§ 60.4870.
(d) You must meet the operating
limits specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section 60 days after
your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at
which it will operate, or within 180
days after its initial startup, whichever
comes first.
(e) For the operating limits specified
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
you may conduct a repeat performance
test at any time to establish new values
for the operating limits to apply from
that point forward. You must confirm or
reestablish operating limits during:
(1) Annual performance tests required
under § 60.4885(a).
(2) Performance tests required under
§ 60.4885(a)(2).
(3) Periodic performance evaluations
required under § 60.4885(b)(6) to meet
the operating limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 60.4855 How do I establish operating
limits if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric
filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in
some other manner, to comply with the
emission limits?
If you use an air pollution control
device other than a wet scrubber, fabric
filter, electrostatic precipitator, or
activated carbon injection, or limit
emissions in some other manner (e.g.,
materials balance) to comply with the
emission limits in § 60.4845, you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(a) Establish an operating limit each
for maximum dry sludge feed rate,
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sludge moisture content, and minimum
temperature of the combustion chamber
(or afterburner combustion chamber)
according to § 60.4870.
(b) Petition the Administrator for
specific operating parameters, operating
limits, and averaging periods to be
established during the initial
performance test and to be monitored
continuously thereafter.
(1) You must not conduct the initial
performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the
Administrator, and you must comply
with the operating limits as written,
pending approval by the Administrator.
(2) Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of the specific
parameters you propose to monitor.
(ii) A discussion of the relationship
between these parameters and emissions
of regulated pollutants, identifying how
emissions of regulated pollutants
change with changes in these
parameters, and how limits on these
parameters will serve to limit emissions
of regulated pollutants.
(iii) A discussion of how you will
establish the upper and/or lower values
for these parameters that will establish
the operating limits on these
parameters, including a discussion of
the averaging periods associated with
those parameters for determining
compliance.
(iv) A discussion identifying the
methods you will use to measure and
the instruments you will use to monitor
these parameters, as well as the relative
accuracy and precision of these methods
and instruments.
(v) A discussion identifying the
frequency and methods for recalibrating
the instruments you will use for
monitoring these parameters.
§ 60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission
standards, and operating limits apply
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The emission limits and standards
apply at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
The operating limits apply at all times
the unit is charging sewage sludge,
including periods of malfunction.
§ 60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative
defense for exceedance of an emission limit
or standard during malfunction?
In response to an action to enforce the
standards set forth in paragraph
§ 60.4845 you may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for
exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined in
§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed; however, if the respondent
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
fails to meet its burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative
defense, then the affirmative defense
shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a
limit, you must timely meet the
notification requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(9) of this section are met.
(1) The excess emissions meet the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual
manner.
(ii) Could not have been prevented
through careful planning, proper design
or better operation and maintenance
practices.
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or
event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for.
(iv) Were not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design,
operation, or maintenance.
(2) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Offshift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs.
(3) The frequency, amount and
duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions.
(4) If the excess emissions resulted
from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
severe personal injury, or severe
property damage.
(5) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health.
(6) All emissions monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation
if at all possible.
(7) Your actions in response to the
excess emissions were documented by
properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs.
(8) At all times, the facility was
operated in a manner consistent with
good practices for minimizing
emissions.
(9) You have prepared a written root
cause analysis to determine, correct, and
eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions
resulting from the malfunction event at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
issue. The analysis shall also specify,
using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of
excess emissions that were the result of
the malfunction.
(b) If your SSI unit experiences an
exceedance of its emission limit(s)
during a malfunction, you must notify
the Administrator by telephone or
facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as
possible, but no later than 2 business
days after the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if you wish to avail
yourself of an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for that malfunction. If
you seek to assert an affirmative
defense, you must also submit a written
report to the Administrator within 30
days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance of the standard in § 60.4845
to demonstrate, with all necessary
supporting documentation, that you
have met the requirements set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Initial Compliance Requirements
§ 60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission limits
and standards?
To demonstrate initial compliance
with the emission limits and standards
in Table 1 to this subpart, use the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, opacity, and
fugitive emissions from ash handling,
and follow the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for carbon
monoxide. In lieu of using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, you also have the option to
demonstrate initial compliance using
the procedures specified in paragraph
(b) of this section for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity.
You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as
applicable, and paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section, according to the
performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements in § 60.4900(a)
and (b). Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, within 60 days after
your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at
which it will operate, or within 180
days after its initial startup, whichever
comes first, you must demonstrate that
your SSI unit meets the emission limits
and standards specified in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(a) Demonstrate initial compliance
using the performance test required in
§ 60.8. You must demonstrate that your
SSI unit meets the emission limits and
standards specified in Table 1 to this
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63299
subpart for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, opacity, and fugitive
emissions from ash handling using the
performance test. The initial
performance test must be conducted
using the test methods, averaging
methods, and minimum sampling
volumes or durations specified in Table
1 to this subpart and according to the
testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in § 60.4900(a).
(b) Demonstrate initial compliance
using a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity
monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system. Collect
data as specified in § 60.4900(b)(6) and
use the following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance
with the carbon monoxide emission
limit, you must use the carbon
monoxide continuous emissions
monitoring system specified in
§ 60.4900(b).
(2) To demonstrate initial compliance
with the emission limits for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/
furans total mass, dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and
opacity, you may substitute the use of
a continuous monitoring system in lieu
of conducting the initial performance
test required in paragraph (a) of this
section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a
continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section (except
opacity) in lieu of conducting the initial
performance test for that pollutant in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) If your SSI unit is not equipped
with a wet scrubber, you may substitute
the use of a continuous opacity
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the initial opacity and particulate matter
performance tests in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(iii) You may substitute the use of a
continuous particulate matter
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the initial opacity performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a
continuous automated sampling system
for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of
conducting the initial mercury or
dioxin/furan performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) If you use a continuous emissions
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this
section, you must use the continuous
emissions monitoring system and follow
the requirements specified in
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63300
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 60.4900(b). You must measure
emissions according to § 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon
dioxide). You must demonstrate initial
compliance using a 24-hour block
average of these 1-hour arithmetic
average emission concentrations,
calculated using Equation 19–19 in
section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–7.
(4) If you use a continuous automated
sampling system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated
sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p)
and (q), and measure and calculate
average emissions corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to
§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour averages
to determine compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages
to determine compliance with the
dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
(ii) Comply with the provisions in
§ 60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring
plan. For mercury continuous
automated sampling systems, you must
use Performance Specification 12B of
appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 1
of appendix F of this part.
(5) If you use a continuous opacity
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
or opacity limit in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, you must use the
continuous opacity monitoring system
and follow the requirements specified in
§ 60.4900(b). You must measure
emissions and calculate 6-minute
averages as specified in § 60.13(h)(1).
Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average
opacity values. You must demonstrate
initial compliance using the arithmetic
average of three 1-hour block averages.
(6) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, you must complete
your initial performance evaluations
required under your monitoring plan for
any continuous emissions monitoring
system, continuous opacity monitoring
systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems no later than 60 days
after the date of initial startup of the
affected SSI unit, as specified under
§ 60.8. Your performance evaluation
must be conducted using the procedures
and acceptance criteria specified in
§ 60.4880(a)(3).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) To demonstrate initial compliance
with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you
must determine dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each
dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using
Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, multiply the
congener concentration by its
corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section to obtain the total concentration
of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of
toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an initial
compliance report, as specified in
§ 60.4915(c).
(e) If you demonstrate initial
compliance using a performance test as
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, then the provisions of this
paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure
is about to occur, occurs, or has
occurred for which you intend to assert
a claim of force majeure, you must
notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in § 60.4915(g). You must
conduct the initial performance test as
soon as practicable after the force
majeure occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the
extension to the initial performance test
deadline, and will notify you in writing
of approval or disapproval of the request
for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance
test deadline has been approved by the
Administrator, you remain strictly
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
§ 60.4870
limits?
How do I establish my operating
(a) You must establish the sitespecific operating limits specified in
paragraphs (c) through (k) of this section
during the initial performance tests and
performance evaluations required in
§ 60.4865 and the most recent
performance tests and performance
evaluations required in § 60.4885.
Follow the data measurement and
recording frequencies and data
averaging times specified in Table 2 to
this subpart and follow the testing,
monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in §§ 60.4900
and 60.4905. You are not required to
establish operating limits for the
operating parameters listed in Table 2 to
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this subpart for a control device if you
use a continuous monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart for the applicable pollutants, as
follows:
(1) For a scrubber designed to control
emissions of hydrogen chloride and
sulfur dioxide, you are not required to
establish an operating limit and monitor
pressure drop across the scrubber (or
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber
liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH if you
use the continuous monitoring system
specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and
60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit for hydrogen
chloride or sulfur dioxide.
(2) For a scrubber designed to control
emissions of particulate matter,
cadmium, and lead, you are not
required to establish an operating limit
and monitor pressure drop across the
scrubber (or amperage to the scrubber),
scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber
pH if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in
§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for particulate matter,
cadmium, or lead.
(3) You are not required to establish
an operating limit and monitor
secondary voltage of the collection
plates, secondary amperage of the
collection plates, and effluent water
flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in
§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for particulate matter,
cadmium, or lead.
(4) You are not required to establish
an operating limit and monitor mercury
sorbent injection rate and carrier gas
flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop)
if you use the continuous monitoring
system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and
60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit for mercury.
(5) You are not required to establish
an operating limit and monitor dioxin/
furan sorbent injection rate and carrier
gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure
drop) if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in
§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits for dioxins/furans.
(b) For each operating parameter
specified in paragraphs (c) through (k)
of this section, determine the average
operating parameter level during the
initial or most recent performance test
or performance evaluation for the
applicable pollutant(s) according to the
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1),
(2), or (3) of this section, as applicable.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) For continuous monitoring systems
that collect multiple data points each
hour. (i) Collect the incremental data for
the operating parameter (e.g., scrubber
liquor flow rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each
applicable pollutant (e.g., sulfur dioxide
and hydrogen chloride). For each
applicable performance test run period,
calculate the arithmetic average
operating parameter level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average
operating parameter level of the
applicable performance test run periods
specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section represents the average operating
parameter level (e.g., average scrubber
liquor flow rate) during the performance
test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s).
Use this average operating parameter
level to establish the respective
operating limit, as specified in
paragraphs (c) through (k) of this
section.
(2) For continuous monitoring systems
that collect data on an hourly basis. (i)
Collect the hourly data for the operating
parameter (e.g., mercury sorbent
injection rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each
applicable pollutant (e.g., mercury). For
each applicable performance test run
period, calculate the arithmetic average
operating parameter level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average
operating parameter level of the
applicable performance test runs
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section represents the average operating
parameter level (e.g., average mercury
sorbent injection rate) during the
performance test(s) for the applicable
pollutant(s). Use this average operating
parameter level to establish the
respective operating limit, as specified
in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this
section.
(3) For continuous monitoring systems
that collect data on a daily basis. Collect
the daily data for the operating
parameter (e.g., sludge moisture
content) for each day that a performance
test is conducted for the applicable
pollutant(s). The highest daily
arithmetic average operating parameter
level for the applicable performance
tests represents the average operating
parameter level (e.g., average sludge
moisture content) during the
performance test(s) for the applicable
pollutant(s). Use this average operating
parameter level to establish the
respective operating limit, as specified
in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this
section.
(c) Minimum pressure drop across
each wet scrubber, calculated as 90
percent of the average pressure drop
across each wet scrubber, determined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(d) Minimum scrubber liquor flow
rate (measured at the inlet to the wet
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of
the average liquor flow rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(e) Minimum scrubber liquor pH
(measured at the inlet to the wet
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of
the average liquor pH, determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(f) Minimum combustion chamber
temperature (or minimum afterburner
temperature), calculated as 90 percent of
the average combustion chamber
temperature (or afterburner
temperature), determined according to
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(g) Minimum power input to the
electrostatic precipitator collection
plates, calculated as 90 percent of the
average power input. Average power
input must be calculated as the product
of the average secondary voltage and
average secondary amperage to the
electrostatic precipitator, both
determined according to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(h) Maximum effluent water flow rate
at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator, calculated as 70 percent of
the average effluent water flow rate at
the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator, determined according to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(i) For activated carbon injection:
(1) Minimum mercury sorbent
injection rate, calculated as 90 percent
of the average mercury sorbent injection
rate, determined according to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent
injection rate, calculated as 90 percent
of the average dioxin/furan sorbent
injection rate, determined according to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or
minimum carrier gas pressure drop, as
follows:
(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate,
calculated as 90 percent of the average
carrier gas flow rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure
drop, calculated as 90 percent of the
average carrier gas flow rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(j) Maximum dry sludge feed rate,
calculated as 110 percent of the average
dry sludge feed rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(k) Sludge moisture content,
measured on a daily basis as a
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63301
percentage, must be no less than 10
percent less than and no more than 10
percent greater than the average sludge
moisture content, determined according
to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For
example, if your average sludge
moisture content is measured as 20
percent, your sludge moisture level
must be greater than or equal to 18
percent and less than or equal to 22
percent.
§ 60.4875 By what date must I conduct the
initial air pollution control device inspection
and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an air pollution
control device inspection according to
§ 60.4900(c) within 60 days of achieving
the maximum feed rate at which the
affected SSI unit will be operated or
within 180 days of initial startup of the
SSI unit, whichever comes first. For air
pollution control devices installed after
the SSI unit achieves the maximum feed
rate at which it will be operated, you
must conduct the air pollution control
device inspection within 60 days after
installation of the control device or
within 180 days of initial startup of the
SSI unit, whichever comes later.
(b) Within 10 operating days
following the air pollution control
device inspection under paragraph (a) of
this section, all necessary repairs must
be completed unless you obtain written
approval from the Administrator
establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the SSI unit must be
completed.
§ 60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific
monitoring plan for my continuous
monitoring systems and bag leak detection
system and by what date must I conduct an
initial performance evaluation of my
continuous monitoring systems and bag
leak detection system?
You must develop and submit to the
Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan for each
continuous monitoring system required
under this subpart, according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the
Administrator for alternative monitoring
parameters under § 60.13(i) and
paragraph (d) of this section. If you use
a continuous automated sampling
system to comply with the mercury or
dioxin/furan emission limits, you must
develop your monitoring plan as
specified in § 60.58b(q), and you are not
required to meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
You must submit your monitoring plan
at least 60 days before your initial
performance evaluation of your
continuous monitoring system(s), as
specified in paragraph (c) of this
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63302
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
section. You must update your
monitoring plan as specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(a) For each continuous monitoring
system, your monitoring plan must
address the elements and requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(8) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous
monitoring system sampling probe or
other interface at a measurement
location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is
representative of control of the exhaust
emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the
last control device).
(2) Performance and equipment
specifications for the sample interface,
the pollutant concentration or
parametric signal analyzer and the data
collection and reduction systems.
(3) Performance evaluation
procedures and acceptance criteria.
(i) For continuous emissions
monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria will
include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(A) The applicable requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in § 60.13.
(B) The applicable performance
specifications (e.g., relative accuracy
tests) in appendix B of this part.
(C) The applicable procedures (e.g.,
quarterly accuracy determinations and
daily calibration drift tests) in appendix
F of this part.
(ii) For continuous opacity monitoring
systems, your performance evaluation
and acceptance criteria will include, but
not be limited to, the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in § 60.13.
(B) Performance Specification 1 in
appendix B of this part.
(iii) For continuous parameter
monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must
include, but not be limited to, the
associated performance specifications
and quality assurance procedures.
(4) Ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of
§ 60.11(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of § 60.13.
(6) 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).
(7) Provisions for periods when the
continuous monitoring system is out of
control, as follows:
(i) A continuous emissions
monitoring system is out of control if
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
the conditions in any one of paragraphs
(a)(7)(i)(A), (a)(7)(i)(B), or (a)(7)(i)(C) of
this section are met.
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if
applicable), or high-level calibration
drift exceeds two times the applicable
calibration drift specification in the
applicable performance specification or
in the relevant standard.
(B) The continuous emissions
monitoring system fails a performance
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit),
relative accuracy audit, relative
accuracy test audit, or linearity test
audit.
(C) The continuous opacity
monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the
applicable performance specification in
the relevant standard.
(ii) When the continuous emissions
monitoring system is out of control as
specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this
section, you must take the necessary
corrective action and must repeat all
necessary tests that indicate that the
system is out of control. You must take
corrective action and conduct retesting
until the performance requirements are
below the applicable limits. The
beginning of the out-of-control period is
the hour you conduct a performance
check (e.g., calibration drift) that
indicates an exceedance of the
performance requirements established
under this part. The end of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour following the
completion of corrective action and
successful demonstration that the
system is within the allowable limits.
(8) Schedule for conducting initial
and periodic performance evaluations of
your continuous monitoring systems in
accordance with your site-specific
monitoring plan.
(b) If a bag leak detection system is
used, your monitoring plan must
include a description of the following
items:
(1) Installation of the bag leak
detection system.
(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of
the bag leak detection system, including
how the alarm set-point will be
established.
(3) Operation of the bag leak detection
system, including quality assurance
procedures.
(4) How the bag leak detection system
will be maintained, including a routine
maintenance schedule and spare parts
inventory list.
(5) How the bag leak detection system
output will be recorded and stored.
(c) You must conduct an initial
performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system and bag
leak detection system, as applicable, in
accordance with your monitoring plan,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and within 60 days of installation of the
continuous monitoring system and bag
leak detection system, as applicable.
(d) You may submit an application to
the Administrator for approval of
alternate monitoring requirements to
demonstrate compliance with the
standards of this subpart, subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (d)(1) through
(d)(6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not
approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section, unless
you document, using data or
information, that the longer averaging
period will ensure that emissions do not
exceed levels achieved during the
performance test over any increment of
time equivalent to the time required to
conduct three runs of the performance
test.
(2) If the application to use an
alternate monitoring requirement is
approved, you must continue to use the
original monitoring requirement until
approval is received to use another
monitoring requirement.
(3) You must submit the application
for approval of alternate monitoring
requirements no later than the
notification of performance test. The
application must contain the
information specified in paragraphs
(d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(iii) of this
section:
(i) Data or information justifying the
request, such as the technical or
economic infeasibility, or the
impracticality of using the required
approach.
(ii) A description of the proposed
alternative monitoring requirement,
including the operating parameter to be
monitored, the monitoring approach
and technique, the averaging period for
the limit, and how the limit is to be
calculated.
(iii) Data or information documenting
that the alternative monitoring
requirement would provide equivalent
or better assurance of compliance with
the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you
of the approval or denial of the
application within 90 calendar days
after receipt of the original request, or
within 60 calendar days of the receipt
of any supplementary information,
whichever is later. The Administrator
will not approve an alternate monitoring
application unless it would provide
equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission
standard. Before disapproving any
alternate monitoring application, the
Administrator will provide the
following:
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(i) Notice of the information and
findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based.
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to
present additional supporting
information before final action is taken
on the application. This notice will
specify how much additional time is
allowed for you to provide additional
supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting
any supporting information in a timely
manner to enable the Administrator to
consider the application prior to the
performance test. Neither submittal of
an application, nor the Administrator’s
failure to approve or disapprove the
application relieves you of the
responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at
any time, on a case-by-case basis that
additional or alternative operating
limits, or alternative approaches to
establishing operating limits, are
necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the emission standards of this
subpart.
(e) You must update your monitoring
plan if there are any changes in your
monitoring procedures or if there is a
process change, as defined in § 60.4930.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limits and standards?
To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits
and standards specified in Table 1 to
this subpart, use the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, opacity, and fugitive
emissions from ash handling, and
follow the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for carbon
monoxide. In lieu of using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, you also have the option to
demonstrate continuous compliance
using the procedures specified in
paragraph (b) of this section for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead,
and opacity. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, as applicable, and
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this
section, according to the performance
testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements in § 60.4900(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate continuous
compliance using a performance test.
Within 10 to 12 months following the
initial performance test (except as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
provided in paragraph (e) of this
section), demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits
and standards in Table 1 to this subpart
for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, dioxins/furans, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, opacity, and fugitive
emissions from ash handling using a
performance test. The performance test
must be conducted using the test
methods, averaging methods, and
minimum sampling volumes or
durations specified in Table 1 to this
subpart and according to the testing,
monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in § 60.4900(a).
Conduct subsequent annual
performance tests within 10 to 12
months following the previous one.
(1) You may conduct a repeat
performance test at any time to establish
new values for the operating limits to
apply from that point forward. The
Administrator may request a repeat
performance test at any time.
(2) You must repeat the performance
test within 60 days of a process change,
as defined in § 60.4930.
(3) You have the option to perform
less frequent testing to demonstrate
compliance with the particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and
lead emission limits.
(i) To perform less frequent testing,
you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) You have test data for at least 3
consecutive years.
(B) The test data results for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead are
less than 75 percent of the applicable
emission limits.
(C) There are no changes in the
operation of the SSI unit or air pollution
control equipment that could increase
emissions. In this case, you do not have
to conduct a performance test for that
pollutant for the next 2 years. You must
conduct a performance test during the
third year and no more than 36 months
following the previous performance test.
(ii) If your SSI unit continues to emit
less than 75 percent of the emission
limit for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, carbon
monoxide, or lead and there are no
changes in the operation of the SSI unit
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63303
(iii) If a performance test shows
emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission limit for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, carbon monoxide, or
lead, you must conduct annual
performance tests for that pollutant
until all performance tests over the next
3-year period are within 75 percent of
the applicable emission limit.
(b) Demonstrate continuous
compliance using a continuous
emissions monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring system,
or continuous automated sampling
system. Collect data as specified in
§ 60.4900(b)(6) and use the following
procedures:
(1) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limit, you must use the carbon
monoxide continuous emissions
monitoring system specified in
§ 60.4900(b).
(2) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans total mass, dioxins/
furans toxic equivalency, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, lead, and opacity, you may
substitute the use of a continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the annual performance test required in
paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a
continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant (except
opacity) specified in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section in lieu of conducting the
annual performance test for that
pollutant in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(ii) If your SSI unit is not equipped
with a wet scrubber, you may substitute
the use of a continuous opacity
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the annual opacity and particulate
matter performance tests in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(iii) You may substitute the use of a
particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the annual opacity performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a
continuous automated sampling system
for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of
conducting the annual mercury or
dioxin/furan performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) If you use a continuous emissions
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of
this section, you must use the
continuous emissions monitoring
system and follow the requirements
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63304
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
specified in § 60.4900(b). You must
measure emissions according to § 60.13
to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages,
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon
dioxide). You must demonstrate initial
compliance using a 24-hour block
average of these 1-hour arithmetic
average emission concentrations,
calculated using Equation 19–19 in
section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–7.
(4) If you use a continuous automated
sampling system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated
sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p)
and (q), and measure and calculate
average emissions corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to
§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour averages
to determine compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages
to determine compliance with the
dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 1
to this subpart.
(ii) Update your monitoring plan as
specified in § 60.4880(e). For mercury
continuous automated sampling
systems, you must use Performance
Specification 12B of appendix B of part
75 and Procedure 1 of appendix F of
this part.
(5) If you use a continuous opacity
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
or opacity limit in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, you must use the
continuous opacity monitoring system
and follow the requirements specified in
§ 60.4900(b). You must measure
emissions and calculate 6-minute
averages as specified in § 60.13(h)(1).
Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average
opacity values. You must demonstrate
initial compliance using the arithmetic
average of three 1-hour block averages.
(6) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, you must complete
your periodic performance evaluations
required under your monitoring plan for
any continuous emissions monitoring
system, continuous opacity monitoring
systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems, according to the
schedule specified in your monitoring
plan. If you were previously
determining compliance by conducting
an annual performance test, you must
complete the initial performance
evaluation required in your monitoring
plan in § 60.4880 for the continuous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
monitoring system within 60 days of
notification to the Administrator of use
of the continuous emissions monitoring
system, continuous opacity monitoring,
or continuous automated sampling
system. Your performance evaluation
must be conducted using the procedures
and acceptance criteria specified in
§ 60.4880(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate compliance with
the dioxins/furans toxic equivalency
emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section, you must determine
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as
follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each
dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using
EPA Method 23.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, multiply the
congener concentration by its
corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section to obtain the total concentration
of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of
toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit the annual
compliance report specified in
§ 60.4915(d). You must submit the
deviation report specified in
§ 60.4915(e) for each instance that you
did not meet each emission limit in
Table 1 to this subpart.
(e) If you demonstrate continuous
compliance using a performance test, as
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, then the provisions of this
paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure
is about to occur, occurs, or has
occurred for which you intend to assert
a claim of force majeure, you must
notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in § 60.4915(g). You must
conduct the performance test as soon as
practicable after the force majeure
occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the
extension to the performance test
deadline, and will notify you in writing
of approval or disapproval of the request
for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance
test deadline has been approved by the
Administrator, you remain strictly
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
§ 60.4890 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section, according to the monitoring and
calibration requirements in § 60.4905.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) You must continuously monitor
the operating parameters specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
using the continuous monitoring
equipment and according to the
procedures specified in § 60.4905,
except as provided in § 60.4855. Fourhour rolling average values are used to
determine compliance (except for
sludge moisture content and alarm time
of the baghouse leak detection system)
unless a different averaging period is
established under § 60.4855 for an air
pollution control device other than a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic
precipitator, or activated carbon
injection. A daily average must be used
to determine compliance for sludge
moisture content.
(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI
unit meets the operating limits
established according to §§ 60.4855 and
60.4870 for each applicable operating
parameter.
(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI
unit meets the operating limit for bag
leak detection systems as follows:
(i) For a bag leak detection system,
you must calculate the alarm time as
follows:
(A) If inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is
required, no alarm time is counted.
(B) If corrective action is required,
each alarm time shall be counted as a
minimum of 1 hour.
(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective action, each alarm
time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is
counted as the actual amount of time
taken by you to initiate corrective
action.
(ii) Your maximum alarm time is
equal to 5 percent of the operating time
during a 6-month period, as specified in
§ 60.4850(c).
(b) Operation above the established
maximum, below the established
minimum, or outside the allowable
range of the operating limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section constitutes
a deviation from your operating limits
established under this subpart, except
during performance tests conducted to
determine compliance with the
emission and operating limits or to
establish new operating limits. You
must submit the deviation report
specified in § 60.4915(e) for each
instance that you did not meet one of
your operating limits established under
this subpart.
(c) You must submit the annual
compliance report specified in
§ 60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous
compliance.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(a) You must conduct an annual
inspection of each air pollution control
device used to comply with the
emission limits, according to
§ 60.4900(c), within 10 to 12 months
following the previous annual air
pollution control device inspection.
(b) Within 10 operating days
following an air pollution control device
inspection, all necessary repairs must be
completed unless you obtain written
approval from the Administrator
establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit
must be completed.
Performance Testing, Monitoring, and
Calibration Requirements
§ 60.4900 What are the performance
testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements for compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
You must meet, as applicable, the
performance testing requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, the monitoring requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, the air pollution control device
inspections requirements specified in
paragraph (c) of this section, and the
bypass stack provisions specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(a) Performance testing requirements.
(1) All performance tests must consist of
a minimum of three test runs conducted
under conditions representative of
normal operations, as specified in
§ 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the
emission limits or standards during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction are considered deviations
from the applicable emission limits or
standards.
(2) You must document that the dry
sludge burned during the performance
test is representative of the sludge
burned under normal operating
conditions by:
(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of
sewage sludge burned during the
performance test.
Cadj = Cmeas (20.9 − 7) / ( 20.9 − %O2 )
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7
percent oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on
a dry basis.
(20.9¥7) = 20.9 percent oxygen¥7 percent
oxygen (defined oxygen correction
basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a
dry basis, percent.
(7) Performance tests must be
conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures contained in this subpart
unless the Administrator does one of the
following.
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a method with minor
changes in methodology.
(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent
method.
(iii) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance.
(iv) Waives the requirement for
performance tests because you have
demonstrated by other means to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that the
affected SSI unit is in compliance with
the standard.
(v) Approves shorter sampling times
and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors. Nothing in this paragraph
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(Eq. 1)
is construed to abrogate the
Administrator’s authority to require
testing under section 114 of the Clean
Air Act.
(8) You must provide the
Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as
specified under other subparts, to afford
the Administrator the opportunity to
have an observer present. If after 30
days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due
to operational problems, etc.) in
conducting the scheduled performance
test, you must notify the Administrator
as soon as possible of any delay in the
original test date, either by providing at
least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance
test, or by arranging a rescheduled date
with the Administrator by mutual
agreement.
(9) You must provide, or cause to be
provided, performance testing facilities
as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the
test methods applicable to the SSI unit,
as follows:
(A) Constructing the air pollution
control system such that volumetric
flow rates and pollutant emission rates
can be accurately determined by
applicable test methods and procedures.
(B) Providing a stack or duct free of
cyclonic flow during performance tests,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture
content of the sewage sludge burned
during the performance test.
(3) All performance tests must be
conducted using the test methods,
minimum sampling volume, observation
period, and averaging methods specified
in Table 1 to this subpart.
(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–1 must be used to select the
sampling location and number of
traverse points.
(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A–2 must be used for gas
composition analysis, including
measurement of oxygen concentration.
Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–2 must be used
simultaneously with each method.
(6) All pollutant concentrations,
except for opacity, must be adjusted to
7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of
this section:
as demonstrated by applicable test
methods and procedures.
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
(10) Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, each performance test must
consist of three separate runs using the
applicable test method. Each run must
be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable
standard. Compliance with each
emission limit must be determined by
calculating the arithmetic mean of the
three runs. In the event that a sample is
accidentally lost or conditions occur in
which one of the three runs must be
discontinued because of forced
shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable
portion of the sample train, extreme
meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond your control,
compliance may, upon the
Administrator’s approval, be
determined using the arithmetic mean
of the results of the two other runs.
(b) Continuous monitor requirements.
You must meet the following
requirements, as applicable, when using
a continuous monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Table 1 to this
subpart. The option to use a continuous
emissions monitoring system for
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
EP14OC10.001</MATH>
§ 60.4895 By what date must I conduct
annual air pollution control device
inspections and make any necessary
repairs?
63305
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63306
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans,
cadmium, or lead takes effect on the
date a final performance specification
applicable to hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is
published in the Federal Register. If you
elect to use a continuous emissions
monitoring system or continuous
opacity monitoring system instead of
conducting annual performance testing,
you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section. If you elect to use a continuous
automated sampling system instead of
conducting annual performance testing,
you must meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The
option to use a continuous automated
sampling system for mercury or dioxins/
furans takes effect on the date a final
performance specification for such a
continuous automated sampling system
is published in the Federal Register.
(1) You must notify the Administrator
1 month before starting use of the
continuous emissions monitoring
system or continuous opacity
monitoring system.
(2) You must notify the Administrator
1 month before stopping use of the
continuous emissions monitoring
system or continuous opacity
monitoring system, in which case you
must also conduct a performance test
within 60 days of ceasing operation of
the system.
(3) You must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain an instrument
for continuously measuring and
recording the emissions to the
atmosphere or opacity in accordance
with the following:
(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this
part.
(ii) The following performance
specifications of appendix B of this part,
as applicable:
(A) For particulate matter,
Performance Specification 11 of
appendix B of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride,
Performance Specification 15 of
appendix B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide,
Performance Specification 4B of
appendix B of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Performance
Specification 12A of appendix B of this
part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance
Specification 2 of appendix B of this
part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance
Specification 2 of appendix B of this
part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(J) For opacity, Performance
Specification 1 of appendix B of this
part.
(iii) For continuous emissions
monitoring systems, the quality
assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly
accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests) of appendix F of
this part specified in paragraphs
(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section.
For each pollutant, the span value of the
continuous emissions monitoring
system is two times the applicable
emission limit, expressed as a
concentration.
(A) For particulate matter, Procedure
2 in appendix F of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure
1 in appendix F of this part except that
the Relative Accuracy Test Audit
requirements of Procedure 1 shall be
replaced with the validation
requirements and criteria of sections
11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance
Specification 15 of appendix B of this
part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1
in appendix F of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5
in appendix F of this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1
in appendix F of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in
appendix F of this part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(4) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emissions
monitoring system using the
performance specifications in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data
for each regulated pollutant and oxygen
(or carbon dioxide as established in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section) must be
collected concurrently (or within a 30to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emissions monitors and the
test methods specified in paragraphs
(b)(4)(i) through (viii) of this section.
Relative accuracy testing must be at
normal operating conditions while the
SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or
Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–8 shall be used.
(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26
or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
8, shall be used.
(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10,
10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–4, shall be used.
(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, shall be
used.
(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead,
Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784–
02, shall be used.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or
7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4,
shall be used.
(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or
6C at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, or
as an alternative American National
Standards Institute/American Society of
Mechanical Engineers PTC–19.10–1981
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus] must be
used. For sources that have actual inlet
emissions less than 100 parts per
million dry volume, the relative
accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur
dioxide continuous emissions
monitoring system should be no greater
than 20 percent of the mean value of the
method test data in terms of the units of
the emission standard, or 5 parts per
million dry volume absolute value of
the mean difference between the
method and the continuous emissions
monitoring system, whichever is greater.
(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as
established in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this
section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–2, or as an
alternative American National
Standards Institute/American Society of
Mechanical Engineers PTC–19.10–
1981—Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], as
applicable, must be used.
(5) You may request that compliance
with the emission limits (except
opacity) be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an
equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If
carbon dioxide is selected for use in
diluent corrections, the relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels must be established during the
initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this
section. This relationship may be reestablished during subsequent
performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method
3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2
must be used to determine the
relationship between oxygen and carbon
dioxide at a sampling location. Method
3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, appendix
A–2, or as an alternative American
National Standards Institute/American
Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC–
19.–10–1981—Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus], 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 three runs must be
performed.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(6) You must collect data with the
continuous monitoring system as
follows:
(i) You must collect data using the
continuous monitoring system at all
times the affected SSI unit is operating
and at the intervals specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section,
except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and
required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span
adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous
opacity monitoring system data in
accordance with § 60.13(e)(1), and you
must collect continuous emissions
monitoring system data in accordance
with § 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, or required monitoring
system quality assurance or control
activities must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. Any such periods must
be reported in a deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods
when the monitoring system is out of
control as specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i)
must not be included in calculations
used to report emissions or operating
levels. Any such periods that do not
coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in § 60.4930,
constitute a deviation from the
monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected
during all periods except those periods
specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and
(iv) of this section in assessing the
operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous
automated sampling system instead of
conducting annual performance testing,
you must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous automated
sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in
§ 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9),
(p)(10), and (q).
(ii) Collect data according to
§ 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph (b)(6) of
this section.
(c) Air pollution control device
inspections. You must conduct air
pollution control device inspections
that include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control
device(s) for proper operation, if
applicable.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) Ensure proper calibration of
thermocouples, sorbent feed systems,
and any other monitoring equipment.
(3) Generally observe that the
equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(4) Ensure that the air pollution
control device meets manufacturer
recommendations.
(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass
stack at any time that sewage sludge is
being charged to the SSI unit is an
emissions standards deviation for all
pollutants listed in Table 1 to this
subpart. The use of the bypass stack
during a performance test invalidates
the performance test.
§ 60.4905 What are the monitoring and
calibration requirements for compliance
with my operating limits?
(a) You must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain the continuous
parameter monitoring systems for
measuring flow, pressure, pH, and
temperature according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section:
(1) Meet the following general
requirements for flow, pressure, pH, and
temperature measurement devices:
(i) You must collect data using the
continuous monitoring system at all
times the affected SSI unit is operating
and at the intervals specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section,
except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and
required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span
adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous
parameter monitoring system data in
accordance with § 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, or required monitoring
system quality assurance or control
activities must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. Any such periods must
be reported in your annual deviation
report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods
when the monitoring system is out of
control as specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i)
must not be included in calculations
used to report emissions or operating
levels. Any such periods that do not
coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in § 60.4930,
constitute a deviation from the
monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63307
(v) You must use all the data collected
during all periods except those periods
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and
(iv) of this section in assessing the
operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling
average of all recorded readings, except
as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(vii) Record the results of each
inspection, calibration, and validation
check.
(2) Meet the following requirements
for each type of measurement device:
(i) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a flow measurement
device, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) Locate the flow sensor and other
necessary equipment in a position that
provides a representative flow.
(B) Use a flow sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of
the flow rate.
(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal
velocity distributions due to upstream
and downstream disturbances.
(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration
check at least semi-annually.
(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors
(for activated carbon injection), during
the performance test conducted
pursuant to § 60.4885, you must
demonstrate that the system is
maintained within +/-5 percent
accuracy, according to the procedures in
appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
(ii) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pressure
measurement device, you must meet the
following requirements:
(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a
position that provides a representative
measurement of the pressure.
(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating
pressure, vibration, and internal and
external corrosion.
(C) 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.
(D) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(E) Using a manometer, check gauge
calibration quarterly and transducer
calibration monthly.
(F) Conduct calibration checks any
time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating pressure range or install a new
pressure sensor.
(G) For carrier gas pressure drop
monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test
conducted pursuant to § 60.4885, you
must demonstrate that the system is
maintained within +/-5 percent
accuracy.
(iii) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pH measurement
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63308
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
device, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position
that provides a representative
measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(B) Ensure the sample is properly
mixed and representative of the fluid to
be measured.
(C) Check the pH meter’s calibration
on at least two points every 8 hours of
process operation.
(iv) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a temperature
measurement device, you must meet the
following requirements:
(A) Locate the temperature sensor and
other necessary equipment in a position
that provides a representative
temperature.
(B) Use a temperature sensor with a
minimum tolerance of 2.3 degrees
Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0
percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic
temperature range.
(C) Use a temperature sensor with a
minimum tolerance of 2.3 degrees
Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5
percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger, for a cryogenic
temperature range.
(D) Conduct a temperature
measurement device calibration check
at least every 3 months.
(b) You must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain the continuous
parameter monitoring systems for
voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and
bag leak detection system as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor secondary voltage and
secondary amperage (or power input) of
an electrostatic precipitator, you must
use secondary voltage and secondary
amperage monitoring equipment to
measure secondary voltage and
secondary amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor mass flow rate for sorbent
injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh
hopper, or hopper flow measurement
device), you must meet the following
requirements:
(i) Locate the device in a position(s)
that provides a representative
measurement of the total sorbent
injection rate.
(ii) Install and calibrate the device in
accordance with manufacturer’s
procedures and specifications.
(iii) At least annually, calibrate the
device in accordance with the
manufacturer’s procedures and
specifications.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply
with the requirements of this subpart,
you must:
(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and
maintain your bag leak detection system
as follows:
(A) You must install and operate a bag
leak detection system for each exhaust
stack of the fabric filter.
(B) 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.
(C) 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.
(D) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(E) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal
from the sensor.
(F) 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.
(G) 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.
(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors
are required, the system’s
instrumentation and alarm may be
shared among detectors.
(I) You must operate and maintain
your bag leak detection system in
continuous operation according to your
monitoring plan required under
§ 60.4880.
(ii) You must initiate procedures to
determine the cause of every alarm
within 8 hours of the alarm, and you
must alleviate the cause of the alarm
within 24 hours of the alarm by taking
whatever corrective action(s) are
necessary. Corrective actions may
include, but are not limited to the
following:
(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air
leaks, torn or broken bags or filter
media, or any other condition that may
cause an increase in particulate matter
emissions.
(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter
media.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(C) Replacing defective bags or filter
media or otherwise repairing the control
device.
(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter
compartment.
(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection
system probe or otherwise repairing the
bag leak detection system.
(F) Shutting down the process
producing the PM emissions.
(c) You must operate and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring
systems specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section in continuous
operation according to your monitoring
plan required under § 60.4880.
(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack,
you must install, calibrate (to
manufacturers’ specifications),
maintain, and operate a device or
method for measuring the use of the
bypass stack including date, time, and
duration.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
§ 60.4910
What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as
applicable) specified in paragraphs (a)
through (m) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years. All records must be
available on site in either paper copy or
computer-readable format that can be
printed upon request, unless an
alternative format is approved by the
Administrator.
(a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
(b) Siting. All documentation
produced as a result of the siting
requirements of §§ 60.4800 and 60.4805.
(c) Operator Training. Documentation
of the operator training procedures and
records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section. You must
make available and readily accessible at
the facility at all times for all SSI unit
operators the documentation specified
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) Documentation of the following
operator training procedures and
information:
(i) Summary of the applicable
standards under this subpart.
(ii) Procedures for receiving,
handling, and feeding sewage sludge.
(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown,
and malfunction procedures.
(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper
combustion air supply levels.
(v) Procedures for operating the
incinerator and associated air pollution
control systems within the standards
established under this subpart.
(vi) Monitoring procedures for
demonstrating compliance with the
incinerator operating limits.
(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping
procedures.
(viii) Procedures for handling ash.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(ix) A list of the materials burned
during the performance test, if in
addition to sewage sludge.
(x) For each qualified operator and
other plant personnel who may operate
the unit according to the provisions of
§ 60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager
number at which they can be reached
during operating hours.
(2) Records showing the names of SSI
unit operators and other plant personnel
who may operate the unit according to
the provisions of § 60.4835(a), as
follows:
(i) Records showing the names of SSI
unit operators and other plant personnel
who have completed review of the
information in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section as required by § 60.4840(b),
including the date of the initial review
and all subsequent annual reviews.
(ii) Records showing the names of the
SSI operators who have completed the
operator training requirements under
§ 60.4810, met the criteria for
qualification under § 60.4820, and
maintained or renewed their
qualification under § 60.4825 or
§ 60.4830. Records must include
documentation of training, including
the dates of their initial qualification
and all subsequent renewals of such
qualifications.
(3) Records showing the periods when
no qualified operators were accessible
for more than 8 hours, but less than 2
weeks, as required in § 60.4835(a).
(4) Records showing the periods when
no qualified operators were accessible
for 2 weeks or more along with copies
of reports submitted as required in
§ 60.4835(b).
(d) Air pollution control device
inspections. Records of the results of
initial and annual air pollution control
device inspections conducted as
specified in §§ 60.4875 and 60.4900(c),
including any required maintenance
and any repairs not completed within
10 days of an inspection or the
timeframe established by the
Administrator.
(e) Performance test reports. (1) The
results of the initial, annual, and any
subsequent performance tests conducted
to determine compliance with the
emission limits and standards and/or to
establish operating limits, as applicable.
(2) Retain a copy of the complete
performance test report, including
calculations.
(3) Keep a record of the log of the
quantity of sewage sludge burned
during the performance tests, as
required in § 60.4900(a)(2).
(4) Keep any necessary records to
demonstrate that the performance test
was conducted under conditions
representative of normal operations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(f) Continuous monitoring data.
Records of the following data, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous opacity monitoring
systems, all 6-minute average and 1hour block average levels of opacity.
(2) For continuous emissions
monitoring systems, all 1-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and
lead emissions.
(3) For continuous automated
sampling systems, all average
concentrations measured for mercury
and dioxins/furans at the frequencies
specified in your monitoring plan.
(4) For continuous parameter
monitoring systems:
(i) All 1-hour average values recorded
for the following operating parameters,
as applicable:
(A) Dry sludge feed rate and
combustion chamber temperature (or
afterburner temperature).
(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply
with the rule, pressure drop across the
wet scrubber system, liquor flow rate to
the wet scrubber, and liquor pH as
introduced to the wet scrubber.
(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is
used to comply with the rule, voltage of
the electrostatic precipitator collection
plates or amperage of the electrostatic
precipitator collection plates, and
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of
the wet electrostatic precipitator.
(D) If activated carbon injection is
used to comply with the rule, mercury
sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow
rate or pressure drop, as applicable.
(ii) Daily average values and
composite sample values for sludge
moisture content.
(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply
with the rule, the date, time, and
duration of each alarm and the time
corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the
cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken. You must also record the
percent of operating time during each 6month period that the alarm sounds,
calculated as specified in § 60.4850(b).
(iv) For other control devices for
which you must establish operating
limits under § 60.4855, you must
maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine
compliance with the operating limits, at
the frequencies specified in your
monitoring plan.
(g) Other records for continuous
monitoring systems. You must keep the
following records, as applicable:
(1) Keep records of any notifications
to the Administrator in § 60.4915(h)(1)
of starting or stopping use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63309
continuous monitoring system for
determining compliance with any
emissions limit.
(2) Keep records of any requests under
§ 60.4900(b)(5) that compliance with the
emission limits (except opacity) be
determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an
equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
(3) If activated carbon injection is
used to comply with the rule, the type
of sorbent used and any changes in the
type of sorbent used.
(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any
deviation reports submitted under
§ 60.4915(e) and (f).
(i) Equipment specifications and
operation and maintenance
requirements. Equipment specifications
and related operation and maintenance
requirements received from vendors for
the incinerator, emission controls, and
monitoring equipment.
(j) Calibration of monitoring devices.
Records of calibration of any monitoring
devices as required under §§ 60.4900
and 60.4905.
(k) Monitoring plan and performance
evaluations for continuous monitoring
systems. Records of the monitoring plan
required under § 60.4880, and records of
performance evaluations required under
§ 60.4885(b)(6).
(l) Less frequent testing. Any records
required to document that your SSI unit
qualifies for less frequent testing under
§ 60.4885(a)(3).
(m) Use of bypass stack. Records
indicating use of the bypass stack,
including dates, times, and durations as
required under § 60.4905(c).
§ 60.4915
What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified
in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this
section. See Table 4 to this subpart for
a summary of these reports.
(a) Notification of construction. You
must submit a notification prior to
commencing construction that includes
the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section:
(1) A statement of intent to construct.
(2) The anticipated date of
commencement of construction.
(3) All documentation produced as a
result of the siting requirements of
§ 60.4805.
(4) Anticipated date of initial startup.
(b) Notification of initial startup. You
must submit the information specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of
this section prior to initial startup:
(1) The maximum design dry sludge
burning capacity.
(2) The anticipated maximum dry
sludge feed rate.
(3) If applicable, the petition for sitespecific operating limits specified in
§ 60.4855.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63310
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) The anticipated date of initial
startup.
(5) The site-specific monitoring plan
required under § 60.4880, at least 60
days before your initial performance
evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
(c) Initial compliance report. You
must submit the following information
no later than 60 days following the
initial performance test.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official,
with that official’s name, title, and
signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
(3) Date of report.
(4) The complete test report for the
initial performance test results obtained
by using the test methods specified in
Table 1 to this subpart.
(5) If an initial performance
evaluation of a continuous monitoring
system was conducted, the results of
that initial performance evaluation.
(6) The values for the site-specific
operating limits established pursuant to
§§ 60.4850 and 60.4855 and the
calculations and methods used to
establish each operating limit.
(7) If you are using a fabric filter to
comply with the emission limits,
documentation that a bag leak detection
system has been installed and is being
operated, calibrated, and maintained as
required by § 60.4850(b).
(8) The results of the initial air
pollution control device inspection
required in § 60.4875, including a
description of repairs.
(d) Annual compliance report. You
must submit an annual compliance
report that includes the items listed in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (15) of this
section for the reporting period
specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section. You must submit your first
annual compliance report no later than
12 months following the submission of
the initial compliance report in
paragraph (c) of this section. You must
submit subsequent annual compliance
reports no more than 12 months
following the previous annual
compliance report. (If the unit is subject
to permitting requirements under title V
of the Clean Air Act, you may be
required by the permit to submit these
reports more frequently.)
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official,
with that official’s name, title, and
signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and
ending dates of the reporting period.
(4) If a performance test was
conducted during the reporting period,
the results of that performance test.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(i) If operating limits were established
during the performance test, include the
value for each operating limit and the
method used to establish each operating
limit, including calculations.
(ii) If activated carbon is used during
the performance test, include the type of
activated carbon used.
(5) For each pollutant and operating
parameter recorded using a continuous
monitoring system, the highest recorded
3-hour average and the lowest recorded
3-hour average during the reporting
period, as applicable.
(6) If there are no deviations during
the reporting period from any emission
limit, emission standard, or operating
limit that applies to you, a statement
that there were no deviations from the
emission limits, emission standard, or
operating limits.
(7) Information for bag leak detection
systems recorded under
§ 60.4910(f)(4)(iii).
(8) If a performance evaluation of a
continuous monitoring system was
conducted, the results of that
performance evaluation. If new
operating limits were established during
the performance evaluation, include
your calculations for establishing those
operating limits.
(9) If you met the requirements of
§ 60.4885(a)(3) and did not conduct a
performance test during the reporting
period, you must include the dates of
the last three performance tests, a
comparison of the emission level you
achieved in the last three performance
tests to the 75 percent emission limit
threshold specified in
§ 60.4885(a)(3)(i)(B), and a statement as
to whether there have been any process
changes and whether the process change
resulted in an increase in emissions.
(10) Documentation of periods when
all qualified SSI unit operators were
unavailable for more than 8 hours, but
less than 2 weeks.
(11) Results of annual air pollution
control device inspections recorded
under § 60.4910(d) for the reporting
period, including a description of
repairs.
(12) If there were no periods during
the reporting period when your
continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction, a statement that there were
no periods during which your
continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction.
(13) If there were no periods during
the reporting period when a continuous
monitoring system was out of control, a
statement that there were no periods
during which your continuous
monitoring systems were out of control.
(14) If there were no operator training
deviations, a statement that there were
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
no such deviations during the reporting
period.
(15) If you did not make revisions to
your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period, a statement
that you did not make any revisions to
your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period. If you made
revisions to your site-specific
monitoring plan during the reporting
period, a copy of the revised plan.
(e) Deviation reports. (1) You must
submit a deviation report if:
(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling
average parameter level is above the
maximum operating limit or below the
minimum operating limit established
under this subpart.
(ii) Any recorded daily average sludge
moisture content is outside the
allowable range.
(iii) The bag leak detection system
alarm sounds for more than 5 percent of
the operating time for the 6-month
reporting period.
(iv) Any recorded 4-hour rolling
average emissions level is above the
emission limit, if a continuous
monitoring system is used to comply
with an emission limit.
(v) Any opacity level recorded under
§ 60.4865(b)(5) that is above the opacity
limit, if a continuous opacity
monitoring system is used.
(vi) There are visible emissions of
combustion ash from an ash conveying
system for more than 5 percent of the
hourly observation period.
(vii) A performance test was
conducted that deviated from any
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
(viii) A continuous monitoring system
was out of control.
(ix) You had a malfunction (e.g.,
continuous monitoring system
malfunction) that caused or may have
caused any applicable emission limit to
be exceeded.
(2) The deviation report must be
submitted by August 1 of that year for
data collected during the first half of the
calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and
by February 1 of the following year for
data you collected during the second
half of the calendar year (July 1 to
December 31).
(3) For each deviation where you are
using a continuous monitoring system
to comply with an associated emission
limit or operating limit, report the items
described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through
(viii) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible
official, with that official’s name, title,
and signature, certifying the accuracy of
the content of the report.
(iii) The calendar dates and times
your unit deviated from the emission
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
limits, emission standards, or operating
limits requirements.
(iv) The averaged and recorded data
for those dates.
(v) Duration and cause of each
deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission
standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective
actions.
(vi) Dates, times, and causes for
monitor downtime incidents.
(vii) A copy of the operating
parameter monitoring data during each
deviation and any test report that
documents the emission levels.
(viii) If there were periods during
which the continuous monitoring
system had a malfunction or was out of
control, you must include the following
information for each deviation from an
emission limit or operating limit:
(A) The date and time that each
malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous monitoring system was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level)
and high-level checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous monitoring system was
out of control, including start and end
dates and hours and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(D) The date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during
a period of malfunction, during a period
when the system as out of control, or
during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of
the deviation during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a
percent of the total source operating
time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration
of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to control
equipment problems, process problems,
other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration
of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period,
and the total duration of continuous
monitoring system downtime as a
percent of the total operating time of the
SSI unit at which the continuous
monitoring system downtime occurred
during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each
parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the SSI unit.
(I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
(J) A brief description of the
continuous monitoring system.
(K) The date of the latest continuous
monitoring system certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in
continuous monitoring system,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
processes, or controls since the last
reporting period.
(4) For each deviation where you are
not using a continuous monitoring
system to comply with the associated
emission limit or operating limit, report
the following items:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official
with that official’s name, title, and
signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
(iii) The total operating time of each
affected SSI during the reporting period.
(iv) The calendar dates and times your
unit deviated from the emission limits,
emission standard, or operating limits
requirements.
(v) The averaged and recorded data
for those dates.
(vi) Duration and cause of each
deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission
standard, and operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective
actions.
(vii) A copy of any performance test
report that showed a deviation from the
emission limits or standard.
(viii) A brief description of any
malfunction reported in paragraph
(e)(1)(viii) of this section, including a
description of actions taken during the
malfunction to minimize emissions in
accordance with 60.11(d) and to correct
the malfunction.
(f) Qualified operator deviation. (1) If
all qualified operators are not accessible
for 2 weeks or more, you must take the
two actions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Submit a notification of the
deviation within 10 days that includes
the three items in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) A statement of what caused the
deviation.
(B) A description of actions taken to
ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible.
(C) The date when you anticipate that
a qualified operator will be available.
(ii) Submit a status report to the
Administrator every 4 weeks that
includes the three items in paragraphs
(f)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) A description of actions taken to
ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible.
(B) The date when you anticipate that
a qualified operator will be accessible.
(C) Request for approval from the
Administrator to continue operation of
the SSI unit.
(2) If your unit was shut down by the
Administrator, under the provisions of
§ 60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to
provide an accessible qualified operator,
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63311
you must notify the Administrator
within 5 days of meeting
§ 60.4835(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming
operation.
(g) Notification of a force majeure. If
a force majeure is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred for which you
intend to assert a claim of force majeure:
(1) You must notify the
Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known that the event may cause or
caused a delay in conducting a
performance test beyond the regulatory
deadline, but the notification must
occur before the performance test
deadline unless the initial force majeure
or a subsequent force majeure event
delays the notice, and in such cases, the
notification must occur as soon as
practicable.
(2) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale
for attributing the delay in conducting
the performance test beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure;
describe the measures taken or to be
taken to minimize the delay; and
identify a date by which you propose to
conduct the performance test.
(h) Other notifications and reports
required. You must submit other
notifications as provided by § 60.7 and
as follows:
(1) You must notify the Administrator
1 month before starting or stopping use
of a continuous monitoring system for
determining compliance with any
emission limit.
(2) You must notify the Administrator
at least 30 days prior to any
performance test conducted to comply
with the provisions of this subpart, to
afford the Administrator the
opportunity to have an observer present.
(3) As specified in § 60.4900(a)(8), you
must notify the Administrator at least 7
days prior to the date of a rescheduled
performance test for which notification
was previously made in paragraph (h)(2)
of this section.
(i) Report submission form. (1) Submit
initial, annual, and deviation reports
electronically or in paper format,
postmarked on or before the submittal
due dates.
(2) After December 31, 2011, within
60 days after the date of completing
each performance evaluation or
performance test conducted to
demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, you must submit the relative
accuracy test audit data and
performance test data, except opacity, to
EPA by successfully submitting the data
electronically into EPA’s Central Data
Exchange by using the Electronic
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63312
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Reporting Tool (see https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/).
(j) Changing report dates. If the
Administrator agrees, you may change
the semi-annual or annual reporting
dates. See § 60.19(c) for procedures to
seek approval to change your reporting
date.
Title V Operating Permits
§ 60.4920 Am I required to apply for and
obtain a title V operating permit for my
unit?
Yes, if you are subject to this subpart,
you are required to apply for and obtain
a title V operating permit unless you
meet the relevant requirements for an
exemption specified in § 60.4780.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.4925 When must I submit a title V
permit application for my new SSI unit?
(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this
subpart is not subject to an earlier
permit application deadline, a complete
title V permit application must be
submitted on or before one of the dates
specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of
this section. (See section 503(c) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i)
and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(1) For an SSI unit that commenced
operation as a new SSI unit as of [THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], then a complete title V
permit application must be submitted
not later than [THE DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) For an SSI unit that does not
commence operation as a new SSI unit
until after [THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then a
complete title V permit application
must be submitted not later than 12
months after the date the unit
commences operation as a new source.
(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this
subpart is subject to title V as a result
of some triggering requirement(s) other
than this subpart (for example, a unit
subject to this subpart may be a major
source or part of a major source), then
your unit may be required to apply for
a title V permit prior to the deadlines
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. If more than one requirement
triggers a source’s obligation to apply for
a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe
for filing a title V permit application is
triggered by the requirement that first
causes the source to be subject to title
V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air
Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and
40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) A ‘‘complete’’ title V permit
application is one that has been
determined or deemed complete by the
relevant permitting authority under
section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and
40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2).
You must submit a complete permit
application by the relevant application
deadline in order to operate after this
date in compliance with Federal law.
(See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and
40 CFR 71.7(b).)
Definitions
§ 60.4930
What definitions must I know?
Terms used but not defined in this
subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act
and § 60.2.
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
Auxiliary fuel means natural gas,
liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, or
diesel fuel.
Bag leak detection system means an
instrument that is capable of monitoring
particulate matter loadings in the
exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse)
in order to detect bag failures. A bag
leak detection system includes, but is
not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light
scattering, light transmittance, or other
principle to monitor relative particulate
matter loadings.
Bypass stack means a device used for
discharging combustion gases to avoid
severe damage to the air pollution
control device or other equipment.
Calendar year means 365 consecutive
days starting on January 1 and ending
on December 31.
Co-fired combustor means a unit
combusting sewage sludge or dewatered
sludge pellets with other fuels or wastes
(e.g., coal, clean biomass, municipal
solid waste, commercial or institutional
waste, hospital medical infectious
waste, unused pharmaceuticals, other
solid waste) and subject to an
enforceable requirement limiting the
unit to combusting a fuel feed stream,
10 percent or less of the weight of which
is comprised, in aggregate, of sewage
sludge.
Continuous automated sampling
system means the total equipment and
procedures for automated sample
collection and sample recovery/analysis
to determine a pollutant concentration
or emission rate by collecting a single
integrated sample(s) or multiple
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
integrated sample(s) of the pollutant (or
diluent gas) for subsequent on- or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s)
collected are representative of the
emissions for the sample time as
specified by the applicable requirement.
Continuous emissions monitoring
system means a monitoring system for
continuously measuring and recording
the emissions of a pollutant from an
affected facility.
Continuous monitoring system (CMS)
means a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous
automated sampling system, continuous
parameter monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring system,
or other manual or automatic
monitoring that is used for
demonstrating compliance with an
applicable regulation on a continuous
basis as defined by this subpart. The
term refers to the total equipment used
to sample and condition (if applicable),
to analyze, and to provide a permanent
record of emissions or process
parameters.
Continuous parameter monitoring
system means a monitoring system for
continuously measuring and recording
operating conditions associated with air
pollution control device systems (e.g.,
temperature, pressure, and power).
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including but not limited to any
emission limit, operating limit, or
operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans.
Electrostatic precipitator or wet
electrostatic precipitator means an air
pollution control device that uses both
electrical forces and, if applicable, water
to remove pollutants in the exit gas from
a sewage sludge incinerator stack.
Fabric filter means an add-on air
pollution control device used to capture
particulate matter by filtering gas
streams through filter media, also
known as a baghouse.
Fluidized bed incinerator means an
enclosed device in which organic matter
and inorganic matter in sewage sludge
are combusted in a bed of particles
suspended in the combustion chamber
gas.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Malfunction means any sudden,
infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution
control equipment, process equipment,
or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner. Failures that are caused,
in part, by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions. During
periods of malfunction the operator
shall operate within established
emissions and operating limits and shall
continue monitoring of all applicable
operating parameters until all waste has
been combusted or until the
malfunction ceases, whichever comes
first.
Maximum feed rate means 110
percent of the highest 3-hour average
dry charge rate measured during the
most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with all
applicable emission limits or standards.
Modification means a change to an
SSI unit later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that
meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes
over the life of the unit exceeds 50
percent of the original cost of building
and installing the SSI unit (not
including the cost of land) updated to
current costs (current dollars). To
determine what systems are within the
boundary of the SSI unit used to
calculate these costs, see the definition
of SSI unit.
(2) Any physical change in the SSI
unit or change in the method of
operating it that increases the amount of
any air pollutant emitted for which
section 129 or section 111 of the Clean
Air Act has established standards.
Modified sewage sludge incineration
(SSI) unit means an SSI unit that
undergoes a modification, as defined in
this section.
Multiple hearth incinerator means a
circular steel furnace that contains a
number of solid refractory hearths and
a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that
are designed to slowly rake the sludge
on the hearth are attached to the rotating
shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top
and proceeds downward through the
furnace from hearth to hearth, pushed
along by the rabble arms.
New sewage sludge incineration unit
means an SSI unit the construction of
which is commenced after October 14,
2010 which would be applicable to such
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
unit or a modified solid waste
incineration unit.
Opacity means the degree to which
emissions reduce the transmission of
light and obscure the view of an object
in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour
period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any
amount of sewage sludge is combusted
at any time in the SSI unit.
Particulate matter means filterable
particulate matter emitted from SSI
units as measured by Method 5 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Methods
26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–8.
Power input to the electrostatic
precipitator means the product of the
test-run average secondary voltage and
the test-run average secondary amperage
to the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates.
Process change means that any of the
following have occurred:
(1) A change in the process employed
at the wastewater treatment facility
associated with the affected SSI unit
(e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at
the facility, which changes the method
used for disposing of process solids and
processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution
control devices used to comply with the
emission limits for the affected SSI unit
(e.g., change in the sorbent used for
activated carbon injection).
(3) An allowable increase in the
quantity of wastewater received from an
industrial source by the wastewater
treatment facility.
Sewage sludge means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during
the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works. Sewage sludge
includes, but is not limited to, domestic
septage; scum or solids removed in
primary, secondary, or advanced
wastewater treatment processes; and a
material derived from sewage sludge.
Sewage sludge does not include ash
generated during the firing of sewage
sludge in a sewage sludge incineration
unit or grit and screenings generated
during preliminary treatment of
domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Sewage sludge feed rate means the
rate at which sewage sludge is fed into
the incinerator unit.
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit
means an incineration unit combusting
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63313
sewage sludge for the purpose of
reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter.
Sewage sludge incineration unit designs
include fluidized bed and multiple
hearth.
Shutdown means the period of time
after all sewage sludge has been
combusted in the primary chamber.
Solid waste means any garbage,
refuse, sewage sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility
and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from
industrial, commercial, mining,
agricultural operations, and from
community activities, but does not
include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved
materials in irrigation return flows or
industrial discharges which are point
sources subject to permits under section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1342), or source, special nuclear, or
byproduct material as defined by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 2014).
Standard conditions, when referring
to units of measure, means a
temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a
pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3
kilopascals).
Startup means the period of time
between the activation, including the
firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or
distillate oil), of the system and the first
feed to the unit.
Toxic equivalency means the product
of the concentration of an individual
dioxin congener in an environmental
mixture and the corresponding estimate
of the compound-specific toxicity
relative to tetrachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin, referred to as the toxic
equivalency factor for that compound.
Table 3 to this subpart lists the toxic
equivalency factors.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air
pollution control device that utilizes an
aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to
collect particulate matter (including
nonvaporous metals and condensed
organics) and/or to absorb and
neutralize acid gases.
You means the owner or operator of
an SSI unit that meets the criteria in
§ 60.4770.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63314
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
UNITS
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission limit a
Using these averaging methods and
minimum sampling volumes or
durations
And determining compliance using
this method
Particulate matter .......
4.1 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
Hydrogen chloride ......
0.12 parts per million by dry volume ..
Carbon monoxide .......
7.4 parts per million by dry volume ....
Dioxins/furans (total
mass basis).
0.024 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic
equivalency basis).
0.0022 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter.
Mercury .......................
0.0010 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (For Method 26, collect
a minimum volume of 200 liters per
run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard
cubic meters per run).
4-hour rolling average (using 1-hour
averages of data).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
3-run average (For Method 29 and
ASTM D6784–02, collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard
cubic meters per run. For Method
30B, collect a minimum sample as
specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A).
Performance test (Method 5 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–8).
Performance test (Method 26 or 26A
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Oxides of nitrogen ......
26 parts per million by dry volume .....
Sulfur dioxide ..............
2.0 parts per million by dry volume ....
Cadmium ....................
0.00051 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Lead ............................
0.00053 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Opacity .......................
0 percent .............................................
Fugitive emissions
from ash handling.
Visible emissions of combustion ash
from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) for
no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation period.
a All
3-run average (Collect sample for a
minimum duration of one hour per
run).
3-run average (For Method 6, collect
a minimum volume of 200 liters per
run. For Method 6C, collect sample
for a minimum duration of one hour
per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
6-minute averages, three 1-hour observation periods.
Three 1-hour observation periods .......
Continuous emissions monitoring system.
Performance test (Method 23 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–7).
Performance test (Method 23 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–7).
Performance test (Method 29 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (when published in the Federal Register); or 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).
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6C at
40 CFR part 40, appendix A–4; or
ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981 Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus]).
Performance test (Method 29 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Performance test (Method 29 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Performance test (Method 9 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–4).
Visible emission test (Method 22 of
appendix A–7 of this part).
emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
TABLE 2—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
For these operating parameters
You must establish these
operating limits
Averaging time
for compliance
Data measurement
Data recording b
Continuous ............
Continuous ............
Hourly .................
Every 15 minutes
4-hour rolling.c
4-hour rolling.c
Composite of three
samples taken 6
hours apart.
Daily ...................
Daily.
All SSI units
Dry sludge feed rate ...............................
Combustion chamber temperature or
afterburner temperature.
Sludge moisture content .........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
Maximum dry sludge feed rate .............
Minimum combustion temperature or
afterburner temperature.
Range of moisture content (percent) ....
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63315
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
UNITS a—Continued
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
For these operating parameters
You must establish these
operating limits
Averaging time
for compliance
Data measurement
Data recording b
Continuous ............
Every 15 minutes
4-hour rolling.c
Continuous ............
Continuous ............
Every 15 minutes
Every 15 minutes
4-hour rolling.c
4-hour rolling.c
Scrubber
Pressure drop across each wet scrubber
or amperage to each wet scrubber.
Scrubber liquor flow rate ........................
Scrubber liquor pH ..................................
Minimum pressure drop or minimum
amperage.
Minimum flow rate .................................
Minimum pH ..........................................
Fabric Filter
Alarm time of the bag leak detection
system alarm.
Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in
§ 60.4850 and is not established on a site-specific basis)
Electrostatic precipitator
Secondary voltage of the electrostatic
precipitator collection plates.
Secondary amperage of the electrostatic
precipitator collection plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the outlet of
the electrostatic precipitator.
Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.
Continuous ............
Hourly .................
4-hour rolling.c
Maximum effluent water flow rate at the
outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.
Hourly ....................
Hourly .................
4-hour rolling.c
Hourly ....................
Hourly .................
4-hour rolling.c
Continuous ............
Every 15 minutes
4-hour rolling.c
Activated carbon injection
Mercury sorbent injection rate ................
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate ..........
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas pressure drop.
Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate
Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection
rate.
Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier gas pressure drop.
a As specified in § 60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits.
b This recording time refers to the frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data recorded
every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters except sludge moisture content, you use hourly averages to
calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
c Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating hours.
TABLE 3—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
Toxic
equivalency
factor
Dioxin/furan congener
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ..............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ..........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ....................................................................................................................................
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ...........................................................................................................................................................
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran ....................................................................................................................................................
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ...............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ...............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran .........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran .........................................................................................................................................
octachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................................
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0003
0.1
0.3
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0003
TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATION UNITS a
Report
Due date
Contents
Notification of construction ......................
Prior to commencing construction ...........
• Statement of intent to construct ..........
• Anticipated date of commencement of
construction.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
§ 60.4915(a)
63316
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
Prior to initial startup ...............................
Initial compliance report ..........................
No later than 60 days following the initial
performance test.
Annual compliance report ........................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Notification of initial startup .....................
No later than 12 months following the
submission of the initial compliance
report; subsequent reports are to be
submitted no more than 12 months
following the previous report.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• Documentation for siting requirements.
• Anticipated date of initial startup.
• Maximum design dry sewage sludge
burning capacity.
• Anticipated maximum feed rate.
• If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits.
• Anticipated date of initial startup.
• Site-specific monitoring plan.
• Company name and address ..............
• Statement by a responsible official,
with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
• Date of report.
• Complete test report for the initial performance test.
• Results of CMS b performance evaluation.
• The values for the site-specific operating limits and the calculations and
methods used to establish each operating limit.
• Documentation of installation of bag
leak detection system for fabric filter.
• Results of initial air pollution control
device inspection, including a description of repairs.
• Company name and address ..............
• Statement and signature by responsible official.
• Date and beginning and ending dates
of report.
• If a performance test was conducted
during the reporting period, the results
of the test, including any new operating limits and associated calculations and the type of activated carbon
used, if applicable.
• For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a CMS, the
highest recorded 3-hour average and
the lowest recorded 3-hour average,
as applicable.
• If no deviations from emission limits,
emission standards, or operating limits
occurred, a statement that no deviations occurred.
• If a fabric filter is used, the date, time,
and duration of alarms.
• If a performance evaluation of a CMS
was conducted, the results, including
any new operating limits and their associated calculations.
• If you met the requirements of
§ 60.4885(a)(3) and did not conduct a
performance test, include the dates of
the last three performance tests, a
comparison to the 75 percent emission limit threshold of the emission
level achieved in the last three performance tests, and a statement as to
whether there have been any process
changes.
• Documentation of periods when all
qualified SSI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but
less than 2 weeks.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
§ 60.4915(b)
§ 60.4915(c)
§§ 60.4915(d)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
63317
TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Deviation report (deviations from emission limits, emission standards, or operating
limits,
as
specified
in
§ 60.4915(e)(1)).
By August 1 of a calendar year for data
collected during the first half of the
calendar year; by February 1 of a calendar year for data collected during
the second half of the calendar year.
Notification of qualified operator deviation (if all qualified operators are not
accessible for 2 weeks or more).
Within 10 days of deviation .....................
Notification of status of qualified operator
deviation.
Every 4 weeks following notification of
deviation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• Results of annual pollutions control
device inspections, including description of repairs.
• If there were no periods during which
your CMSs had malfunctions, a statement that there were no periods during which your CMSs had malfunctions.
• If there were no periods during which
your CMSs were out of control, a
statement that there were no periods
during which your CMSs were out of
control.
• If there were no operator training deviations, a statement that there were no
such deviations.
• Information on monitoring plan revisions, including a copy of any revised
monitoring plan.
If using a CMS:
• Company name and address.
• Statement by a responsible official.
• The calendar dates and times your
unit deviated from the emission limits
or operating limits.
• The averaged and recorded data for
those dates.
• Duration and cause of each deviation.
• Dates, times, and causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
• A copy of the operating parameter
monitoring data during each deviation
and any test report that documents
the emission levels.
• For periods of CMS malfunction or
when a CMS was out of control, you
must include the information specified
in § 60.4915(e)(3)(viii).
If not using a CMS:
• Company name and address.
• Statement by a responsible official.
• The total operating time of each affected SSI.
• The calendar dates and times your
unit deviated from the emission limits,
emission standard, or operating limits.
• The averaged and recorded data for
those dates.
• Duration and cause of each deviation.
• A copy of any performance test report
that showed a deviation from the
emission limits or standards.
• A brief description of any malfunction,
a description of actions taken during
the malfunction to minimize emissions,
and corrective action taken.
• Statement of cause of deviation ..........
• Description of actions taken to ensure
that a qualified operator will be available.
• The date when a qualified operator
will be accessible.
• Description of actions taken to ensure
that a qualified operator is accessible.
• The date when you anticipate that a
qualified operator will be accessible.
• Request for approval to continue operation.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
§ 60.4915(e)
§ 60.4915(f)
§ 60.4915(f)
63318
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
Notification of resumed operation following shutdown (due to qualified operator deviation and as specified in
§ 60.4835(b)(2)(i).
Notification of a force majeure ................
Within 5 days of obtaining a qualified operator and resuming operation.
• Notification that you have obtained a
qualified operator and are resuming
operation.
§ 60.4915(f)
As soon as practicable following the
date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known that the
event may cause or caused a delay in
conducting a performance test beyond
the regulatory deadline; 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.
1 month before starting or stopping use
of a CMS.
At least 30 days prior to the performance
test.
At least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled performance test.
• Description of the force majeure event
• Rationale for attributing the delay in
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure.
• Description of the measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay.
• Identification of the date by which you
propose to conduct the performance
test.
§ 60.4915(g)
• Intent to start or stop use of a CMS ....
§ 60.4915(h)
Notification of intent to start or stop use
of a CMS.
Notification of intent to conduct a performance test.
Notification of intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test.
a This
Reference
• Intent to conduct a performance test
to comply with this subpart.
• Intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test to comply with this subpart.
table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
means continuous monitoring system.
b CMS
Subpart MMMM—Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Existing Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units
Table of Contents
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Introduction
Sec.
60.5000 What is the purpose of this
subpart?
60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
60.5010 Is a State plan required for all
states?
60.5015 What must I include in my State
plan?
60.5020 Is there an approval process for my
State plan?
60.5025 What if my State plan is not
approvable?
60.5030 Is there an approval process for a
negative declaration letter?
60.5035 What compliance schedule must I
include in my State plan?
60.5040 Are there any State plan
requirements for this subpart that apply
instead of the requirements specified in
subpart B?
60.5045 In lieu of a State plan submittal, are
there other acceptable option(s) for a
State to meet its section 111(d)/129(b)(2)
obligations?
60.5050 What authorities will not be
delegated to State, local, or tribal
agencies?
60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI
unit owners and operators in my State?
Applicability of State Plans
60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my
State plan?
60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my
State plan?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
Use of Model Rule
60.5070 What is the ‘‘model rule’’ in this
subpart?
60.5075 How does the model rule relate to
the required elements of my State plan?
60.5080 What are the principal components
of the model rule?
Model Rule—Increments of Progress
60.5085 What are my requirements for
meeting increments of progress and
achieving final compliance?
60.5090 When must I complete each
increment of progress?
60.5095 What must I include in the
notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
60.5100 When must I submit the
notifications of achievement of
increments of progress?
60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment
of progress?
60.5110 How do I comply with the
increment of progress for submittal of a
control plan?
60.5115 How do I comply with the
increment of progress for achieving final
compliance?
60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI
unit and then restart it?
60.5125 What must I do if I plan to
permanently close my SSI unit and not
restart it?
Model Rule—Operator Training and
Qualification
60.5130 What are the operator training and
qualification requirements?
60.5135 When must the operator training
course be completed?
60.5140 How do I obtain my operator
qualification?
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60.5145 How do I maintain my operator
qualification?
60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed
operator qualification?
60.5155 What if all the qualified operators
are temporarily not accessible?
60.5160 What site-specific documentation
is required and how often must it be
reviewed by qualified SSI operators and
other plant personnel who may operate
the unit according to the provisions of
§ 60.5155(a)?
Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission
Standards, and Operating Limits
60.5165 What emission limits and
standards must I meet and by when?
60.5170 What operating limits must I meet
and by when?
60.5175 How do I establish operating limits
if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric
filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I
limit emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission
standards, and operating limits apply
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
60.5181 How do I establish affirmative
defense for exceedance of an emission
limit or standard during malfunction?
Model Rule—Initial Compliance
Requirements
60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission
limits and standards?
60.5190 How do I establish my operating
limits?
60.5195 By what date must I conduct the
initial air pollution control device
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
inspection and make any necessary
repairs?
60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific
monitoring plan for my continuous
monitoring systems and bag leak
detection system and by what date must
I conduct an initial performance
evaluation of my continuous monitoring
systems and bag leak detection system?
Model Rule—Continuous Compliance
Requirements
60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous
compliance with my operating limits?
60.5215 By what date must I conduct
annual air pollution control device
inspections and make any necessary
repairs?
Model Rule—Performance Testing,
Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements
60.5220 What are the performance testing,
monitoring, and calibration requirements
for compliance with the emission limits
and standards?
60.5225 What are the monitoring and
calibration requirements for compliance
with my operating limits?
Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting
60.5230 What records must I keep?
60.5235 What reports must I submit?
Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits
60.5240 Am I required to apply for and
obtain a title V operating permit for my
existing SSI unit?
60.5245 When must I submit a title V
permit application for my existing SSI
unit?
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Model Rule—Definitions
60.5250 What definitions must I know?
TABLES
Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—
Model Rule—Increments of Progress and
Compliance Schedules for Existing
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—
Model Rule—Emission Limits and
Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—
Model Rule—Emission Limits and
Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—
Model Rule—Operating Parameters for
Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units
Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—
Model Rule—Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—
Model Rule—Summary of Reporting
Requirements for Existing Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units
Introduction
§ 60.5000
subpart?
What is the purpose of this
This subpart establishes emission
guidelines and compliance schedules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
for the control of emissions from sewage
sludge incineration (SSI) units. The
pollutants addressed by these emission
guidelines are listed in Tables 2 and 3
to this subpart. These emission
guidelines are developed in accordance
with sections 111(d) and 129 of the
Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part.
To the extent any requirement of this
subpart is inconsistent with the
requirements of subpart A of this part,
the requirements of this subpart will
apply.
§ 60.5005
Am I affected by this subpart?
(a) If you are the Administrator of an
air quality program in a State or United
States protectorate with one or more SSI
units that commenced construction on
or before October 14, 2010, you must
submit a State plan to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
that implements the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart.
(b) You must submit the State plan to
EPA by [THE DATE 12 MONTHS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
§ 60.5010
states?
Is a State plan required for all
No. You are not required to submit a
State plan if there are no SSI units for
which construction commenced on or
before October 14, 2010 in your State,
and you submit a negative declaration
letter in place of the State plan.
§ 60.5015
plan?
What must I include in my State
(a) You must include the nine items
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(9) of this section in your State plan.
(1) Inventory of affected SSI units,
including those that have ceased
operation but have not been dismantled.
(2) Inventory of emissions from
affected SSI units in your State.
(3) Compliance schedules for each
affected SSI unit.
(4) Emission limits, emission
standards, operator training and
qualification requirements, and
operating limits for affected SSI units
that are at least as protective as the
emission guidelines contained in this
subpart.
(5) Performance testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
(6) Certification that the hearing on
the State plan was held, a list of
witnesses and their organizational
affiliations, if any, appearing at the
hearing, and a brief written summary of
each presentation or written
submission.
(7) Provision for State progress reports
to EPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63319
(8) Identification of enforceable State
mechanisms that you selected for
implementing the emission guidelines
of this subpart.
(9) Demonstration of your State’s legal
authority to carry out the sections
111(d) and 129 State plan.
(b) Your State plan may deviate from
the format and content of the emission
guidelines contained in this subpart.
However, if your State plan does deviate
in content, you must demonstrate that
your State plan is at least as protective
as the emission guidelines contained in
this subpart. Your State plan must
address regulatory applicability,
increments of progress for retrofit,
operator training and qualification,
emission limits and standards,
performance testing, operating limits,
monitoring, and recordkeeping and
reporting.
(c) You must follow the requirements
of subpart B of this part (Adoption and
Submittal of State plans for Designated
Facilities) in your State plan.
§ 60.5020 Is there an approval process for
my State plan?
Yes. The EPA will review your State
plan according to § 60.27.
§ 60.5025 What if my State plan is not
approvable?
If you do not submit an approvable
State plan (or a negative declaration
letter) by [THE DATE 24 MONTHS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], EPA will develop a Federal
plan according to § 60.27 to implement
the emission guidelines contained in
this subpart. Owners and operators of
SSI units not covered by an approved
State plan must comply with the
Federal plan. The Federal plan is an
interim action and will be automatically
withdrawn when your State plan is
approved.
§ 60.5030 Is there an approval process for
a negative declaration letter?
No. The EPA has no formal review
process for negative declaration letters.
Once your negative declaration letter
has been received, EPA will place a
copy in the public docket and publish
a notice in the Federal Register. If, at a
later date, an SSI unit for which
construction commenced on or before
October 14, 2010 is found in your State,
the Federal plan implementing the
emission guidelines contained in this
subpart would automatically apply to
that SSI unit until your State plan is
approved.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63320
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 60.5035 What compliance schedule must
I include in my State plan?
(a) For SSI units that commenced
construction on or before October 14,
2010, your State plan must include
compliance schedules that require SSI
units to achieve final compliance as
expeditiously as practicable after
approval of the State plan but not later
than the earlier of the two dates
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(2) Three years after the effective date
of State plan approval.
(b) For compliance schedules that
extend more than 1 year following the
effective date of State plan approval,
State plans must include dates for
enforceable increments of progress as
specified in § 60.5090.
§ 60.5040 Are there any State plan
requirements for this subpart that apply
instead of the requirements specified in
subpart B?
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Yes. Subpart B establishes general
requirements for developing and
processing section 111(d) State plans.
This subpart applies instead of the
requirements in subpart B of this part,
as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section:
(a) State plans developed to
implement this subpart must be as
protective as the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart. State plans
must require all SSI units to comply by
the dates specified in § 60.5035. This
applies instead of the option for case-bycase less stringent emission standards
and longer compliance schedules in
§ 60.24(f).
(b) State plans developed to
implement this subpart are required to
include two increments of progress for
the affected SSI units. These two
minimum increments are the final
control plan submittal date and final
compliance date in § 60.21(h)(1) and (5).
This applies instead of the requirement
of § 60.24(e)(1) that would require a
State plan to include all five increments
of progress for all SSI units.
§ 60.5045 In lieu of a State plan submittal,
are there other acceptable option(s) for a
State to meet its section 111(d)/129 (b)(2)
obligations?
Yes, a State may meet its Clean Air
Act section 111(d)/129 obligations by
submitting an acceptable written request
for delegation of the Federal plan that
meets the requirements of this section.
This is the only other option for a State
to meet its section 111(d)/129
obligations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(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 § 60.5015(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
SSI Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129
State plan is not precluded from
receiving EPA approval of a delegation
request for the revised Federal plan,
provided the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section are met, and at the
time of the delegation request, the State
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.
§ 60.5050 What authorities will not be
delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies?
The authorities that will not be
delegated to State, local, or tribal
agencies are specified in paragraphs (a)
through (g) of this section.
(a) Approval of alternatives to the
emission limits and standards in Tables
2 and 3 to this subpart and operating
limits established under § 60.5175 or
§ 60.5190.
(b) Approval of major alternatives to
test methods.
(c) Approval of major alternatives to
monitoring.
(d) Approval of major alternatives to
recordkeeping and reporting.
(e) The requirements in § 60.5175.
(f) The requirements in
§ 60.5155(b)(2).
(g) Performance test and data
reduction waivers under § 60.8(b).
§ 60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect
SSI unit owners and operators in my State?
(a) No. This subpart does not directly
affect SSI unit owners and operators in
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
your State. However, SSI unit owners
and operators must comply with the
State plan you develop to implement
the emission guidelines contained in
this subpart. States may choose to
incorporate the model rule text directly
in their State plan.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable
plan to implement and enforce the
guidelines contained in this subpart by
[THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
EPA will implement and enforce a
Federal plan, as provided in § 60.5025,
to ensure that each unit within your
State that commenced construction on
or before October 14, 2010 reaches
compliance with all the provisions of
this subpart by the dates specified in
§ 60.5035.
Applicability of State Plans
§ 60.5060 What SSI units must I address in
my State plan?
(a) Your State plan must address SSI
units that meet all three criteria
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) SSI units in your State that
commenced construction on or before
October 14, 2010.
(2) SSI units that meet the definition
of an SSI unit as defined in § 60.5250.
(3) SSI units not exempt under
§ 60.5065.
(b) If the owner or operator of an SSI
unit makes changes that meet the
definition of modification after [THE
DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
the SSI unit becomes subject to subpart
LLLL of this part and the State plan no
longer applies to that unit.
(c) If the owner or operator of an SSI
unit makes physical or operational
changes to an SSI unit for which
construction commenced on or before
[THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] primarily to comply with
your State plan, subpart LLLL of this
part does not apply to that unit. Such
changes do not qualify as modifications
under subpart LLLL of this part.
§ 60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from
my State plan?
This subpart exempts combustion
units that incinerate sewage sludge that
are located at an industrial or
commercial facility subject to subpart
CCCC of this part, provided the owner
or operator of such a combustion unit
notifies the Administrator of an
exemption claim under this section.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Use of Model Rule
§ 60.5070
subpart?
What is the ‘‘model rule’’ in this
(a) The model rule is the portion of
these emission guidelines (§§ 60.5085
through 60.5250) that addresses the
regulatory requirements applicable to
SSI units. The model rule provides
these requirements in regulation format.
You must develop a State plan that is at
least as protective as the model rule.
You may use the model rule language as
part of your State plan. Alternative
language may be used in your State plan
if you demonstrate that the alternative
language is at least as protective as the
model rule contained in this subpart.
(b) In the model rule of §§ 60.5085
through 60.5250, ‘‘you’’ and
‘‘Administrator’’ have the meaning
specified in § 60.5250.
§ 60.5075 How does the model rule relate
to the required elements of my State plan?
Use the model rule to satisfy the State
plan requirements specified in
§ 60.5015(a)(3) through (5).
§ 60.5080 What are the principal
components of the model rule?
The model rule contains the nine
major components listed in paragraphs
(a) through (i) of this section.
(a) Increments of progress toward
compliance.
(b) Operator training and
qualification.
(c) Emission limits, emission
standards, and operating limits.
(d) Initial compliance requirements.
(e) Continuous compliance
requirements.
(f) Performance testing, monitoring,
and calibration requirements.
(g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(h) Definitions.
(i) Tables.
Model Rule—Increments of Progress
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.5085 What are my requirements for
meeting increments of progress and
achieving final compliance?
If you plan to achieve compliance
more than 1 year following the effective
date of State plan approval, you must
meet the two increments of progress
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) Submit a final control plan.
(b) Achieve final compliance.
§ 60.5095 What must I include in the
notifications of achievement of increments
of progress?
Your notification of achievement of
increments of progress must include the
three items specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section.
(a) Notification that the increment of
progress has been achieved.
(b) Any items required to be
submitted with each increment of
progress.
(c) Signature of the owner or operator
of the SSI unit.
§ 60.5100 When must I submit the
notifications of achievement of increments
of progress?
Notifications for achieving increments
of progress must be postmarked no later
than 10 business days after the
compliance date for the increment.
§ 60.5105 What if I do not meet an
increment of progress?
If you fail to meet an increment of
progress, you must submit a notification
to the Administrator postmarked within
10 business days after the date for that
increment of progress in Table 1 to this
subpart. You must inform the
Administrator that you did not meet the
increment, and you must continue to
submit reports each subsequent
calendar month until the increment of
progress is met.
§ 60.5110 How do I comply with the
increment of progress for submittal of a
control plan?
For your control plan increment of
progress, you must satisfy the two
requirements specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(a) Submit the final control plan that
includes the four items described in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) A description of the devices for air
pollution control and process changes
that you will use to comply with the
emission limits and standards and other
requirements of this subpart.
(2) The type(s) of waste to be burned,
if waste other than sewage sludge is
burned in the unit.
(3) The maximum design sewage
sludge burning capacity.
(4) If applicable, the petition for sitespecific operating limits under
§ 60.5175.
(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the
final control plan.
§ 60.5090 When must I complete each
increment of progress?
§ 60.5115 How do I comply with the
increment of progress for achieving final
compliance?
Table 1 to this subpart specifies
compliance dates for each increment of
progress.
For the final compliance increment of
progress, you must complete all process
changes and retrofit construction of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63321
control devices, as specified in the final
control plan, so that, if the affected SSI
unit is brought online, all necessary
process changes and air pollution
control devices would operate as
designed.
§ 60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI
unit and then restart it?
(a) If you close your SSI unit but will
restart it prior to the final compliance
date in your State plan, you must meet
the increments of progress specified in
§ 60.5085.
(b) If you close your SSI unit but will
restart it after your final compliance
date, you must complete emission
control retrofits and meet the emission
limits, emission standards, and
operating limits on the date your unit
restarts operation.
§ 60.5125 What must I do if I plan to
permanently close my SSI unit and not
restart it?
If you plan to close your SSI unit
rather than comply with the State plan,
submit a closure notification, including
the date of closure, to the Administrator
by the date your final control plan is
due.
Model Rule—Operator Training and
Qualification
§ 60.5130 What are the operator training
and qualification requirements?
(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated
unless a fully trained and qualified SSI
unit operator is accessible, either at the
facility or can be at the facility within
1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit
directly or be the direct supervisor of
one or more other plant personnel who
operate the unit. If all qualified SSI unit
operators are temporarily not accessible,
you must follow the procedures in
§ 60.5155.
(b) Operator training and qualification
must be obtained through a Stateapproved program or by completing the
requirements included in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(c) Training must be obtained by
completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a
minimum, the three elements described
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed
in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x) of this
section.
(i) Environmental concerns, including
types of emissions.
(ii) Basic combustion principles,
including products of combustion.
(iii) Operation of the specific type of
incinerator to be used by the operator,
including proper startup, sewage sludge
feeding, and shutdown procedures.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63322
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(iv) Combustion controls and
monitoring.
(v) Operation of air pollution control
equipment and factors affecting
performance (if applicable).
(vi) Inspection and maintenance of
the incinerator and air pollution control
devices.
(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions
or to prevent conditions that may lead
to malfunctions.
(viii) Bottom and fly ash
characteristics and handling procedures.
(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and
local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration workplace standards.
(x) Pollution prevention.
(2) An examination designed and
administered by the State-approved
program.
(3) Written material covering the
training course topics that may serve as
reference material following completion
of the course.
§ 60.5135 When must the operator training
course be completed?
The operator training course must be
completed by the later of the three dates
specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section.
(a) The final compliance date
(Increment 2).
(b) Six months after your SSI unit
startup.
(c) Six months after an employee
assumes responsibility for operating the
SSI unit or assumes responsibility for
supervising the operation of the SSI
unit.
§ 60.5140 How do I obtain my operator
qualification?
(a) You must obtain operator
qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under
§ 60.5130(b).
(b) Qualification is valid from the date
on which the training course is
completed and the operator successfully
passes the examination required under
§ 60.5130(c)(2).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.5145 How do I maintain my operator
qualification?
To maintain qualification, you must
complete an annual review or refresher
course covering, at a minimum, the five
topics described in paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section.
(a) Update of regulations.
(b) Incinerator operation, including
startup and shutdown procedures,
sewage sludge feeding, and ash
handling.
(c) Inspection and maintenance.
(d) Prevention of malfunctions or
conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(e) Discussion of operating problems
encountered by attendees.
§ 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed
operator qualification?
You must renew a lapsed operator
qualification by one of the two methods
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years,
you must complete a standard annual
refresher course described in § 60.5145.
(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you
must repeat the initial qualification
requirements in § 60.5140(a).
§ 60.5155 What if all the qualified
operators are temporarily not accessible?
If a qualified operator is not at the
facility and cannot be at the facility
within 1 hour, you must meet the
criteria specified in either paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section, depending on the
length of time that a qualified operator
is not accessible.
(a) When a qualified operator is not
accessible for more than 8 hours, the SSI
unit may be operated for less than 2
weeks by other plant personnel who are
familiar with the operation of the SSI
unit who have completed a review of
the information specified in § 60.5160
within the past 12 months. However,
you must record the period when a
qualified operator was not accessible
and include this deviation in the annual
report as specified under § 60.5235(d).
(b) When a qualified operator is not
accessible for 2 weeks or more, you
must take the two actions that are
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator of this
deviation in writing within 10 days. In
the notice, State what caused this
deviation, what you are doing to ensure
that a qualified operator is accessible,
and when you anticipate that a qualified
operator will be accessible.
(2) Submit a status report to the
Administrator every 4 weeks outlining
what you are doing to ensure that a
qualified operator is accessible, stating
when you anticipate that a qualified
operator will be accessible, and
requesting approval from the
Administrator to continue operation of
the SSI unit. You must submit the first
status report 4 weeks after you notify
the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(i) If the Administrator notifies you
that your request to continue operation
of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI
unit may continue operation for 30
days, and then must cease operation.
(ii) Operation of the unit may resume
if a qualified operator is accessible as
required under § 60.5130(a) and you
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
notify the Administrator within 5 days
of having resumed operations and of
having a qualified operator accessible.
§ 60.5160 What site-specific
documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified SSI
operators and other plant personnel who
may operate the unit according to the
provisions of § 60.5155(a)?
(a) You must maintain at the facility
the documentation of the operator
training procedures specified under
§ 60.5230(c)(1) and make the
documentation readily accessible to all
SSI unit operators.
(b) You must establish a program for
reviewing the information listed in
§ 60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified
incinerator operator and other plant
personnel who may operate the unit
according to the provisions of
§ 60.5155(a), according to the following
schedule:
(1) The initial review of the
information listed in § 60.5230(c)(1)
must be conducted within 6 months
after the effective date of this subpart or
prior to an employee’s assumption of
responsibilities for operation of the SSI
unit, whichever date is later.
(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the
information listed in § 60.5230(c)(1)
must be conducted no later than 12
months following the previous review.
Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission
Standards, and Operating Limits
§ 60.5165 What emission limits and
standards must I meet and by when?
You must meet the emission limits
and standards specified in Table 2 or 3
to this subpart by the final compliance
date under the approved State plan,
Federal plan, or delegation, as
applicable. The emission limits and
standards apply at all times the unit is
operating, including, and not limited to,
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. The emission limits and
standards apply to emissions from a
bypass stack or vent while sewage
sludge is being charged to the SSI unit.
§ 60.5170 What operating limits must I
meet and by when?
You must meet the operating limits
specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section, according to the schedule
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
this section. The operating parameters
are listed in Table 4 to this subpart. The
operating limits apply at all times the
unit is charging sewage sludge,
including periods of malfunction.
(a) You must meet site-specific
operating limits for maximum dry
sludge feed rate, sludge moisture
content, and minimum temperature of
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the combustion chamber (or afterburner
combustion chamber) that you establish
in § 60.5190.
(b) If you use a wet scrubber,
electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner to
comply with an emission limit, you
must meet the site-specific operating
limits that you establish in § 60.5190 for
each operating parameter associated
with each air pollution control device.
(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply
with the emission limits, you must
install the bag leak detection system
specified in § 60.5225(b)(3)(i) and
operate the bag leak detection system
such that the alarm does not sound
more than 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period. You must
calculate the alarm time as specified in
§ 60.5190.
(d) You must meet the operating
limits specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section by the final
compliance date under the approved
State plan, Federal plan, or delegation,
as applicable.
(e) For the operating limits specified
in paragraphs (a) and (b), you may
conduct a repeat performance test at any
time to establish new values for the
operating limits to apply from that point
forward. You must confirm or
reestablish operating limits during:
(1) Annual performance tests required
under § 60.5205(a).
(2) Performance tests required under
§ 60.5205(a)(2).
(3) Periodic performance evaluations
required under § 60.5205(b)(5) to meet
the operating limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.5175 How do I establish operating
limits if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric
filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated
carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit
emissions in some other manner, to comply
with the emission limits?
If you use an air pollution control
device other than a wet scrubber, fabric
filter, electrostatic precipitator,
activated carbon injection, or
afterburner, or limit emissions in some
other manner (e.g., materials balance) to
comply with the emission limits in
§ 60.5165, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section.
(a) Establish an operating limit each
for maximum dry sludge feed rate,
sludge moisture content, and minimum
temperature of the combustion chamber
(or afterburner combustion chamber)
according to § 60.5190.
(b) Petition the Administrator for
specific operating parameters, operating
limits, and averaging periods to be
established during the initial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
performance test and to be monitored
continuously thereafter.
(1) You must not conduct the initial
performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the
Administrator, and you must comply
with the operating limits as written,
pending approval by the Administrator.
(2) Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Identification of the specific
parameters you propose to monitor.
(ii) A discussion of the relationship
between these parameters and emissions
of regulated pollutants, identifying how
emissions of regulated pollutants
change with changes in these
parameters, and how limits on these
parameters will serve to limit emissions
of regulated pollutants.
(iii) A discussion of how you will
establish the upper and/or lower values
for these parameters that will establish
the operating limits on these
parameters, including a discussion of
the averaging periods associated with
those parameters for determining
compliance.
(iv) A discussion identifying the
methods you will use to measure and
the instruments you will use to monitor
these parameters, as well as the relative
accuracy and precision of these methods
and instruments.
(v) A discussion identifying the
frequency and methods for recalibrating
the instruments you will use for
monitoring these parameters.
§ 60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission
standards, and operating limits apply
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction?
The emission limits and standards
apply at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction. The
operating limits apply at all times the
unit is charging sewage sludge,
including periods of malfunction.
§ 60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative
defense for exceedance of an emission limit
or standard during malfunction?
In response to an action to enforce the
standards set forth in paragraph
§ 60.5165 you may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for
exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined in
§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed; however, if the respondent
fails to meet its burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative
defense, then the affirmative defense
shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative
defense in any action to enforce such a
limit, you must timely meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63323
notification requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(9) of this section are met.
(1) The excess emissions meet the
conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual
manner.
(ii) Could not have been prevented
through careful planning, proper design
or better operation and maintenance
practices.
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or
event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for.
(iv) Were not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design,
operation, or maintenance.
(2) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Offshift and overtime
labor were used, to the extent
practicable to make these repairs.
(3) The frequency, amount and
duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized
to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions.
(4) If the excess emissions resulted
from a bypass of control equipment or
a process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
severe personal injury, or severe
property damage.
(5) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health.
(6) All emissions monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation
if at all possible.
(7) Your actions in response to the
excess emissions were documented by
properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs.
(8) At all times, the facility was
operated in a manner consistent with
good practices for minimizing
emissions.
(9) You have prepared a written root
cause analysis to determine, correct, and
eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions
resulting from the malfunction event at
issue. The analysis shall also specify,
using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of
excess emissions that were the result of
the malfunction.
(b) If your SSI unit experiences an
exceedance of its emission limit(s)
during a malfunction, you must notify
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63324
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the Administrator by telephone or
facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as
possible, but no later than 2 business
days after the initial occurrence of the
malfunction, if you wish to avail
yourself of an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for that malfunction. If
you seek to assert an affirmative
defense, you must also submit a written
report to the Administrator within 30
days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance of the standard in § 60.5165
to demonstrate, with all necessary
supporting documentation, that you
have met the requirements set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Model Rule—Initial Compliance
Requirements
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission limits
and standards?
To demonstrate initial compliance
with the emission limits and standards
in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. In lieu of using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, you have the option to
demonstrate initial compliance using
the procedures specified in paragraph
(b) of this section for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead,
and opacity. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, as applicable, and
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this
section, according to the performance
testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements in § 60.5220(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate initial compliance
using the performance test required in
§ 60.8. You must demonstrate that your
SSI unit meets the emission limits and
standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to
this subpart for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead,
opacity, and fugitive emissions from ash
handling using the performance test.
The initial performance test must be
conducted using the test methods,
averaging methods, and minimum
sampling volumes or durations
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart
and according to the testing, monitoring,
and calibration requirements specified
in § 60.5220(a).
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, you must demonstrate
that your SSI unit meets the emission
limits and standards specified in Table
2 or 3 to this subpart by your final
compliance date (see Table 1 to this
subpart).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) You may use the results from a
performance test conducted within the
2 previous years that demonstrated
compliance with the emission limits
and standards in Table 2 or 3 to 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 and standards in Table
2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance
test must have used the test methods
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(b) Demonstrate initial compliance
using a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous opacity
monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system. Collect
data as specified in § 60.5220(b)(6) and
use the following procedures:
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance
with the emission limits for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon
monoxide, dioxins/furans total mass,
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity,
you may substitute the use of a
continuous monitoring system in lieu of
conducting the initial performance test
required in paragraph (a) of this section,
as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a
continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section (except
opacity) in lieu of conducting the initial
performance test for that pollutant in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a
total hydrocarbon continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the initial carbon monoxide
performance test required in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(iii) If your SSI unit is not equipped
with a wet scrubber, you may substitute
the use of a continuous opacity
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the initial opacity and particulate matter
performance tests in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a
particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the initial opacity performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(v) You may substitute the use of a
continuous automated sampling system
for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of
conducting the annual mercury or
dioxin/furan performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) If you use a continuous emissions
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
you must use the continuous emissions
monitoring system and follow the
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements specified in § 60.5220(b).
You must measure emissions according
to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic
averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(or carbon dioxide). You must
demonstrate initial compliance using a
24-hour block average of these 1-hour
arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using
Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–7.
(3) If you use a continuous automated
sampling system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated
sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p)
and (q), and measure and calculate
average emissions corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to
§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour averages
to determine compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 2 to
this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages
to determine compliance with the
dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 2
to this subpart.
(ii) Comply with the provisions in
§ 60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring
plan. For mercury continuous
automated sampling systems, you must
use Performance Specification 12B of
appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 1
of appendix F of this part.
(4) If you use a continuous opacity
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
or opacity limit in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, you must use the
continuous opacity monitoring system
and follow the requirements specified in
§ 60.5220(b). You must measure
emissions and calculate 6-minute
averages as specified in § 60.13(h)(1).
Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average
opacity values. You must demonstrate
initial compliance using the arithmetic
average of three 1-hour block averages.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, you must complete
your initial performance evaluations
required under your monitoring plan for
any continuous emissions monitoring
systems, continuous opacity monitoring
systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems by your final
compliance date (see Table 1 to this
subpart). Your performance evaluation
must be conducted using the procedures
and acceptance criteria specified in
§ 60.5200(a)(3).
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(c) To demonstrate initial compliance
with the dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency emission limit in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you
must determine dioxins/furans toxic
equivalency as follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each
dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using
EPA Method 23.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, multiply the
congener concentration by its
corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 5 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section to obtain the total concentration
of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of
toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an initial
compliance report, as specified in
§ 60.5235(b).
(e) If you demonstrate initial
compliance using a performance test as
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, then the provisions of this
paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure
is about to occur, occurs, or has
occurred for which you intend to assert
a claim of force majeure, you must
notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in § 60.5235(g). You must
conduct the initial performance test as
soon as practicable after the force
majeure occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the
extension to the initial performance test
deadline, and will notify you in writing
of approval or disapproval of the request
for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance
test deadline has been approved by the
Administrator, you remain strictly
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.5190
limits?
How do I establish my operating
(a) You must establish the sitespecific operating limits specified in
paragraphs (c) through (l) of this section
during the initial performance tests and
performance evaluations required in
§ 60.5185 and the most recent
performance tests and performance
evaluations required in § 60.5205.
Follow the data measurement and
recording frequencies and data
averaging times specified in Table 4 to
this subpart and follow the testing,
monitoring, and calibration
requirements specified in §§ 60.5220
and 60.5225. You are not required to
establish operating limits for the
operating parameters listed in Table 4 to
this subpart for a control device if you
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
use a continuous monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart for the applicable pollutants, as
follows:
(1) For a scrubber designed to control
emissions of hydrogen chloride and
sulfur dioxide, you are not required to
establish an operating limit and monitor
pressure drop across the scrubber (or
amperage to the scrubber), scrubber
liquor flow rate, and scrubber pH if you
use the continuous monitoring system
specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and
60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit for hydrogen
chloride or sulfur dioxide.
(2) For a scrubber designed to control
emissions of particulate matter,
cadmium, and lead, you are not
required to establish an operating limit
and monitor pressure drop across the
scrubber (or amperage to the scrubber),
scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber
pH if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in
§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for particulate matter,
cadmium, or lead.
(3) You are not required to establish
an operating limit and monitor
secondary voltage of the collection
plates, secondary amperage of the
collection plates, and effluent water
flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in
§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limit for particulate matter,
lead, or cadmium.
(4) You are not required to establish
an operating limit and monitor mercury
sorbent injection rate and carrier gas
flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop)
if you use the continuous monitoring
system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and
60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit for mercury.
(5) You are not required to establish
an operating limit and monitor dioxin/
furan sorbent injection rate and carrier
gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure
drop) if you use the continuous
monitoring system specified in
§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits for dioxins/furans.
(b) For each operating parameter
specified in paragraphs (c) through (k)
of this section, determine the average
operating parameter level during the
initial or most recent performance test
or performance evaluation for the
applicable pollutant(s) according to the
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1),
(2), or (3) of this section, as applicable:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63325
(1) For continuous monitoring systems
that collect multiple data points each
hour. (i) Collect the incremental data for
the operating parameter (e.g., scrubber
liquor flow rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each
applicable pollutant (e.g., sulfur dioxide
and hydrogen chloride). For each
applicable performance test run period,
calculate the arithmetic average
operating parameter level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average
operating parameter level of the
applicable performance test run periods
specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section represents the average operating
parameter level (e.g., average scrubber
liquor flow rate) during the performance
test(s) for the applicable pollutant(s).
Use this average operating parameter
level to establish the respective
operating limit, as specified in
paragraphs (c) through (k) of this
section.
(2) For continuous monitoring systems
that collect data on an hourly basis. (i)
Collect the hourly data for the operating
parameter (e.g., mercury sorbent
injection rate) for each of the three
performance test run periods for each
applicable pollutant (e.g., mercury). For
each applicable performance test run
period, calculate the arithmetic average
operating parameter level.
(ii) The highest arithmetic average
operating parameter level of the
applicable performance test run periods
specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section represents the average operating
parameter level (e.g., average mercury
sorbent injection rate) during the
performance test(s) for the applicable
pollutant(s). Use this average operating
parameter level to establish the
respective operating limit, as specified
in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this
section.
(3) For continuous monitoring systems
that collect data on a daily basis. Collect
the daily data for the operating
parameter (e.g., sludge moisture
content) for each day that a performance
test is conducted for the applicable
pollutant(s). The highest daily
arithmetic average operating parameter
level for the applicable performance
tests represents the average operating
parameter level (e.g., average sludge
moisture content) during the
performance test(s) for the applicable
pollutant(s)). Use this average operating
parameter level to establish the
respective operating limit, as specified
in paragraphs (c) through (k) of this
section.
(c) Minimum pressure drop across
each wet scrubber, calculated as 90
percent of the average pressure drop
across each wet scrubber determined
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63326
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(d) Minimum scrubber liquor flow
rate (measured at the inlet to the wet
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of
the average liquor flow rate determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(e) Minimum scrubber liquor pH
(measured at the inlet to the wet
scrubber), calculated as 90 percent of
the average liquor pH determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(f) If you do not use an afterburner to
comply with the requirements of this
rule, minimum combustion chamber
temperature, calculated as 90 percent of
the average combustion chamber
temperature determined according to
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(g) If you use an afterburner to comply
with the requirement of this rule,
minimum afterburner combustion
chamber temperature, calculated as 90
percent of the average afterburner
combustion chamber temperature
determined according to paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(h) Minimum power input to the
electrostatic precipitator collection
plates, calculated as 90 percent of the
average power input. Average power
input must be calculated as the product
of the average secondary voltage and
average secondary amperage to the
electrostatic precipitator, both
determined according to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(i) Maximum effluent water flow rate
at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator, calculated as 70 percent of
the average effluent water flow rate at
the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator determined according to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(j) For activated carbon injection:
(1) Minimum mercury sorbent
injection rate, calculated as 90 percent
of the average mercury sorbent injection
rate, determined according to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent
injection rate, calculated as 90 percent
of the average dioxin/furan sorbent
injection rate, determined according to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or
minimum carrier gas pressure drop, as
follows:
(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate,
calculated as 90 percent of the average
carrier gas flow rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure
drop, calculated as 90 percent of the
average carrier gas flow rate, determined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(k) Maximum dry sludge feed rate,
calculated as 110 percent of the average
dry sludge feed rate, determined
according to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(l) Sludge moisture content, measured
on a daily basis as a percentage, must be
no less than 10 percent less than and no
more than 10 percent greater than the
average sludge moisture content
determined according to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. For example, if
your average sludge moisture content is
measured as 20 percent, your sludge
moisture level must be greater than or
equal to 18 percent and less than or
equal to 22 percent.
§ 60.5195 By what date must I conduct the
initial air pollution control device inspection
and make any necessary repairs?
(a) You must conduct an air pollution
control device inspection according to
§ 60.5220(c) by the final compliance
date under the approved State plan,
Federal plan, or delegation, as
applicable. For air pollution control
devices installed after the final
compliance date, you must conduct the
air pollution control device inspection
within 60 days after installation of the
control device.
(b) Within 10 operating days
following the air pollution control
device inspection under paragraph (a) of
this section, all necessary repairs must
be completed unless you obtain written
approval from the Administrator
establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the SSI unit must be
completed.
§ 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific
monitoring plan for my continuous
monitoring systems and bag leak detection
system and by what date must I conduct an
initial performance evaluation of my
continuous monitoring systems and bag
leak detection system?
You must develop and submit to the
Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan for each
continuous monitoring system required
under this subpart, according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the
Administrator for alternative monitoring
parameters under § 60.13(i) and
paragraph (d) of this section. If you use
a continuous automated sampling
system to comply with the mercury or
dioxin/furan emission limits, you must
develop your monitoring plan as
specified in § 60.58b(q), and you are not
required to meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
You must submit your monitoring plan
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
at least 60 days before your initial
performance evaluation of your
continuous monitoring system(s), as
specified in paragraph (c) of this
section. You must update your
monitoring plan as specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(a) For each continuous monitoring
system, your monitoring plan must
address the elements and requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(8) of this section.
(1) Installation of the continuous
monitoring system sampling probe or
other interface at a measurement
location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is
representative of control of the exhaust
emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the
last control device).
(2) Performance and equipment
specifications for the sample interface,
the pollutant concentration or
parametric signal analyzer and the data
collection and reduction systems.
(3) Performance evaluation
procedures and acceptance criteria.
(i) For continuous emissions
monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria will
include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(A) The applicable requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in § 60.13.
(B) The applicable performance
specifications (e.g., relative accuracy
tests) in appendix B of this part.
(C) The applicable procedures (e.g.,
quarterly accuracy determinations and
daily calibration drift tests) in appendix
F of this part.
(ii) For continuous opacity monitoring
systems, your performance evaluation
and acceptance criteria will include, but
not be limited to, the following:
(A) The applicable requirements for
continuous emissions monitoring
systems specified in § 60.13.
(B) Performance Specification 1 in
appendix B of this part.
(iii) For continuous parameter
monitoring systems, your performance
evaluation and acceptance criteria must
include, but not be limited to, the
associated performance specifications
and quality assurance procedures.
(4) Ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of
§ 60.11(d).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance
procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of § 60.13.
(6) 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).
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(7) Provisions for periods when the
continuous monitoring system is out of
control, as follows:
(i) A continuous emissions
monitoring system is out of control if
the conditions in any one of paragraphs
(a)(7)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section are
met.
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if
applicable), or high-level calibration
drift exceeds two times the applicable
calibration drift specification in the
applicable performance specification or
in the relevant standard.
(B) The continuous emissions
monitoring system fails a performance
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit),
relative accuracy audit, relative
accuracy test audit, or linearity test
audit.
(C) The continuous opacity
monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the
applicable performance specification in
the relevant standard.
(ii) When the continuous emissions
monitoring system is out of control as
specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this
section, you must take the necessary
corrective action and must repeat all
necessary tests that indicate that the
system is out of control. You must take
corrective action and conduct retesting
until the performance requirements are
below the applicable limits. The
beginning of the out-of-control period is
the hour you conduct a performance
check (e.g., calibration drift) that
indicates an exceedance of the
performance requirements established
under this part. The end of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour following the
completion of corrective action and
successful demonstration that the
system is within the allowable limits.
(8) Schedule for conducting initial
and periodic performance evaluations of
your continuous monitoring systems in
accordance with your site-specific
monitoring plan.
(b) If a bag leak detection system is
used, your monitoring plan must
include a description of the following
items:
(1) Installation of the bag leak
detection system.
(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of
the bag leak detection system, including
how the alarm set-point will be
established.
(3) Operation of the bag leak detection
system, including quality assurance
procedures.
(4) How the bag leak detection system
will be maintained, including a routine
maintenance schedule and spare parts
inventory list.
(5) How the bag leak detection system
output will be recorded and stored.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) You must conduct an initial
performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system and bag
leak detection system, as applicable, in
accordance with your monitoring plan
and within 60 days of installation of the
continuous monitoring system and bag
leak detection system, as applicable.
(d) You may submit an application to
the Administrator for approval of
alternate monitoring requirements to
demonstrate compliance with the
standards of this subpart, subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (d)(1) through
(6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not
approve averaging periods other than
those specified in this section, unless
you document, using data or
information, that the longer averaging
period will ensure that emissions do not
exceed levels achieved during the
performance test over any increment of
time equivalent to the time required to
conduct three runs of the performance
test.
(2) If the application to use an
alternate monitoring requirement is
approved, you must continue to use the
original monitoring requirement until
approval is received to use another
monitoring requirement.
(3) You must submit the application
for approval of alternate monitoring
requirements no later than the
notification of performance test. The
application must contain the
information specified in paragraphs
(d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) Data or information justifying the
request, such as the technical or
economic infeasibility, or the
impracticality of using the required
approach.
(ii) A description of the proposed
alternative monitoring requirement,
including the operating parameter to be
monitored, the monitoring approach
and technique, the averaging period for
the limit, and how the limit is to be
calculated.
(iii) Data or information documenting
that the alternative monitoring
requirement would provide equivalent
or better assurance of compliance with
the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you
of the approval or denial of the
application within 90 calendar days
after receipt of the original request, or
within 60 calendar days of the receipt
of any supplementary information,
whichever is later. The Administrator
will not approve an alternate monitoring
application unless it would provide
equivalent or better assurance of
compliance with the relevant emission
standard. Before disapproving any
alternate monitoring application, the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63327
Administrator will provide the
following:
(i) Notice of the information and
findings upon which the intended
disapproval is based.
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to
present additional supporting
information before final action is taken
on the application. This notice will
specify how much additional time is
allowed for you to provide additional
supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting
any supporting information in a timely
manner to enable the Administrator to
consider the application prior to the
performance test. Neither submittal of
an application, nor the Administrator’s
failure to approve or disapprove the
application relieves you of the
responsibility to comply with any
provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at
any time, on a case-by-case basis that
additional or alternative operating
limits, or alternative approaches to
establishing operating limits, are
necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the emission standards of this
subpart.
(e) You must update your monitoring
plan if there are any changes in your
monitoring procedures or if there is a
process change, as defined in § 60.5250.
Model Rule—Continuous Compliance
Requirements
§ 60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limits and standards?
To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits
and standards specified in Table 2 or 3
to this subpart, use the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. In lieu of using the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, you have the option to
demonstrate initial compliance using
the procedures specified in paragraph
(b) of this section for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead,
and opacity. You must meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, as applicable, and
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this
section, according to the performance
testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements in § 60.5220(a) and (b).
(a) Demonstrate continuous
compliance using a performance test.
Within 10 to 12 months following the
initial performance test (except as
provided in paragraph (e) of this
section), demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits
and standards specified in Table 2 or 3
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63328
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to this subpart for particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead,
and opacity using a performance test.
The performance test must be
conducted using the test methods,
averaging methods, and minimum
sampling volumes or durations
specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart
and according to the testing, monitoring,
and calibration requirements specified
in § 60.5220(a). Conduct subsequent
annual performance tests within 10 to
12 months following the previous one.
(1) You may conduct a repeat
performance test at any time to establish
new values for the operating limits to
apply from that point forward. The
Administrator may request a repeat
performance test at any time.
(2) You must repeat the performance
test within 60 days of a process change,
as defined in § 60.5250.
(3) You have the option to perform
less frequent testing to demonstrate
compliance with the particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and
lead emission limits.
(i) To perform less frequent testing,
you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) You have test data for at least 3
consecutive years.
(B) The test data results for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
cadmium, or lead are less than 75
percent of the applicable emission
limits.
(C) There are no changes in the
operation of the SSI unit or air pollution
control equipment that could increase
emissions. In this case, you do not have
to conduct a performance test for that
pollutant for the next 2 years. You must
conduct a performance test during the
third year and no more than 36 months
following the previous performance test.
(ii) If your SSI unit continues to emit
less than 75 percent of the emission
limit for particulate matter, hydrogen
chloride, mercury, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, cadmium, or lead and
there are no changes in the operation of
the SSI unit 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.
(iii) If a performance test shows
emissions exceeded 75 percent or
greater of the emission limit for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, or lead, you must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
conduct annual performance tests for
that pollutant until all performance tests
over the next 3-year period are within
75 percent of the applicable emission
limit.
(b) Demonstrate continuous
compliance using a continuous
emissions monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring system,
or continuous automated sampling
system. Collect data as specified in
§ 60.5220(b)(6) and use the following
procedures:
(1) To demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter, hydrogen chloride,
carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total
mass, dioxins/furans toxic equivalency,
mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, cadmium, lead, and opacity,
you may substitute the use of a
continuous monitoring system in lieu of
conducting the annual performance test
required in paragraph (a) of this section,
as follows:
(i) You may substitute the use of a
continuous emissions monitoring
system for any pollutant (except
opacity) specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section in lieu of conducting the
annual performance test for that
pollutant in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(ii) You may substitute the use of a
total hydrocarbon continuous
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the carbon monoxide annual
performance test required in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(iii) If your SSI unit is not equipped
with a wet scrubber, you may substitute
the use of a continuous opacity
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the annual opacity and particulate
matter performance tests in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(iv) You may substitute the use of a
particulate matter continuous emissions
monitoring system in lieu of conducting
the annual opacity performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(v) You may substitute the use of a
continuous automated sampling system
for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of
conducting the annual mercury or
dioxin/furan performance test in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) If you use a continuous emissions
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
you must use the continuous emissions
monitoring system and follow the
requirements specified in § 60.5220(b).
You must measure emissions according
to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic
averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(or carbon dioxide). You must
demonstrate initial compliance using a
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24-hour block average of these 1-hour
arithmetic average emission
concentrations, calculated using
Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of
Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–7.
(3) If you use a continuous automated
sampling system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
you must:
(i) Use the continuous automated
sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p)
and (q), and measure and calculate
average emissions corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to
§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan.
(A) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour averages
to determine compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 2 to
this subpart.
(B) Use the procedures specified in
§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages
to determine compliance with the
dioxin/furan emission limits in Table 2
to this subpart.
(ii) Update your monitoring plan as
specified in § 60.4880(e). For mercury
continuous automated sampling
systems, you must use Performance
Specification 12B of appendix B of part
75 and Procedure 1 of appendix F of
this part.
(4) If you use a continuous opacity
monitoring system to demonstrate
compliance with an applicable emission
or opacity limit in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, you must use the
continuous opacity monitoring system
and follow the requirements specified in
§ 60.5220(b). You must measure
emissions and calculate 6-minute
averages as specified in § 60.13(h)(1).
Using these 6-minute averages, you
must calculate 1-hour block average
opacity values. You must demonstrate
initial compliance using the arithmetic
average of three 1-hour block averages.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section, you must complete
your periodic performance evaluations
required in your monitoring plan for
any continuous emissions monitoring
systems, continuous opacity monitoring
systems, and continuous automated
sampling systems, according to the
schedule specified in your monitoring
plan. If you were previously
determining compliance by conducting
an annual performance test, you must
complete the initial performance
evaluation required under your
monitoring plan in § 60.5200 for the
continuous monitoring system within
60 days of notification to the
Administrator of use of the continuous
emissions monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring, or
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
continuous automated sampling system.
Your performance evaluation must be
conducted using the procedures and
acceptance criteria specified in
§ 60.5200(a)(3).
(c) To demonstrate compliance with
the dioxins/furans toxic equivalency
emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section, you must determine
dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as
follows:
(1) Measure the concentration of each
dioxin/furan tetra-through
octachlorinated-congener emitted using
Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) congener
measured in accordance with paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, multiply the
congener concentration by its
corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) Sum the products calculated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section to obtain the total concentration
of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of
toxic equivalency.
(d) You must submit an annual
compliance report as specified in
§ 60.5235(c). You must submit a
deviation report as specified in
§ 60.5235(d) for each instance that you
did not meet each emission limit in
Table 2 to this subpart.
(e) If you demonstrate continuous
compliance using a performance test, as
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, then the provisions of this
paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure
is about to occur, occurs, or has
occurred for which you intend to assert
a claim of force majeure, you must
notify the Administrator in writing as
specified in § 60.5235(g). You must
conduct the performance test as soon as
practicable after the force majeure
occurs. The Administrator will
determine whether or not to grant the
extension to the performance test
deadline, and will notify you in writing
of approval or disapproval of the request
for an extension as soon as practicable.
Until an extension of the performance
test deadline has been approved by the
Administrator, you remain strictly
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
§ 60.5210 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section, according to the monitoring and
calibration requirements in § 60.5225.
(a) You must continuously monitor
the operating parameters specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
section using the continuous monitoring
equipment and according to the
procedures specified in § 60.5225,
except as provided in § 60.5175. Fourhour rolling average values are used to
determine compliance (except for
sludge moisture content and alarm time
of the baghouse leak detection system)
unless a different averaging period is
established under § 60.5175 for an air
pollution control device other than a
wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic
precipitator, activated carbon injection,
or afterburner. A daily average must be
used to determine compliance for
sludge moisture content.
(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI
unit meets the operating limits
established according to §§ 60.5175 and
60.5190 for each applicable operating
parameter.
(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI
unit meets the operating limit for bag
leak detection systems as follows:
(i) For a bag leak detection system,
you must calculate the alarm time as
follows:
(A) If inspection of the fabric filter
demonstrates that no corrective action is
required, no alarm time is counted.
(B) If corrective action is required,
each alarm time shall be counted as a
minimum of 1 hour.
(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective action, each alarm
time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is
counted as the actual amount of time
taken by you to initiate corrective
action.
(ii) Your maximum alarm time is
equal to 5 percent of the operating time
during a 6-month period, as specified in
§ 60.5170(c).
(b) Operation above the established
maximum, below the established
minimum, or outside the allowable
range of the operating limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section constitutes
a deviation from your operating limits
established under this subpart, except
during performance tests conducted to
determine compliance with the
emission and operating limits or to
establish new operating limits. You
must submit the deviation report
specified in § 60.5235(d) for each
instance that you did not meet one of
your operating limits established under
this subpart.
(c) You must submit the annual
compliance report specified in
§ 60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous
compliance.
§ 60.5215 By what date must I conduct
annual air pollution control device
inspections and make any necessary
repairs?
(a) You must conduct an annual
inspection of each air pollution control
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63329
device used to comply with the
emission limits, according to
§ 60.5220(c), within 10 to 12 months
following the previous annual air
pollution control device inspection.
(b) Within 10 operating days
following an air pollution control device
inspection, all necessary repairs must be
completed unless you obtain written
approval from the Administrator
establishing a date whereby all
necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit
must be completed.
Model Rule—Performance Testing,
Monitoring, and Calibration
Requirements
§ 60.5220 What are the performance
testing, monitoring, and calibration
requirements for compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
You must meet, as applicable, the
performance testing requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, the monitoring requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, the air pollution control device
inspections requirements specified in
paragraph (c) of this section, and the
bypass stack provisions specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(a) Performance testing requirements.
(1) All performance tests must consist of
a minimum of three test runs conducted
under conditions representative of
normal operations, as specified in
§ 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the
emission limits or standards during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction are considered deviations
from the applicable emission limits or
standards.
(2) You must document that the dry
sludge burned during the performance
test is representative of the sludge
burned under normal operating
conditions by:
(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of
sewage sludge burned during the
performance test.
(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture
content of the sewage sludge burned
during the performance test.
(3) All performance tests must be
conducted using the test methods,
minimum sampling volume, observation
period, and averaging method specified
in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A must be used to select the
sampling location and number of
traverse points.
(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A–2 must be used for gas
composition analysis, including
measurement of oxygen concentration.
Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–2 must be used
simultaneously with each method.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(6) All pollutant concentrations,
except for opacity, must be adjusted to
7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of
this section:
Cadj = Cmeas (20.9 − 7)/ ( 20.9 − %O2 ) (Eq. 1)
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7
percent oxygen.
Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on
a dry basis.
(20.9¥7) = 20.9 percent oxygen ¥7 percent
oxygen (defined oxygen correction
basis).
20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.
%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a
dry basis, percent.
(7) Performance tests must be
conducted and data reduced in
accordance with the test methods and
procedures contained in this subpart
unless the Administrator does one of the
following.
(i) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a method with minor
changes in methodology.
(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent
method.
(iii) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance.
(iv) Waives the requirement for
performance tests because you have
demonstrated by other means to the
Administrator’s satisfaction that the
affected SSI unit is in compliance with
the standard.
(v) Approves shorter sampling times
and smaller sample volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors. Nothing in this paragraph
is construed to abrogate the
Administrator’s authority to require
testing under section 114 of the Clean
Air Act.
(8) You must provide the
Administrator at least 30 days prior
notice of any performance test, except as
specified under other subparts, to afford
the Administrator the opportunity to
have an observer present. If after 30
days notice for an initially scheduled
performance test, there is a delay (due
to operational problems, etc.) in
conducting the scheduled performance
test, you must notify the Administrator
as soon as possible of any delay in the
original test date, either by providing at
least 7 days prior notice of the
rescheduled date of the performance
test, or by arranging a rescheduled date
with the Administrator by mutual
agreement.
(9) You must provide, or cause to be
provided, performance testing facilities
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the
test methods applicable to the SSI unit,
as follows:
(A) Constructing the air pollution
control system such that volumetric
flow rates and pollutant emission rates
can be accurately determined by
applicable test methods and procedures.
(B) Providing a stack or duct free of
cyclonic flow during performance tests,
as demonstrated by applicable test
methods and procedures.
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
(10) Unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, each performance test must
consist of three separate runs using the
applicable test method. Each run must
be conducted for the time and under the
conditions specified in the applicable
standard. Compliance with each
emission limit must be determined by
calculating the arithmetic mean of the
three runs. In the event that a sample is
accidentally lost or conditions occur in
which one of the three runs must be
discontinued because of forced
shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable
portion of the sample train, extreme
meteorological conditions, or other
circumstances, beyond your control,
compliance may, upon the
Administrator’s approval, be
determined using the arithmetic mean
of the results of the two other runs.
(b) Continuous monitor requirements.
You must meet the following
requirements, as applicable, when using
a continuous monitoring system to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart. The option to use a continuous
emissions monitoring system for
hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans,
cadmium, or lead takes effect on the
date a final performance specification
applicable to hydrogen chloride,
dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is
published in the Federal Register. If you
elect to use a continuous emissions
monitoring system or continuous
opacity monitoring system instead of
conducting annual performance testing,
you must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section. If you elect to use a continuous
automated sampling system instead of
conducting annual performance testing,
you must meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The
option to use a continuous automated
sampling system for mercury or dioxins/
furans takes effect on the date a final
performance specification for such a
continuous automated sampling system
is published in the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) You must notify the Administrator
1 month before starting use of the
continuous emissions monitoring
system or continuous opacity
monitoring system.
(2) You must notify the Administrator
1 month before stopping use of the
continuous emissions monitoring
system or continuous opacity
monitoring system, in which case you
must also conduct a performance test
within 60 days of ceasing operation of
the system.
(3) You must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain an instrument
for continuously measuring and
recording the emissions to the
atmosphere or opacity in accordance
with the following:
(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this
part.
(ii) The following performance
specifications of appendix B of this part,
as applicable:
(A) For particulate matter,
Performance Specification 11 of
appendix B of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride,
Performance Specification 15 of
appendix B of this part.
(C) For carbon monoxide,
Performance Specification 4B of
appendix B of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, Performance
Specification 12A of appendix B of this
part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance
Specification 2 of appendix B of this
part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance
Specification 2 of appendix B of this
part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(J) For opacity, Performance
Specification 1 of appendix B of this
part.
(iii) For continuous emissions
monitoring systems, the quality
assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly
accuracy determinations and daily
calibration drift tests) of appendix F of
this part specified in paragraphs
(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (I) of this section.
For each pollutant, the span value of the
continuous emissions monitoring
system is two times the applicable
emission limit, expressed as a
concentration.
(A) For particulate matter, Procedure
2 in appendix F of this part.
(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure
1 in appendix F of this part except that
the Relative Accuracy Test Audit
requirements of Procedure 1 shall be
replaced with the validation
requirements and criteria of sections
11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
EP14OC10.002</MATH>
63330
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Specification 15 of appendix B of this
part.
(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1
in appendix F of this part.
(D) [Reserved]
(E) For mercury, procedures 1 and 5
in appendix F of this part.
(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1
in appendix F of this part.
(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in
appendix F of this part.
(H) [Reserved]
(I) [Reserved]
(4) During each relative accuracy test
run of the continuous emissions
monitoring system using the
performance specifications in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data
for each regulated pollutant and oxygen
(or carbon dioxide as established in
(b)(5) of this section) must be collected
concurrently (or within a 30- to 60minute period) by both the continuous
emissions monitors and the test
methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
through (b)(4)(viii) of this section.
Relative accuracy testing must be at
normal operating conditions while the
SSI unit is charging sewage sludge.
(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or
Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–8 shall be used.
(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26
or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
8, shall be used.
(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10,
10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–4, shall be used.
(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, shall be
used.
(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead,
Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784–
02, shall be used.
(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or
7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4,
shall be used.
(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or
6C at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, or
as an alternative American National
Standards Institute/American Society of
Mechanical Engineers PTC–19.10–1981
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus] must be
used. For sources that have actual inlet
emissions less than 100 parts per
million dry volume, the relative
accuracy criterion for the inlet of the
sulfur dioxide continuous emissions
monitoring system should be no greater
than 20 percent of the mean value of the
method test data in terms of the units of
the emission standard, or 5 parts per
million dry volume absolute value of
the mean difference between the
method and the continuous emissions
monitoring system, whichever is greater.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as
established in (a)(2)(v) of this section),
Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–2, or as an alternative
American National Standards Institute/
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers PTC–19.10–1981—Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analysis [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus], as
applicable, must be used.
(5) You may request that compliance
with the emission limits (except
opacity) be determined using carbon
dioxide measurements corrected to an
equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If
carbon dioxide is selected for use in
diluent corrections, the relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels must be established during the
initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of
this section. This relationship may be
re-established during subsequent
performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method
3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2
must be used to determine the
relationship between oxygen and carbon
dioxide at a sampling location. Method
3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, appendix
A–2, or as an alternative American
National Standards Institute/American
Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC–
19.–10–1981— Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments and
Apparatus], 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 three runs must be
performed.
(6) You must collect data with the
continuous monitoring system as
follows:
(i) You must collect data using the
continuous monitoring system at all
times the affected SSI unit is operating
and at the intervals specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section,
except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and
required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span
adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous
opacity monitoring system data in
accordance with § 60.13(e)(1), and you
must collect continuous emissions
monitoring system data in accordance
with § 60.13(e)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63331
(iii) Any data collected during
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, or required monitoring
system quality assurance or control
activities must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. Any such periods must
be reported in a deviation report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods
when the monitoring system is out of
control as specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i)
must not be included in calculations
used to report emissions or operating
levels. Any such periods that do not
coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction as defined in § 60.5250,
constitute a deviation from the
monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected
during all periods except those periods
specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and
(b)(6)(iv) of this section in assessing the
operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(7) If you elect to use a continuous
automated sampling system instead of
conducting annual performance testing,
you must:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous automated
sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in
§ 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9),
(p)(10), and (q).
(ii) Collect data according to
§ 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph (b)(6) of
this section.
(c) Air pollution control device
inspections. You must conduct air
pollution control device inspections
that include, at a minimum, the
following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control
device(s) for proper operation, if
applicable.
(2) Ensure proper calibration of
thermocouples, sorbent feed systems,
and any other monitoring equipment.
(3) Generally observe that the
equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(4) Ensure that the air pollution
control device meets manufacturer
recommendations.
(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass
stack at any time that sewage sludge is
being charged to the SSI unit is an
emissions standards deviation for all
pollutants listed in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart. The use of the bypass stack
during a performance test invalidates
the performance test.
§ 60.5225 What are the monitoring and
calibration requirements for compliance
with my operating limits?
(a) You must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain the continuous
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63332
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
parameter monitoring systems for
measuring flow, pressure, pH, and
temperature according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section:
(1) Meet the following general
requirements for flow, pressure, pH, and
temperature measurement devices:
(i) You must collect data using the
continuous monitoring system at all
times the affected SSI unit is operating
and at the intervals specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section,
except for periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and
required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span
adjustments).
(ii) You must collect continuous
parameter monitoring system data in
accordance with § 60.13(e)(2).
(iii) Any data collected during
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system
malfunctions, or required monitoring
system quality assurance or control
activities must not be included in
calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. Any such periods must
be reported in your annual deviation
report.
(iv) Any data collected during periods
when the monitoring system is out of
control as specified in § 60.5200(a)(7)(i)
must not be included in calculations
used to report emissions or operating
levels. Any such periods that do not
coincide with a monitoring system
malfunction, as defined in § 60.5250,
constitute a deviation from the
monitoring requirements and must be
reported in a deviation report.
(v) You must use all the data collected
during all periods except those periods
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and
(a)(1)(iv) of this section in assessing the
operation of the control device and
associated control system.
(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling
average of all recorded readings, except
as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(vii) Record the results of each
inspection, calibration, and validation
check.
(2) Meet the following requirements
for each type of measurement device:
(i) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a flow measurement
device, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) Locate the flow sensor and other
necessary equipment in a position that
provides a representative flow.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(B) Use a flow sensor with a
measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of
the flow rate.
(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal
velocity distributions due to upstream
and downstream disturbances.
(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration
check at least semi-annually.
(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors
(for activated carbon injection), during
the performance test conducted
pursuant to § 60.5205, you must
demonstrate that the system is
maintained within +/¥5 percent
accuracy, according to the procedures in
appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
(ii) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pressure
measurement device, you must meet the
following requirements:
(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a
position that provides a representative
measurement of the pressure.
(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating
pressure, vibration, and internal and
external corrosion.
(C) 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.
(D) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(E) Using a manometer, check gauge
calibration quarterly and transducer
calibration monthly.
(F) Conduct calibration checks any
time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer’s specified maximum
operating pressure range or install a new
pressure sensor.
(G) For carrier gas pressure drop
monitors (for activated carbon
injection), during the performance test
conducted pursuant to § 60.5205, you
must demonstrate that the system is
maintained within +/¥5 percent
accuracy.
(iii) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a pH measurement
device, you must meet the following
requirements:
(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position
that provides a representative
measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(B) Ensure the sample is properly
mixed and representative of the fluid to
be measured.
(C) Check the pH meter’s calibration
on at least two points every 8 hours of
process operation.
(iv) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a temperature
measurement device, you must meet the
following requirements:
(A) Locate the temperature sensor and
other necessary equipment in a position
that provides a representative
temperature.
(B) Use a temperature sensor with a
minimum tolerance of 2.3 degrees
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0
percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic
temperature range.
(C) Use a temperature sensor with a
minimum tolerance of 2.3 degrees
Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5
percent of the temperature value,
whichever is larger, for a cryogenic
temperature range.
(D) Conduct a temperature
measurement device calibration check
at least every 3 months.
(b) You must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain the continuous
parameter monitoring systems for
voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and
bag leak detection system as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this
section.
(1) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor secondary voltage and
secondary amperage (or power input) of
an electrostatic precipitator, you must
use secondary voltage and secondary
amperage monitoring equipment to
measure secondary voltage and
secondary amperage to the electrostatic
precipitator.
(2) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of equipment to
monitor mass flow rate for sorbent
injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh
hopper, or hopper flow measurement
device), you must meet the following
requirements:
(i) Locate the device in a position(s)
that provides a representative
measurement of the total sorbent
injection rate.
(ii) Install and calibrate the device in
accordance with manufacturer’s
procedures and specifications.
(iii) At least annually, calibrate the
device in accordance with the
manufacturer’s procedures and
specifications.
(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply
with the requirements of this subpart,
you must:
(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and
maintain your bag leak detection system
as follows:
(A) You must install and operate a bag
leak detection system for each exhaust
stack of the fabric filter.
(B) 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.
(C) The bag leak detection system
must be certified by the manufacturer to
be capable of detecting particulate
matter emissions at concentrations of
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or
less.
(D) The bag leak detection system
sensor must provide output of relative
or absolute particulate matter loadings.
(E) The bag leak detection system
must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal
from the sensor.
(F) 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.
(G) 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.
(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors
are required, the system’s
instrumentation and alarm may be
shared among detectors.
(I) You must operate and maintain
your bag leak detection system in
continuous operation according to your
monitoring plan required under
§ 60.5200.
(ii) You must initiate procedures to
determine the cause of every alarm
within 8 hours of the alarm, and you
must alleviate the cause of the alarm
within 24 hours of the alarm by taking
whatever corrective action(s) are
necessary. Corrective actions may
include, but are not limited to the
following:
(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air
leaks, torn or broken bags or filter
media, or any other condition that may
cause an increase in particulate matter
emissions.
(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter
media.
(C) Replacing defective bags or filter
media or otherwise repairing the control
device.
(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter
compartment.
(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection
system probe or otherwise repairing the
bag leak detection system.
(F) Shutting down the process
producing the particulate matter
emissions.
(c) You must operate and maintain the
continuous parameter monitoring
systems specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section in continuous
operation according to your monitoring
plan required under § 60.5200.
(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack,
you must install, calibrate (to
manufacturers’ specifications),
maintain, and operate a device or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
method for measuring the use of the
bypass stack including date, time, and
duration.
Model Rule—Recordkeeping and
Reporting
§ 60.5230
What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as
applicable) specified in paragraphs (a)
through (m) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years. All records must be
available on site in either paper copy or
computer-readable format that can be
printed upon request, unless an
alternative format is approved by the
Administrator.
(a) Date. Calendar date of each record.
(b) Increments of progress. Copies of
the final control plan and any additional
notifications, reported under § 60.5250.
(c) Operator Training. Documentation
of the operator training procedures and
records specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(4) of this section. You must
make available and readily accessible at
the facility at all times for all SSI unit
operators the documentation specified
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(1) Documentation of the following
operator training procedures and
information:
(i) Summary of the applicable
standards under this subpart.
(ii) Procedures for receiving,
handling, and feeding sewage sludge.
(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown,
and malfunction procedures.
(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper
combustion air supply levels.
(v) Procedures for operating the
incinerator and associated air pollution
control systems within the standards
established under this subpart.
(vi) Monitoring procedures for
demonstrating compliance with the
incinerator operating limits.
(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping
procedures.
(viii) Procedures for handling ash.
(ix) A list of the materials burned
during the performance test, if in
addition to sewage sludge.
(x) For each qualified operator and
other plant personnel who may operate
the unit according to the provisions of
§ 60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager
number at which they can be reached
during operating hours.
(2) Records showing the names of SSI
unit operators and other plant personnel
who may operate the unit according to
the provisions of § 60.5155(a), as
follows:
(i) Records showing the names of SSI
unit operators and other plant personnel
who have completed review of the
information in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section as required by § 60.5160(b),
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63333
including the date of the initial review
and all subsequent annual reviews.
(ii) Records showing the names of the
SSI operators who have completed the
operator training requirements under
§ 60.5130, met the criteria for
qualification under § 60.5140, and
maintained or renewed their
qualification under § 60.5145 or
§ 60.5150. Records must include
documentation of training, including
the dates of their initial qualification
and all subsequent renewals of such
qualifications.
(3) Records showing the periods when
no qualified operators were accessible
for more than 8 hours, but less than 2
weeks, as required in § 60.5155(a).
(4) Records showing the periods when
no qualified operators were accessible
for 2 weeks or more along with copies
of reports submitted as required in
§ 60.5155(b).
(d) Air pollution control device
inspections. Records of the results of
initial and annual air pollution control
device inspections conducted as
specified in §§ 60.5195 and 60.5220(c),
including any required maintenance
and any repairs not completed within
10 days of an inspection or the
timeframe established by the
Administrator.
(e) Performance test reports.
(1) The results of the initial, annual,
and any subsequent performance tests
conducted to determine compliance
with the emission limits and standards
and/or to establish operating limits, as
applicable.
(2) Retain a copy of the complete
performance test report, including
calculations.
(3) Keep a record of the log of the
quantity of sewage sludge burned
during the performance tests, as
required in § 60.5220(a)(2).
(4) Keep any necessary records to
demonstrate that the performance test
was conducted under conditions
representative of normal operations.
(f) Continuous monitoring data.
Records of the following data, as
applicable:
(1) For continuous opacity monitoring
systems, all 6-minute average and
1-hour block average levels of opacity.
(2) For continuous emissions
monitoring systems, all 1-hour average
concentrations of particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide,
dioxins/furans, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and
lead emissions.
(3) For continuous automated
sampling systems, all average
concentrations measured for mercury
and dioxins/furans at the frequencies
specified in your monitoring plan.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63334
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) For continuous parameter
monitoring systems:
(i) All 1-hour average values recorded
for the following operating parameters,
as applicable:
(A) Dry sludge feed rate and
combustion chamber temperature (or
afterburner temperature).
(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply
with the rule, pressure drop across the
wet scrubber system, liquor flow rate to
the wet scrubber, and liquor pH as
introduced to the wet scrubber.
(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is
used to comply with the rule, voltage of
the electrostatic precipitator collection
plates or amperage of the electrostatic
precipitator collection plates, and
effluent water flow rate at the outlet of
the wet electrostatic precipitator.
(D) If activated carbon injection is
used to comply with the rule, mercury
sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow
rate or pressure drop, as applicable.
(ii) Daily average values and
composite sample values for sludge
moisture content.
(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply
with the rule, the date, time, and
duration of each alarm and the time
corrective action was initiated and
completed, and a brief description of the
cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken. You must also record the
percent of operating time during each
6-month period that the alarm sounds,
calculated as specified in § 60.5170(b).
(iv) For other control devices for
which you must establish operating
limits under § 60.5175, you must
maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine
compliance with the operating limits, at
the frequencies specified in your
monitoring plan.
(g) Other records for continuous
monitoring systems. You must keep the
following records, as applicable:
(1) Keep records of any notifications
to the Administrator in § 60.4915(h)(1)
of starting or stopping use of a
continuous monitoring system for
determining compliance with any
emissions limit.
(2) Keep records of any requests under
§ 60.5220(b)(5) that compliance with the
emission limits (except opacity) be
determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an
equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
(3) If activated carbon injection is
used to comply with the rule, the type
of sorbent used and any changes in the
type of sorbent used.
(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any
deviation reports submitted under
§ 60.5235(e) and (f).
(i) Equipment specifications and
operation and maintenance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
requirements. Equipment specifications
and related operation and maintenance
requirements received from vendors for
the incinerator, emission controls, and
monitoring equipment.
(j) Calibration of monitoring devices.
Records of calibration of any monitoring
devices as required under §§ 60.5220
and 60.5225.
(k) Monitoring plan and performance
evaluations for continuous monitoring
systems. Records of the monitoring plan
required under § 60.5200, and records of
performance evaluations required under
§ 60.5205(b)(5).
(l) Less frequent testing. Any records
required to document that your SSI unit
qualifies for less frequent testing under
§ 60.5205(a)(3).
(m) Use of bypass stack. Records
indicating use of the bypass stack,
including dates, times, and durations as
required under § 60.5225(c).
§ 60.5235
What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified
in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this
section. See Table 6 to this subpart for
a summary of these reports.
(a) Increments of progress report. If
you plan to achieve compliance more
than 1 year following the effective date
of State plan approval, you must submit
the following reports, as applicable:
(1) A final control plan as specified in
§§ 60.5085(a) and 60.5110.
(2) You must submit your notification
of achievement of increments of
progress no later than 10 business days
after the compliance date for the
increment as specified in §§ 60.5095
and 60.5100.
(3) If you fail to meet an increment of
progress, you must submit a notification
to the Administrator postmarked within
10 business days after the date for that
increment, as specified in § 60.5105.
(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit
rather than comply with the State plan,
submit a closure notification as
specified in § 60.5125.
(b) Initial compliance report. You
must submit the following information
no later than 60 days following the
initial performance test.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official,
with that official’s name, title, and
signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
(3) Date of report.
(4) The complete test report for the
initial performance test results obtained
by using the test methods specified in
Table 2 or 3 to this subpart.
(5) If an initial performance
evaluation of a continuous monitoring
system was conducted, the results of
that initial performance evaluation.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(6) The values for the site-specific
operating limits established pursuant to
§§ 60.5170 and 60.5175 and the
calculations and methods used to
establish each operating limit.
(7) If you are using a fabric filter to
comply with the emission limits,
documentation that a bag leak detection
system has been installed and is being
operated, calibrated, and maintained as
required by § 60.5170(b).
(8) The results of the initial air
pollution control device inspection
required in § 60.5195, including a
description of repairs.
(c) Annual compliance report. You
must submit an annual compliance
report that includes the items listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this
section for the reporting period
specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section. You must submit your first
annual compliance report no later than
12 months following the submission of
the initial compliance report in
paragraph (b) of this section. You must
submit subsequent annual compliance
reports no more than 12 months
following the previous annual
compliance report. (If the unit is subject
to permitting requirements under title V
of the Clean Air Act, you may be
required by the permit to submit these
reports more frequently.)
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official,
with that official’s name, title, and
signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and
ending dates of the reporting period.
(4) If a performance test was
conducted during the reporting period,
the results of that performance test.
(i) If operating limits were established
during the performance test, include the
value for each operating limit and the
method used to establish each operating
limit, including calculations.
(ii) If activated carbon is used during
the performance test, include the type of
activated carbon used.
(5) For each pollutant and operating
parameter recorded using a continuous
monitoring system, the highest recorded
3-hour average and the lowest recorded
3-hour average during the reporting
period, as applicable.
(6) If there are no deviations during
the reporting period from any emission
limit, emission standard, or operating
limit that applies to you, a statement
that there were no deviations from the
emission limits, emission standard, or
operating limits.
(7) Information for bag leak detection
systems recorded under
§ 60.5230(f)(4)(iii).
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(8) If a performance evaluation of a
continuous monitoring system was
conducted, the results of that
performance evaluation. If new
operating limits were established during
the performance evaluation, include
your calculations for establishing those
operating limits.
(9) If you met the requirements of
§ 60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct a
performance test during the reporting
period, you must include the dates of
the last three performance tests, a
comparison of the emission level you
achieved in the last three performance
tests to the 75 percent emission limit
threshold specified in
§ 60.5205(a)(3)(i)(B), and a statement as
to whether there have been any process
changes and whether the process change
resulted in an increase in emissions.
(10) Documentation of periods when
all qualified sewage sludge incineration
unit operators were unavailable for
more than 8 hours, but less than 2
weeks.
(11) Results of annual air pollution
control device inspections recorded
under § 60.5230(d) for the reporting
period, including a description of
repairs.
(12) If there were no periods during
the reporting period when your
continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction, a statement that there were
no periods during which your
continuous monitoring systems had a
malfunction.
(13) If there were no periods during
the reporting period when a continuous
monitoring system was out of control, a
statement that there were no periods
during which your continuous
monitoring systems were out of control.
(14) If there were no operator training
deviations, a statement that there were
no such deviations during the reporting
period.
(15) If you did not make revisions to
your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period, a statement
that you did not make any revisions to
your site-specific monitoring plan
during the reporting period. If you made
revisions to your site-specific
monitoring plan during the reporting
period, a copy of the revised plan.
(d) Deviation reports.
(1) You must submit a deviation
report if:
(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling
average parameter level is above the
maximum operating limit or below the
minimum operating limit established
under this subpart.
(ii) Any recorded daily average sludge
moisture content is outside the
allowable range.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
(iii) The bag leak detection system
alarm sounds for more than 5 percent of
the operating time for the 6-month
reporting period.
(iv) Any recorded 4-hour rolling
average emissions level is above the
emission limit, if a continuous
monitoring system is used to comply
with an emission limit.
(v) Any opacity level recorded under
§ 60.5185(b)(5) that is above the opacity
limit, if a continuous opacity
monitoring system is used.
(vi) There are visible emissions of
combustion ash from an ash conveying
system for more than 5 percent of the
hourly observation period.
(vii) A performance test was
conducted that deviated from any
emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this
subpart.
(viii) A continuous monitoring system
was out of control.
(ix) You had a malfunction (e.g.,
continuous monitoring system
malfunction) that caused or may have
caused any applicable emission limit to
be exceeded.
(2) The deviation report must be
submitted by August 1 of that year for
data collected during the first half of the
calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and
by February 1 of the following year for
data you collected during the second
half of the calendar year (July 1 to
December 31).
(3) For each deviation where you are
using a continuous monitoring system
to comply with an associated emission
limit or operating limit, report the items
described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through
(d)(3)(viii) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible
official, with that official’s name, title,
and signature, certifying the accuracy of
the content of the report.
(iii) The calendar dates and times
your unit deviated from the emission
limits, emission standards, or operating
limits requirements.
(iv) The averaged and recorded data
for those dates.
(v) Duration and cause of each
deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission
standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective
actions.
(vi) Dates, times, and causes for
monitor downtime incidents.
(vii) A copy of the operating
parameter monitoring data during each
deviation and any test report that
documents the emission levels.
(viii) If there were periods during
which the continuous monitoring
system had a malfunction or was out of
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63335
control, you must include the following
information for each deviation from an
emission limit or operating limit:
(A) The date and time that each
malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous monitoring system was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level)
and high-level checks.
(C) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous monitoring system was
out of control, including start and end
dates and hours and descriptions of
corrective actions taken.
(D) The date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during
a period of malfunction, during a period
when the system was out of control, or
during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration of
the deviation during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a
percent of the total source operating
time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration
of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to control
equipment problems, process problems,
other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration
of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period,
and the total duration of continuous
monitoring system downtime as a
percent of the total operating time of the
SSI unit at which the continuous
monitoring system downtime occurred
during that reporting period.
(H) An identification of each
parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the SSI unit.
(I) A brief description of the SSI unit.
(J) A brief description of the
continuous monitoring system.
(K) The date of the latest continuous
monitoring system certification or audit.
(L) A description of any changes in
continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last
reporting period.
(4) For each deviation where you are
not using a continuous monitoring
system to comply with the associated
emission limit or operating limit, report
the following items:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible
official, with that official’s name, title,
and signature, certifying the accuracy of
the content of the report.
(iii) The total operating time of each
affected source during the reporting
period.
(iv) The calendar dates and times your
unit deviated from the emission limits,
emission standards, or operating limits
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
63336
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(v) The averaged and recorded data
for those dates.
(vi) Duration and cause of each
deviation from the following:
(A) Emission limits, emission
standards, operating limits, and your
corrective actions.
(B) Bypass events and your corrective
actions.
(vii) A copy of any performance test
report that showed a deviation from the
emission limits or standards.
(viii) A brief description of any
malfunction reported in paragraph
(d)(1)(viii) of this section, including a
description of actions taken during the
malfunction to minimize emissions in
accordance with § 60.11(d) and to
correct the malfunction.
(e) Qualified operator deviation.
(1) If all qualified operators are not
accessible for 2 weeks or more, you
must take the two actions in paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Submit a notification of the
deviation within 10 days that includes
the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A)
through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) A statement of what caused the
deviation.
(B) A description of actions taken to
ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible.
(C) The date when you anticipate that
a qualified operator will be available.
(ii) Submit a status report to the
Administrator every 4 weeks that
includes the three items in paragraphs
(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(A) A description of actions taken to
ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible.
(B) The date when you anticipate that
a qualified operator will be accessible.
(C) Request for approval from the
Administrator to continue operation of
the SSI unit.
(2) If your unit was shut down by the
Administrator, under the provisions of
§ 60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to
provide an accessible qualified operator,
you must notify the Administrator
within five days of meeting
§ 60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming
operation.
(f) Notification of a force majeure. If
a force majeure is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred for which you
intend to assert a claim of force majeure:
(1) You must notify the
Administrator, in writing as soon as
practicable following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence, should
have known that the event may cause or
caused a delay in conducting a
performance test beyond the regulatory
deadline, but the notification must
occur before the performance test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
deadline unless the initial force majeure
or a subsequent force majeure event
delays the notice, and in such cases, the
notification must occur as soon as
practicable.
(2) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale
for attributing the delay in conducting
the performance test beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure;
describe the measures taken or to be
taken to minimize the delay; and
identify a date by which you propose to
conduct the performance test.
(g) Other notifications and reports
required. You must submit other
notifications as provided by § 60.7 and
as follows:
(1) You must notify the Administrator
1 month before starting or stopping use
of a continuous monitoring system for
determining compliance with any
emission limit.
(2) You must notify the Administrator
at least 30 days prior to any
performance test conducted to comply
with the provisions of this subpart, to
afford the Administrator the
opportunity to have an observer present.
(3) As specified in § 60.5220(a)(8), you
must notify the Administrator at least 7
days prior to the date of a rescheduled
performance test for which notification
was previously made in paragraph (g)(2)
of this section.
(h) Report submission form.
(1) Submit initial, annual, and
deviation reports electronically or in
paper format, postmarked on or before
the submittal due dates.
(2) After December 31, 2011, within
60 days after the date of completing
each performance evaluation or
performance test conducted to
demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, you must submit the relative
accuracy test audit data and
performance test data, except opacity, to
EPA by successfully submitting the data
electronically into EPA’s Central Data
Exchange by using the Electronic
Reporting Tool (see https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/).
(i) Changing report dates. If the
Administrator agrees, you may change
the semiannual or annual reporting
dates. See § 60.19(c) for procedures to
seek approval to change your reporting
date.
Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits
§ 60.5240 Am I required to apply for and
obtain a title V operating permit for my
existing SSI unit?
Yes, if you are subject to an applicable
EPA-approved and effective Clean Air
Act section 111(d)/129 State or tribal
plan or an applicable and effective
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Federal plan, you are required to apply
for and obtain a title V operating permit
for your existing SSI unit unless you
meet the relevant requirements for an
exemption specified in § 60.5065.
§ 60.5245 When must I submit a title V
permit application for my existing SSI unit?
(a) If your existing SSI unit is not
subject to an earlier permit application
deadline, a complete title V permit
application must be submitted on or
before the earlier of the dates specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section. (See sections 129(e), 503(c),
503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act
and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR
71.5(a)(1)(i)).
(1) 12 months after the effective date
of any applicable EPA-approved Clean
Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or
tribal plan.
(2) 12 months after the effective date
of any applicable Federal plan.
(3) [THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(b) For any existing unit not subject to
an earlier permit application deadline,
the application deadline of 36 months
after the promulgation of this subpart
applies regardless of whether or when
any applicable Federal plan is effective,
or whether or when any applicable
Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State
or tribal plan is approved by EPA and
becomes effective.
(c) If your existing unit is subject to
title V as a result of some triggering
requirement(s) other than those
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section (for example, a unit may be
a major source or part of a major
source), then your unit may be required
to apply for a title V permit prior to the
deadlines specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b). If more than one requirement
triggers a source’s obligation to apply for
a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe
for filing a title V permit application is
triggered by the requirement which first
causes the source to be subject to title
V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air
Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and
40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(d) A ‘‘complete’’ title V permit
application is one that has been
determined or deemed complete by the
relevant permitting authority under
section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and
40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2).
You must submit a complete permit
application by the relevant application
deadline in order to operate after this
date in compliance with Federal law.
(See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and
40 CFR 71.7(b).)
Model Rule—Definitions
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 60.5250
What definitions must I know?
Terms used but not defined in this
subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act
and § 60.2.
Administrator means:
(1) For units covered by the Federal
plan, the Administrator of the EPA or
his/her authorized representative.
(2) For units covered by an approved
State plan, the director of the State air
pollution control agency or his/her
authorized representative.
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
Auxiliary fuel means natural gas,
liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, or
diesel fuel.
Bag leak detection system means an
instrument that is capable of monitoring
particulate matter loadings in the
exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse)
in order to detect bag failures. A bag
leak detection system includes, but is
not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light
scattering, light transmittance, or other
principle to monitor relative particulate
matter loadings.
Bypass stack means a device used for
discharging combustion gases to avoid
severe damage to the air pollution
control device or other equipment.
Calendar year means 365 consecutive
days starting on January 1 and ending
on December 31.
Co-fired combustor means a unit
combusting sewage sludge or dewatered
sludge pellets with other fuels or wastes
(e.g., coal, clean biomass, municipal
solid waste, commercial or institutional
waste, hospital medical infectious
waste, unused pharmaceuticals, other
solid waste) and subject to an
enforceable requirement limiting the
unit to combusting a fuel feed stream,
10 percent or less of the weight of which
is comprised, in aggregate, of sewage
sludge.
Continuous automated sampling
system means the total equipment and
procedures for automated sample
collection and sample recovery/analysis
to determine a pollutant concentration
or emission rate by collecting a single
integrated sample(s) or multiple
integrated sample(s) of the pollutant (or
diluent gas) for subsequent on- or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
collected are representative of the
emissions for the sample time as
specified by the applicable requirement.
Continuous emissions monitoring
system means a monitoring system for
continuously measuring and recording
the emissions of a pollutant from an
affected facility.
Continuous monitoring system (CMS)
means a continuous emissions
monitoring system, continuous
automated sampling system, continuous
parameter monitoring system,
continuous opacity monitoring system,
or other manual or automatic
monitoring that is used for
demonstrating compliance with an
applicable regulation on a continuous
basis as defined by this subpart. The
term refers to the total equipment used
to sample and condition (if applicable),
to analyze, and to provide a permanent
record of emissions or process
parameters.
Continuous parameter monitoring
system means a monitoring system for
continuously measuring and recording
operating conditions associated with air
pollution control device systems (e.g.,
temperature, pressure, and power).
Deviation means any instance in
which an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including but not limited to any
emission limit, operating limit, or
operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans.
Electrostatic precipitator or wet
electrostatic precipitator means an air
pollution control device that uses both
electrical forces and, if applicable, water
to remove pollutants in the exit gas from
a sewage sludge incinerator stack.
Existing sewage sludge incineration
unit means a sewage sludge incineration
unit the construction of which is
commenced on or before October 14,
2010.
Fabric filter means an add-on air
pollution control device used to capture
particulate matter by filtering gas
streams through filter media, also
known as a baghouse.
Fluidized bed incinerator means an
enclosed device in which organic matter
and inorganic matter in sewage sludge
are combusted in a bed of particles
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63337
suspended in the combustion chamber
gas.
Malfunction means any sudden,
infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution
control equipment, process equipment,
or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner. Failures that are caused,
in part, by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions. During
periods of malfunction, the operator
shall operate within established
emissions and operating limits and shall
continue monitoring all applicable
operating parameters until all waste has
been combusted or until the
malfunction ceases, whichever comes
first.
Maximum feed rate means 110
percent of the highest 3-hour average
dry charge rate measured during the
most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with all
applicable emission limits and
standards.
Modification means a change to an
SSI unit later than [THE DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that
meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes
over the life of the unit exceeds 50
percent of the original cost of building
and installing the SSI unit (not
including the cost of land) updated to
current costs (current dollars). To
determine what systems are within the
boundary of the SSI unit used to
calculate these costs, see the definition
of SSI unit.
(2) Any physical change in the SSI
unit or change in the method of
operating it that increases the amount of
any air pollutant emitted for which
section 129 or section 111 of the Clean
Air Act has established standards.
Modified sewage sludge incineration
unit means an SSI unit that undergoes
a modification, as defined in this
section.
Multiple hearth incinerator means a
circular steel furnace that contains a
number of solid refractory hearths and
a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that
are designed to slowly rake the sludge
on the hearth are attached to the rotating
shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top
and proceeds downward through the
furnace from hearth to hearth, pushed
along by the rabble arms.
Opacity means the degree to which
emissions reduce the transmission of
light and obscure the view of an object
in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour
period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63338
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
amount of sewage sludge is combusted
at any time in the SSI unit.
Particulate matter means filterable
particulate matter emitted from SSI
units as measured by Method 5 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Methods
26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–8.
Power input to the electrostatic
precipitator means the product of the
test-run average secondary voltage and
the test-run average secondary amperage
to the electrostatic precipitator
collection plates.
Process change means that any of the
following have occurred:
(1) A change in the process employed
at the wastewater treatment facility
associated with the affected SSI unit
(e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at
the facility, which changes the method
used for disposing of process solids and
processing of the sludge prior to
incineration).
(2) A change in the air pollution
control devices used to comply with the
emission limits for the affected SSI unit
(e.g., change in the sorbent used for
activated carbon injection).
(3) An allowable increase in the
quantity of wastewater received from an
industrial source by the wastewater
treatment facility.
Sewage sludge means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during
the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works. Sewage sludge
includes, but is not limited to, domestic
septage; scum or solids removed in
primary, secondary, or advanced
wastewater treatment processes; and a
material derived from sewage sludge.
Sewage sludge does not include ash
generated during the firing of sewage
sludge in a sewage sludge incineration
unit or grit and screenings generated
during preliminary treatment of
domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Sewage sludge feed rate means the
rate at which sewage sludge is fed into
the incinerator unit.
Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit
means an incineration unit combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of
reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter.
Sewage sludge incineration unit designs
include fluidized bed and multiple
hearth.
Shutdown means the period of time
after all sewage sludge has been
combusted in the primary chamber.
Solid waste means any garbage,
refuse, sewage sludge from a waste
treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility
and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from
industrial, commercial, mining,
agricultural operations, and from
community activities, but does not
include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved
materials in irrigation return flows or
industrial discharges which are point
sources subject to permits under section
402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1342), or source, special nuclear, or
byproduct material as defined by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 2014).
Standard conditions, when referring
to units of measure, means a
temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a
pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3
kilopascals).
Startup means the period of time
between the activation, including the
firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or
distillate oil), of the system and the first
feed to the unit.
Toxic equivalency means the product
of the concentration of an individual
dioxin congener in an environmental
mixture and the corresponding estimate
of the compound-specific toxicity
relative to tetrachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin, referred to as the toxic
equivalency factor for that compound.
Table 5 to this subpart lists the toxic
equivalency factors.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air
pollution control device that utilizes an
aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to
collect particulate matter (including
nonvaporous metals and condensed
organics) and/or to absorb and
neutralize acid gases.
You means the owner or operator of
an affected SSI unit.
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMMM OF
PART 60—MODEL RULE—INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
UNITS
Comply with these increments of progress
By these dates a
Increment 1—Submit
final control plan.
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.
b The date can be no later than 3 years after
the effective date of State plan approval or
[THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that commenced construction on or before October 14,
2010.
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FLUIDIZED
BED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS
You must meet this emission
limit a
Using these averaging methods
and minimum sampling volumes
or durations
And determining compliance
using this method
Particulate matter ...........................
12 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters sample per run).
Hydrogen chloride ..........................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
For the air pollutant
0.49 parts per million by dry volume.
Carbon monoxide ..........................
56 parts per million by dry volume
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ...
0.61 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (For Method 26,
collect a minimum volume of
200 liters per run. For Method
26A, collect a minimum volume
of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
3-run average (collect sample for
a minimum duration of one hour
per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Performance test (Method 5 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–3;
Method 26A or Method 29 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Performance test (Method 26 or
26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
Performance test (Method 10,
10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–4).
Performance test (Method 23 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7).
14OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
63339
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FLUIDIZED
BED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS—Continued
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limit a
Using these averaging methods
and minimum sampling volumes
or durations
And determining compliance
using this method
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency
basis).
0.056 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Performance test (Method 23 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7).
Mercury ..........................................
0.0033 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
3-run average (For Method 29
and ASTM D6784–02, collect a
minimum volume of 3 dry
standard cubic meters per run.
For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in
Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen .........................
63 parts per million by dry volume
Sulfur dioxide .................................
22 parts per million by dry volume
Cadmium ........................................
0.0019 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Lead ...............................................
0.0098 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Opacity ...........................................
0 percent .......................................
Fugitive emissions from ash handling.
Visible emissions of combustion
ash from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer
points) for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation
period.
a All
3-run average (Collect sample for
a minimum duration of one hour
per run).
3-run average (For Method 6, collect a minimum volume of 200
liters per run. For Method 6C,
collect sample for a minimum
duration of one hour per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters sample per run).
6-minute averages, three 1-hour
observation periods.
Three 1-hour observation periods
Performance test (Method 29 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8;
Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A (when published in
the Federal Register); or
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).
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
4).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6C
at 40 CFR part 40, appendix A–
4; or ASNI/ASME PTC–19.10–
1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis [Part 10, Instruments
and Apparatus]).
Performance test (Method 29 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Performance test (Method 29 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.
Performance test (Method 9 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–4).
Visible emission test (Method 22
of appendix A–7 of this part).
emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING MULTIPLE
HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS
You must meet this emission
limit a
Using these averaging methods
and minimum sampling volumes
or durations
And determining compliance
using this method
Particulate matter ...........................
80 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Hydrogen chloride ..........................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
For the air pollutant
1.0 parts per million by dry volume.
Carbon monoxide ..........................
3,900 parts per million by dry volume.
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis) ...
5.0 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter.
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency
basis).
0.32 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (For Method 26,
collect a minimum volume of
200 liters per run. For Method
26A, collect a minimum volume
of 3 dry standard cubic meters
per run).
3-run average (collect sample for
a minimum duration of one hour
per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
Performance test (Method 5 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–3;
Method 26A or Method 29 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Performance test (Method 26 or
26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
Performance test (Method 10,
10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–4).
Performance test (Method 23 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7).
Performance test (Method 23 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7).
14OCP2
63340
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING MULTIPLE
HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS—Continued
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission
limit a
Using these averaging methods
and minimum sampling volumes
or durations
And determining compliance
using this method
Mercury ..........................................
0.02 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
3-run average (For Method 29
and ASTM D6784–02, collect a
minimum volume of 3 dry
standard cubic meters per run.
For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in
Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen .........................
210 parts per million by dry volume.
Sulfur dioxide .................................
26 parts per million by dry volume
3-run average (Collect sample for
a minimum duration of one hour
per run).
3-run average (For Method 6, collect a minimum volume of 200
liters per run. For Method 6C,
collect sample for a minimum
duration of one hour per run).
Cadmium ........................................
0.095 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Performance test (Method 29 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8;
Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A (when published in
the Federal Register); or
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).
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–
4).
Performance test (Method 6 or 6C
at 40 CFR part 40, appendix A–
4; or ASNI/ASME PTC–19.10–
1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analysis ([Part 10, Instruments
and Apparatus]).
Performance test (Method 29 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).
Lead ...............................................
0.30 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter.
Opacity ...........................................
10 percent .....................................
Fugitive emissions from ash handling.
Visible emissions of combustion
ash from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer
points) for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation
period.
a All
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
3-run average (collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry standard cubic
meters per run).
6-minute averages, three 1-hour
observation periods.
Three 1-hour observation periods
Performance test (Method 29 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8.
Performance test (Method 9 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–4).
Visible emission test (Method 22
of appendix A–7 of this part).
emission limits (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATION UNITS a
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
For these operating parameters
You must establish these operating limits
Data measurement
Data recording b
Averaging time for
compliance
All sewage sludge incineration units
Dry sludge feed rate ....................
Combustion chamber temperature (not required if afterburner
temperature is monitored).
Sludge moisture content ..............
Maximum dry sludge feed rate ....
Minimum combustion temperature
or afterburner temperature ...........
Continuous .................
Continuous .................
Hourly .........................
Every 15 minutes .......
4-hour rolling.c
4-hour rolling.c
Range of moisture content (%) ....
Composite of three
samples taken 6
hours apart.
Daily ...........................
Daily.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Scrubber
Pressure drop across each wet
scrubber or amperage to each
wet scrubber.
Scrubber liquor flow rate ..............
Scrubber liquor pH .......................
Minimum pressure drop or minimum amperage.
Continuous .................
Every 15 minutes .......
4-hour rolling.c
Minimum flow rate ........................
Minimum pH .................................
Continuous .................
Continuous .................
Every 15 minutes .......
Every 15 minutes .......
4-hour rolling.c
4-hour rolling.c
Fabric filter
Alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in § 60.4850
and is not established on a site-specific basis)
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
63341
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
And monitor using these minimum frequencies
For these operating parameters
You must establish these operating limits
Data measurement
Data recording b
Averaging time for
compliance
Electrostatic precipitator
Secondary voltage of the electrostatic precipitator collection
plates.
Secondary amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection
plates.
Effluent water flow rate at the
outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.
Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection
plates.
Continuous .................
Hourly .........................
4-hour rolling.c
Maximum effluent water flow rate
at the outlet of the electrostatic
precipitator.
Hourly .........................
Hourly .........................
4-hour rolling.c
Hourly .........................
Hourly .........................
4-hour rolling.c
Continuous .................
Every 15 minutes .......
4-hour rolling.c
Every 15 minutes .......
4-hour rolling.a
Activated carbon injection
Mercury sorbent injection rate .....
Dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate
Carrier gas flow rate or carrier
gas pressure drop.
Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate.
Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate.
Minimum carrier gas flow rate or
minimum carrier gas pressure
drop.
Afterburner
Temperature of the afterburner
combustion chamber.
Minimum temperature of the
afterburner combustion chamber.
Continuous .................
a As specified in § 60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous opacity monitoring system, or continuous
automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits.
b This recording time refers to the frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data recorded
every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters except sludge moisture content, you use hourly averages to
calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.
c Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating hours.
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
Toxic equivalency factor
Dioxin/furan congener
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ..................................................................................................................................
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .........................................................................................................................................................
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran ..................................................................................................................................................
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ...........................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran .......................................................................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran .......................................................................................................................................
octachlorinated dibenzofuran ...............................................................................................................................................................
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0003
0.1
0.3
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0003
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a
Report
Due date
Contents
Increments of progress report .................
No later than 10 business days after the
compliance date for the increment.
• Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be
burned, and the maximum design
sewage sludge burning capacity.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
§ 60.5235(a)
63342
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
No later than 60 days following the initial
performance test.
Annual compliance report ........................
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Initial compliance report ..........................
No later than 12 months following the
submission of the initial compliance
report; subsequent reports are to be
submitted no more than 12 months
following the previous report.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• Notification of any failure to meet an
increment of progress.
• Notification of any closure.
• Company name and address ..............
• Statement by a responsible official,
with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the
content of the report.
• Date of report.
• Complete test report for the initial performance test.
• Results of CMS b performance evaluation.
• The values for the site-specific operating limits and the calculations and
methods used to establish each operating limit.
• Documentation of installation of bag
leak detection system for fabric filter.
• Results of initial air pollution control
device inspection, including a description of repairs.
• Company name and address ..............
• Statement and signature by responsible official.
• Date and beginning and ending dates
of report.
• If a performance test was conducted
during the reporting period, the results
of the test, including any new operating limits and associated calculations and the type of activated carbon
used, if applicable.
• For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a CMS, the
highest recorded 3-hour average and
the lowest recorded 3-hour average,
as applicable.
• If no deviations from emission limits,
emission standards, or operating limits
occurred, a statement that no deviations occurred.
• If a fabric filter is used, the date, time,
and duration of alarms.
• If a performance evaluation of a CMS
was conducted, the results, including
any new operating limits and their associated calculations.
• If you met the requirements of
§ 60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct a
performance test, include the dates of
the last three performance tests, a
comparison to the 75 percent emission limit threshold of the emission
level achieved in the last three performance tests, and a statement as to
whether there have been any process
changes.
• Documentation of periods when all
qualified SSI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but
less than 2 weeks.
• Results of annual pollutions control
device inspections, including description of repairs.
• If there were no periods during which
your CMSs had malfunctions, a statement that there were no periods during which your CMSs had malfunctions.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
§ 60.5235(b)
§ 60.5235(c)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
63343
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
By August 1 of a calendar year for data
collected during the first half of the
calendar year; by February 1 of a calendar year for data collected during
the second half of the calendar year.
Notification of qualified operator deviation (if all qualified operators are not
accessible for 2 weeks or more).
Within 10 days of deviation .....................
Notification of status of qualified operator
deviation.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Deviation report (deviations from emission limits, emission standards, or operating
limits,
as
specified
in
§ 60.5235(e)(1)).
Every 4 weeks following notification of
deviation.
Notification of resumed operation following shutdown (due to qualified operator deviation and as specified in
§ 60.5155(b)(2)(i).
Within five days of obtaining a qualified
operator and resuming operation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• If there were no periods during which
your CMSs were out of control, a
statement that there were no periods
during which your CMSs were out of
control.
• If there were no operator training deviations, a statement that there were no
such deviations.
• Information on monitoring plan revisions, including a copy of any revised
monitoring plan.
If using a CMS: .......................................
• Company name and address
• Statement by a responsible official
• The calendar dates and times your
unit deviated from the emission limits
or operating limits
• The averaged and recorded data for
those dates.
• Duration and cause of each deviation.
• Dates, times, and causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
• A copy of the operating parameter
monitoring data during each deviation
and any test report that documents
the emission levels.
• For periods of CMS malfunction or
when a CMS was out of control, you
must include the information specified
in § 60.5235(e)(3)(viii).
• If not using a CMS:
• Company name and address.
• Statement by a responsible official.
• The total operating time of each affected SSI.
• The calendar dates and times your
unit deviated from the emission limits,
emission standard, or operating limits.
• The averaged and recorded data for
those dates.
• Duration and cause of each deviation.
• A copy of any performance test report
that showed a deviation from the
emission limits or standards.
• A brief description of any malfunction,
a description of actions taken during
the malfunction to minimize emissions,
and corrective action taken.
• Statement of cause of deviation ..........
• Description of actions taken to ensure
that a qualified operator will be available
• The date when a qualified operator
will be accessible.
• Description of actions taken to ensure
that a qualified operator is accessible.
• The date when you anticipate that a
qualified operator will be accessible.
• Request for approval to continue operation.
• Notification that you have obtained a
qualified operator and are resuming
operation.
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
§ 60.5235(d)
§ 60.5235(e)
§ 60.5235(e)
§ 60.5235(e)
63344
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued
Report
Due date
Contents
Notification of a force majeure ................
As soon as practicable following the
date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known that the
event may cause or have caused a
delay in conducting a performance
test beyond the regulatory deadline;
the notification must occur before the
performance test deadline unless the
initial force majeure or a subsequent
force majeure event delays the notice,
and in such cases, the notification
must occur as soon as practicable.
1 month before starting or stopping use
of a CMS.
At least 30 days prior to the performance
test.
At least 7 days prior to the date of a rescheduled performance test.
• Description of the force majeure event
• Rationale for attributing the delay in
conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure.
• Description of the measures taken or
to be taken to minimize the delay.
• Identification of the date by which you
propose to conduct the performance
test.
§ 60.5235(f)
• Intent to start or stop use of a CMS ....
§ 60. 5235(g)
Notification of intent to start or stop use
of a CMS.
Notification of intent to conduct a performance test.
Notification of intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test.
a This
• Intent to conduct a performance test
to comply with this subpart.
• Intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test to comply with this subpart.
table is only a summary; see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
means continuous monitoring system.
b CMS
[FR Doc. 2010–25122 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:05 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\14OCP2.SGM
14OCP2
Reference
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63260-63344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25122]
[[Page 63259]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63260]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-9210-8]
RIN 2060-AP90
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address Clean Air Act
requirements to establish new source performance standards for new
units and emission guidelines for existing units for specific
categories of solid waste incineration units. In previous actions, EPA
has promulgated new source performance standards and emission
guidelines for large municipal waste combustion units, small municipal
waste combustion units, commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration units, and other solid waste incineration units. These
actions did not establish emission standards for sewage sludge
incineration units. In this action, EPA is proposing new source
performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage sludge
incineration units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 15,
2010, unless a public hearing is held. If a public hearing is held,
then comments must be received on or before November 29, 2010. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, since the Office of Management and Budget
is required to make a decision concerning the information collection
request between 30 and 60 days after October 14, 2010, a comment to the
Office of Management and Budget is best assured of having its full
effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives it by November
15, 2010.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by October 25, 2010
requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing
on October 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0559, 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-2009-0559.
Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
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-
2009-0559. 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-2009-0559.
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-
2009-0559. 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 or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be Confidential Business Information 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: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Joan Rogers at (919)
541-4487 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing,
to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the hearing
location. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing concerning this proposed rule by October 25, 2010, the hearing
will be cancelled, and a notification of cancellation will be posted on
the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html.
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. 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., Confidential Business
Information 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. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. Several acronyms and terms are used in
this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the
reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following
terms and acronyms are defined here:
7-PAH 7-polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AsvArsenic
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
[[Page 63261]]
CAA Clean Air Act
CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System
CBI Confidential Business Information
Cd Cadmium
CDD/CDF Dioxins and Dibenzofurans
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System
CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
Cr Chromium
CWA Clean Water Act
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic Precipitators
FF Fabric Filter
FB Fluidized Bed
FGR Flue Gas Recirculation
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
Hg Mercury
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration
ICR Information Collection Request
ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System
ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
MH Multiple Hearth
Mn Manganese
MWC Municipal Waste Combustion
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
Ni Nickel
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
OTM Other Test Method
OW Office of Water
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PM Particulate Matter
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPM Parts Per Million
PPMV Parts per Million by Volume
PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specifications
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
SBA Small Business Administration
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TMB Total Mass Basis
TPD Tons per Day
TPY Tons per Year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
WWW Worldwide Web
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
A. What information is included in this preamble and how is it
organized?
B. Where in the CFR will these standards and guidelines be
codified?
C. What is the statutory background?
D. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
E. How are the EG implemented?
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards
B. Summary of the Proposed EG
C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
D. Summary of Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
E. Other Requirements for New and Existing SSI Units
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Electronic Data Submittal
H. Title V Permit Requirements
I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the NSPS and EG
IV. Rationale
A. Subcategories
B. Format for the Proposed Standards and Guidelines
C. MACT Floor Determination Methodology
D. Rationale for Beyond-the-Floor Alternatives
E. Rationale for Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
F. Rationale for Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Rationale for Operator Training and Qualification
Requirements
H. Rationale for Siting Requirements
I. What are the SSM provisions?
J. Delegation of Authority To Implement and Enforce These
Provisions
K. State Plans
V. Impacts of the Proposed Action
A. Impacts of the Proposed Action for Existing Units
B. Impacts of the Proposed Action for New Units
C. Benefits of the Proposed NSPS and EG
VI. Relationship of the Proposed Action to CAA Sections 112(c)(3)
and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii)
VII. Relationship of the Proposed Action to Other SSI Rules for the
Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer 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. Although there is not a specific NAICS code for
SSI, these units may be operated by municipalities or other entities.
The following NAICS codes could apply:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid waste combustors and incinerators.... 562213 Municipalities with SSI units.
Sewage treatment facilities................ 221320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposed 40 CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR
[[Page 63262]]
60.5005 of subpart MMMM. 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.
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. Amy Hambrick, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559. 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
information (e.g., 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 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 SSI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559.
4. Worldwide Web
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the TTN Web site.
Following signature, EPA posted a copy of the proposed action on the
TTN Web site's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
II. Background
A. What information is included in this preamble and how is it
organized?
In this preamble, EPA summarizes the important features of these
proposed standards and guidelines that apply to SSI units. This
preamble describes the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of
these standards and guidelines; describes the basis for each of the
decisions made regarding the proposed standards and guidelines;
requests public comments on certain issues; and discusses
administrative requirements relative to this action.
B. Where in the CFR will these standards and guidelines be codified?
The CFR is a codification of the general and permanent rules
published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and
agencies of the Federal government. The code is divided into 50 titles
that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation. These
proposed rules for solid waste incineration units would be published in
Title 40, Protection of the Environment. Part 60 of title 40 includes
standards of performance for new stationary sources and EG and
compliance times for existing sources. The table below lists the
subparts in which the standards and guidelines will be codified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of the regulation Subpart in Title 40, part 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards of Performance for New Subpart LLLL
Stationary Sources: Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units.
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times Subpart MMMM
for Sewage Sludge Incineration Units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the statutory background?
Section 129 of the CAA, titled, ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and EG for solid waste
incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. A SSI unit is
an incinerator that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing
the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter.
Sections 111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new
SSI units, and CAA sections 111(d) and 129 (b) address emissions from
existing SSI units. The NSPS are directly enforceable Federal
regulations, and under CAA section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months
after promulgation. Under CAA section 129(f)(2), the EG become
effective and enforceable 3 years after EPA approves a State plan
implementing the EG or 5 years after the date they are promulgated,
whichever is sooner. Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies 5
categories of solid waste incineration units:
Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity
greater than 250 TPD.
Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal
to or less than 250 TPD.
Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious
waste.
Units that combust commercial or industrial waste.
Units that combust waste and which are not specifically
identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D) are referred to in
section 129(a)(1)(E) as ``other categories'' of solid waste
incineration units.
Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been
specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D), have been
interpreted to be part of the broader category of ``other categories''
of solid waste. EPA has issued emission standards for large and small
MWC, HMIWI, CISWI, and OSWI units. However, as explained further in
this section of the preamble, none of those emission standards apply to
SSI units.
Section 129(g)(1) 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)(6) provides that ``solid
waste'' shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its
authority under the RCRA.
[[Page 63263]]
EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on December 16, 2005
(70 FR 74870). The OSWI standards did not include emission standards
for SSI units. EPA received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI
standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of certain
categories, including SSI.\1\ While EPA granted the petition for
reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became
effective January 22, 2007, concluded that no additional changes were
necessary to the 2005 OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is
currently being held in abeyance. However, EPA currently intends to
revise the emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that
rulemaking would address all OSWI units except SSI units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sierra Club v. EPA; DC Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA stated that we
were not issuing emission standards under CAA section 129 for SSI units
(70 FR 74870). We explained that we would instead regulate SSI units
under CAA section 112 because we interpreted CAA section 129(h)(2) as
giving EPA the discretion to choose the section of the CAA (i.e.,
section 112 or section 129) under which to regulate these sources. We
reiterated that decision in the response to the petition for
reconsideration on this issue. In addition, we stated in the final
action, on January 22, 2007, that the 4 specific statutory exemptions
from the definition of ``solid waste incineration unit'' in CAA section
129 (g)(1) were not exclusive, and that section 129(a)(1)(E) does not
require EPA to establish emission standards for all other types of
incineration units in addition to those identified in section
129(a)(1)(A) through (D) (72 FR 2620). However, since the January 2007
action responding to the petition for reconsideration, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) \2\, in
June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA's December 1, 2000,
emission standards for CISWI units, held that any unit combusting any
solid waste must be regulated under section 129 of the CAA, as
explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of EPA's December 1, 2000, CISWI rulemaking, EPA defined
the term ``commercial and industrial waste'' to mean solid waste
combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion
without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any
commercial or industrial facility. On August 17, 2001, EPA granted a
request for reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B),
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 Court challenging EPA's final CISWI rule. On September 6,
2001, the Court entered an order granting EPA's motion for a voluntary
remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. On remand, EPA solicited
comments on the CISWI Rule's definitions of ``solid waste,''
``commercial and industrial waste'' and ``CISWI unit.'' On September
22, 2005, EPA issued the CISWI Definitions Rule, which contained
definitions that were substantively the same as those issued before
reconsideration. In particular, the 2005 CISWI Definitions Rule defined
``commercial or industrial waste'' to include only waste that is
combusted at a facility that cannot or does not use a process that
recovers thermal energy from the combustion for a useful purpose.
EPA received a petition for judicial review of the CISWI
Definitions Rule from several environmental organizations. The
petitioners challenged the CISWI Definitions Rule on the grounds that
its definition of ``commercial or industrial waste'' was inconsistent
with the plain language of CAA section 129, and, therefore,
impermissibly constricted the class of ``solid waste incineration
unit[s]'' that were subject to the emission standards of the CISWI
Rule. The Court agreed with petitioners and vacated the CISWI
Definitions Rule.
In its decision, the Court held that EPA's definition of
``commercial or industrial waste,'' as incorporated in the definition
of CISWI units, conflicted with the plain language of CAA section
129(g)(1). That provision defines ``solid waste incineration unit'' to
mean ``any facility which combusts any solid waste material'' from
certain types of establishments, with 4 specific exclusions. The Court
stated that, based on the use of the term ``any'' and the specific
exclusions for only certain types of facilities from the definition of
``solid waste incineration unit,'' CAA section 129 unambiguously
includes among the incineration units subject to its standards, any
facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid waste
material at all--subject only to the 4 statutory exclusions. The Court
held that the definitions EPA promulgated in the CISWI Definitions Rule
constricted the plain language of CAA section 129(g)(1), because the
CISWI Definitions Rule excluded from its universe operating units that
combusted solid waste and were designed for or operated with energy
recovery.
The rationale EPA provided in 2007 for not regulating SSI units
under section 129 is squarely in conflict with the Court's 2007 holding
in NRDC v. EPA. Specifically, the Court stated that the 4 enumerated
exemptions in section 129(g)(1) are in fact exclusive, and EPA lacked
authority to create additional exemptions. The Court also rejected
EPA's interpretation of section 129(h)(2), as articulated in the 2007
notice. The Court found that section 129(h)(2) ``simply directs EPA in
plain terms to subject a solid waste combustion facility exclusively to
section 129 standards, and not to section 112,'' and that the provision
confers no discretion in this respect \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPA has historically taken the position that sewage sludge
is solid waste under the RCRA. EPA has taken this position in an EPA
letter dated February 12, 1988, to Thomas A. Corbett, Environmental
Chemist I, New York State Department of Environmental Quality
addressing the regulatory status of certain sewage sludge, as well as
in its 1980 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste rulemaking
(45 FR 33097, May 19, 1980) (included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking).
Finally, on June 4, 2010, EPA proposed a definition of non-
hazardous solid waste (75 FR 31844) under the RCRA which is consistent
with this historical interpretation. In that proposal, EPA explained
its interpretation for purposes of that definition that sewage sludge
is solid waste, and, therefore, unit(s) combusting sewage sludge should
be regulated under CAA section 129. Although EPA has not taken final
action on that proposed rule and will consider all public comments
received before taking final action, the proposed rule represents EPA's
most recent interpretation regarding this issue and is consistent with
its historical interpretation under the RCRA. Therefore, EPA is
proposing emission standards for SSI units under CAA section 129.
On September 9, 2009, EPA received a letter from the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies stating that SSI units should be
regulated under section
[[Page 63264]]
112(d) of the Act (included in the docket of today's proposed
rulemaking). The National Association of Clean Water Agencies claimed
that SSI units are within the scope of the Clean Water Act's definition
of ``publicly owned treatment works,'' and that section 112(e)(5)
directs EPA to issue emissions standards under section 112(d) for
publicly owned treatment works as defined by the CWA. However, EPA
issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 and did not include
standards for SSI units in those regulations \4\. In fact, in the
proposed emissions standards for POTW, EPA stated that ``[s]ewage
sludge incineration will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA, and
will be included in the source category Other Solid Waste
Incinerators[.]'' \5\ Therefore, EPA has taken the position in its
regulation of POTW under the Clean Air Act that section 112(e)(5) does
not apply to SSI units and for this reason did not regulate them in its
POTW section 112(d) emissions standards. EPA solicits comment on
National Association of Clean Water Agencies' claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 64 FR 57572 (Oct. 26, 1999).
\5\ See 63 FR 66084, 66087 (Dec. 1, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA considers SSI units to be ``other solid waste incineration
units,'' since that category is intended to encompass all solid waste
incineration units that are not included in the first 4 categories
identified in CAA section 129 (a) through (d). EPA is proposing, and
intends to take final action on, emission standards for SSI units in
advance of its re-issuance of emission standards for the remaining OSWI
units because these emission standards are needed as part of EPA's
fulfillment of its obligations under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B)(ii). Clean Air Act section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for EPA to
identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area
sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas. EPA must then ensure that sources representing
90 percent of the aggregate area source emissions of each of the 30
identified HAP are subject to standards pursuant to section 112(d) \6\.
Sewage Sludge Incineration units are one of the source categories
identified for regulation to meet the 90 percent requirement for 7-PAH,
Cd, Cr, CDD/CDF, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. EPA is ordered by the Court to
satisfy its obligation under section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by
January 16, 2011 \7\. Therefore, EPA is proposing and intends to
finalize the SSI standards prior to taking action on the remaining
source categories that will be regulated under section 129(a)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii).
\7\ Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by municipalities
or other entities. Incineration continues to be used to dispose of
sewage sludge, but is increasingly becoming less common. Combustion of
solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the release of a
wide array of air pollutants, some of which exist in the waste feed
material and are released unchanged during combustion, and some of
which are generated as a result of the combustion process itself. The
pollutants for which numerical limits must be established, as specified
in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, CDD/CDF, HCl, Hg,
NOX, opacity (where appropriate), PM, Pb, and
SO2. Emissions of the CAA section 129 pollutants from SSI
units come from the SSI unit's stack. Fugitive opacity and PM emissions
also occur from ash handling. Additional pollution controls will
increase costs for facilities that continue to use the incineration
disposal method. If the additional costs are high enough, many entities
may choose to adopt alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface
disposal in landfills or other beneficial land applications).
E. How are the EG implemented?
Standards of performance for solid waste incineration units
promulgated under CAA sections 111 and 129 consist of both NSPS
applicable to new units, and EG applicable to existing units. Unlike
the NSPS, the EG are not themselves directly enforceable. Rather, the
EG are implemented and enforced through either an EPA-approved State
plan or a promulgated Federal plan. States are required to submit a
plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval not later than
1 year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA section 129(b)(2)). The State
plan must be ``at least as protective as'' the EG and must ensure
compliance with all applicable requirements not later than 3 years
after the State plan is approved by EPA, but not later than 5 years
after the relevant EG are promulgated. Likewise, the requirements of
the State plan are to be effective as expeditiously as possible
following EPA approval of the plan, but must be effective no later than
3 years after the State plan is approved or 5 years after the EG are
promulgated, whichever is earlier (CAA section 129(f)(2)). EPA's
procedures for submitting and approving State plans are set forth in 40
CFR part 60, subpart B. When a State plan is approved by EPA, the plan
requirements become federally enforceable, but the State has primary
responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan.
EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan
for solid waste incineration units located in any State which has not
submitted an approvable State plan within 2 years after the date of
promulgation of the relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The Federal
plan must assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to the
Federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of the EG not later
than 5 years after the date the relevant guidelines are promulgated.
EPA views the Federal plan as a ``place-holder'' that remains in effect
only until such time as a State without an approved plan submits and
receives EPA approval of its State plan. Once an applicable State plan
has been approved, the requirements of the Federal plan no longer apply
to solid waste incineration units covered by that State plan.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rules
This preamble discusses the proposed standards and guidelines as
they apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI unit. This
preamble also describes the major requirements of the SSI regulations.
For a full description of the proposed requirements and compliance
times, see the attached regulations.
A. Applicability of the Proposed Standards
The proposed standards and guidelines apply to owners or operators
of an incineration unit burning solid waste at wastewater treatment
facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 CFR 60.5065). A SSI
unit is an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion that burns
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter. The affected facility is each
individual SSI unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply
to new and existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as defined in the
subparts.
B. Summary of the Proposed EG
EPA is proposing 2 subcategories for existing sources based on
their incinerator design: (1) MH incinerators and (2) FB incinerators.
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the proposed
[[Page 63265]]
emission limits for existing SSI units for each subcategory. These
standards would apply at all times.
Table 1--Proposed Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Emission
Pollutant Units limit for MH limit for FB
incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.095 0.0019
CDD/CDF, TEQ............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.32 0.056
CDD/CDF, TMB............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 5.0 0.61
CO......................................... Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 3,900 56
HCl........................................ Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 1.0 0.49
Hg......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.02 0.0033
NOX........................................ Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 210 63
Opacity.................................... %.................................. 10 0
Pb......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.30 0.0098
PM......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 80 12
SO2........................................ Ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 26 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of the Proposed NSPS
As explained in IV.C.2, EPA is proposing to require all new
sources, regardless of incinerator design, meet the emission limits
based on the best-performing FB incinerator. Table 2 of this preamble
summarizes the proposed emission limits for SSI units subject to the
NSPS. These standards would apply at all times.
Table 2--Proposed Emission Limits for New SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Emission
Pollutant Units limit for MH limit for FB
incinerators incinerators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.00051 0.00051
CDD/CDF, TMB............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.024 0.024
CDD/CDF, TEQ............................... ng/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.0022 0.0022
CO......................................... ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 7.4 7.4
HCl........................................ ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 0.12 0.12
Hg......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.0010 0.0010
NOX........................................ ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 26 26
Opacity.................................... %.................................. 0 0
Pb......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 0.00053 0.00053
PM......................................... mg/dscm @ 7% 02.................... 4.1 4.1
SO2........................................ ppmvd @ 7% 02...................... 2.0 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Summary of Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements
The proposed rule would require all new and existing SSI units to
demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the emission limits and
combustion stack opacity limits using EPA-approved emission test
methods.
For existing SSI units, the proposed rule would require initial and
annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring
as an alternative), continuous parameter monitoring, and annual
inspections of air pollution control devices that may be used to meet
the emission limits. Additionally, existing units would also be
required to conduct initial and annual opacity tests for the combustion
stack and a one-time Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7)
visible emissions test of the ash handling operations to be conducted
during the next compliance test.
For new SSI units, the proposed rule would require initial and
annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions monitoring
as an alternative), bag leak detection systems for FF controlled units,
as well as continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits. The proposal would require all new SSI units to install a CO
CEMS. New units would also be required to conduct initial and annual
opacity tests for the combustion stack and Method 22 visible emissions
testing of the ash handling operations would be required during each
compliance test.
For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb
or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling with
periodic sample analysis) would be approved alternatives to parametric
monitoring and annual compliance testing. For new SSI units, CO CEMS
would be required, and use of Cd, HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or
SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling, with
periodic sample analysis) would be approved alternatives to parametric
monitoring and annual compliance testing.
E. Other Requirements for New and Existing SSI Units
Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units would be required
to meet operator training and qualification requirements, which
include: Ensuring that at least 1 operator or supervisor per facility
complete the operator training course, that qualified operator(s) or
supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course specified
in the regulation, and that they maintain plant-specific information,
updated annually, regarding training.
Owners or operators of new SSI units would be required to conduct a
siting analysis, which includes submitting a report that evaluates
site-specific air
[[Page 63266]]
pollution control alternatives that minimize potential risks to public
health or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts and any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS tests,
deviation reports, operating parameter data, continuous monitoring
data, maintenance and inspections on the air pollution control devices,
the siting analysis (for new units only), monitoring plan and operator
training and qualification must be maintained for 5 years. The results
of the stack tests and PS tests and values for operating parameters
would be required to be included in initial and subsequent compliance
reports.
G. Electronic Data Submittal
Electronic data collection is commonly employed to collect and
analyze data for a variety of applications, such as the CAA Acid Rain
Program. Both industry and the public benefit from electronic data
collection in that it increases the ease of submitting the data as well
as increasing the accessibility and transparency of these data.
EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other purposes
including compliance determinations, emission factor development and
annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required
reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for
us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators to
locate, collect, and submit emissions test data because of varied
locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. One
improvement that has occurred in recent years is the availability of
stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement for cumbersome
paper copies.
In this action, EPA is proposing a step to improve data
accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of reporting for
sources. Specifically, we are proposing that owners and operators of
SSI facilities be required to submit to EPA's ERT database the
electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests required
under this rule. Data will be entered through an electronic emissions
test report structure called the ERT that will be used whenever
emissions testing is conducted. The ERT was developed with input from
stack testing companies who generally collect and compile performance
test data electronically and offices within State and local agencies
that perform field test assessments. The ERT is currently available,
and access to direct data submittal to EPA's electronic emissions
database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 2011.
The requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA
would not require any additional performance testing and would apply to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported
by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for
most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. The Web site listed
below contains a listing of the pollutants and test methods supported
by the ERT. In addition, when a facility submits performance test data
to WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for emissions test
data compilation. Moreover, we believe industry will benefit from
development of improved emission factors, fewer follow-up information
requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. The
information to be reported is already required for the existing test
methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test
method.
One major advantage of submitting source test data through the ERT
is that it would provide a standardized method to compile and store
much of the documentation required to be reported by this rule while
clearly stating what testing information would be required. Another
important benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the
source test is conducted is that it should substantially reduce the
effort involved in data collection activities in the future. If EPA had
source category data, there would likely be fewer or less substantial
data collection requests in conjunction with prospective residual risk
assessments or technology reviews. This results in a reduced burden on
both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to
data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and
distributing data collection requests).
State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit from the reduced
burden associated with receipt of electronic information opposed to
having to process paper forms. Finally, another benefit of submitting
these data to WebFIRE electronically is that these data would improve
greatly the overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by
supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission
factor is based and by ensuring that data are more representative of
current industry operational procedures. A common complaint heard from
industry and regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not
representative of a particular source category. Receiving and
incorporating data for most performance tests would ensure that
emission 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 emission factors
development program would save industry, State/local/tribal agencies
and EPA, time and money and work to improve the quality of emission
inventories and related regulatory decisions.
As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that would be used is
EPA's WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through EPA's TTN Web.
The WebFIRE Web site was constructed to store emissions test data for
use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE
database can be found at https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The ERT would be able to transmit the electronic report through
EPA's CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is
not the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source
test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data
very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.
H. Title V Permit Requirements
All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final SSI rule
would be required to apply for and obtain a Title V permit. These Title
V operating permits would assure compliance with all applicable
requirements for regulated SSI units, including all applicable CAA
section 129 requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source
applying for a Title V operating permit depends on when the source
first becomes subject to the relevant Title V permits program. If a
regulated SSI unit is a new unit and is not subject to an earlier
permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application must
be submitted on or before the relevant date below.
For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new source
on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL,
the source must submit a complete Title V permit application no
later than 12
[[Page 63267]]
months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL;
or
For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new source
after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source
must submit a complete Title V permit application no later than 12
months after the date the SSI unit commences operation as a new
source.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and
71.5(a)(1)(i).
If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject to an
earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a
complete Title V permit application by the earlier of the following
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dates:
Twelve months after the effective date of any
applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an EPA
approved State or tribal plan that implements the SSI EG); or
Twelve months after the effective date of any
applicable Federal plan; or
Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart MMMM.
For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the
promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, applies regardless of
whether or when any applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or
when any applicable CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is approved by EPA and
becomes effective. (See CAA sections 129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a)
and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of some
triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned above, for
example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or part of a major source),
then you may be required to apply for a Title V permit prior to the
deadlines specified above. If more than 1 requirement triggers a
source's obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time
frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered by the
requirement which first causes the source to be subject to Title V.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b),
70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional background information on the interface between CAA
section 129 and Title V, including EPA's interpretation of section
129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications
and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final ``Federal Plan
for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,'' October 3,
2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the ``Summary of Public Comments and
Responses'' document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156).
I. Proposed Applicability Dates of the NSPS and EG
Under these proposed standards, new SSI units that commence
construction on or after October 14, 2010 or that are modified 6 months
or more after the date of promulgation, would have to meet the NSPS
emission limits of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within 6 months after
the promulgation date of the standards or upon startup, whichever is
later.
Under the proposed EG, and consistent with CAA section 129(b)(2)
and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, states are required to submit State
plans containing the existing source emission limits of subpart MMMM of
this part, and other requirements to implement and enforce the EG
within 1 year after promulgation of the EG. State plans apply to
existing SSI in the State (including SSI that are modified prior to the
date 6 months after promulgation) and must be at least as protective as
the EG.
The proposed EG would require existing SSI to demonstrate
compliance with the standards as expeditiously as practicable after
approval of a State plan, but no later than 3 years from the date of
approval of a State plan or 5 years after promulgation of the EG,
whichever is earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects
states to require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. However,
because we believe that many SSI units will find it necessary to
retrofit existing emissions control equipment and/or install additional
emissions control equipment in order to meet the proposed limits, EPA
anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3 year compliance
period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA does not approve a
State plan or issue a Federal plan, then the compliance date is 5 years
from the date of the final rule.
EPA intends to develop a Federal plan that will apply to existing
SSI units in any State that has not submitted an approved State plan
within 2 years after promulgation of the EG. The proposed EG would
allow existing SSI units subject to the Federal plan up to 5 years
after promulgation of the EG to demonstrate compliance with the
standards, as allowed by CAA section 129(b)(3).
IV. Rationale
All standards established pursuant to CAA section 129(a)(2) must
reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of certain
listed air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for each category. This level of control is referred to as a
MACT standard.
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, depending on whether they regulate
new or existing sources. For new units, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar unit. Emission standards for existing units may
be less stringent than standards for new units, but cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in the category. These requirements
constitute the MACT floor for new and existing sources; however, EPA
may not consider costs or other impacts in determining the MACT floors.
EPA must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts
and energy requirements in connection with any standards that are more
stringent than the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor controls).
In general, 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, on 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 and other relevant emissions
information. For each source category, the assessment involves a review
of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions
variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be used provided
that the methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the
actual emissions performance of a source or sources.
As stated earlier, the CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no
less stringent than the emission 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 the MACT floor at the emission level achieved by that
control with an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Once
the MACT floor determinations are done for new sources, we consider
regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control
that could result in reduced emissions. More
[[Page 63268]]
stringent potential 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 emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in a source category. EPA must determine
some measure of the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of units in each subcategory to establish the
MACT floor for existing units. Once the MACT floor determinations are
done for each subcategory of existing units, we consider various
regulatory options more stringent than the MACT floor level of control
that could result in lower emissions. More stringent beyond-the-floor
regulatory options reflect other or additional controls capable of
achieving better performance.
A. Subcategories
The CAA allows EPA to subcategorize a source category based on
differences in class, type, or size. EPA is proposing to subcategorize
SSI units into 2 subcategories, based on differences in the design type
of the incineration units.
To EPA's knowledge, there are 2 types of incinerators currently
used to combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. Of the 218 SSI
units in operation, 55 use the FB design, while 163 use the MH design.
These two types use significantly different combustor designs. A. MH
incinerator consists of a vertical cylinder containing from 6 to 12
horizontal hearths and a rotating center shaft with rabble arms.
Biosolids (i.e., sewage sludge) enter the top hearth and flow downward
while combustion air flows from the bottom to the top. The MH is
divided into 3 zones. The upper hearths comprise the drying zone in
which water and some organic compounds are evaporated from the
biosolids. The middle hearths comprise the combustion zone. The
exposure to the combustion gas and biosolids to high temperature is
only in this section and residence time of the gas is short. The lower
hearths form the cooling zone, where ash is cooled as its heat is
transferred to the incoming combustion air. Some MH incinerators have
an additional zone above the drying hearths which can be used as an
afterburner to combust the organics and CO generated in the lower
hearths. Multiple hearth units are sensitive to any change in the feed,
such as feed moisture and feed rate. Since the emissions of CO and
organic compounds are dependent on the temperature of the top hearth,
any changes occurring in the biosolids input can cause operational
upset with momentary drop in top hearth temperature and an increase in
emissions. In order to assure proper startup, shutdown, and modulation
of combustion temperatures, fuels (e.g., natural gas and distillate
oil) may be added to the combustion chamber.
In a FB incinerator, the reactor is a vertical steel shell
comprised of 4 sections. The lower section is called the windbox and
acts as a plenum in which combustion air is received. Above the windbox
is a refractory arch. The section above the refractory arch is filled
with sand and is called the bed area or combustion zone. Hot air is
distributed homogeneously throughout the FB. The intensive mixing of
the solid and gas in the fluidized State results in a high heat
transfer resulting in rapid combustion of the biosolids. The section
above the bed is the freeboard or disengagement zone. The freeboard
provides 6 to 7 seconds of gas residence time, which completes the
combustion of any volatile hydrocarbons escaping from the bed.
The differences between the 2 combustor designs result in
significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas stream,
ability to handle variability in the feeds, control of temperature and
other process variables, auxiliary fuel use and other characteristics.
Generally, FB incinerators have lower emissions of NOX,
organic compounds, CDD/CDF and CO than MH incinerators due to the
combustion temperature, mixing, and residence time differences.
Intermittent operations, involving frequent shutdown and startup, are
generally easier and more rapid for FB incinerators than MH
incinerators. Additionally, FB incinerators have better capability of
handling feeds with varying moisture and volatile contents. Lower
excess air and auxiliary fuel is required to operate FB incinerators
resulting in smaller flue gas flow rates and consequently smaller sized
downstream control devices.
To reflect the differences in their combustion mechanisms, 2
subcategories, FB and MH, were developed for new and existing SSI
sources.
We are requesting comment on whether other combustor designs are
used at SSI units, and, if so, we are requesting emissions information
from stack tests conducted on those units.
We are also aware that sewage sludge may be incinerated in certain
commerc
