Rule: Air Pollution Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Municipal Waste Combustion Units, Large

Wednesday,
May 10, 2006
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large
Municipal Waste Combustors; Final Rule
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:05 May 09, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10MYR2.SGM 10MYR2
27324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION For new MWC units, the goal of this available only in hard copy form.
AGENCY action is to amend the standards to Publicly available docket materials are
reflect the performance level achievable available either electronically through
40 CFR Part 60 by MWC units constructed in the future. www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117; FRL–8164–9]
Other technical improvements are also the Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID
being made to the standards for MWC No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117, EPA/
RIN 2060–AL97 units. DC, EPA West Building, Room B102,
DATES: Effective Dates: The amendment 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Standards of Performance for New Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Stationary Sources and Emission to § 60.50 is effective May 10, 2006. The
final rule amendments to the standards Room is open 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Monday through Friday, excluding legal
Municipal Waste Combustors for new sources in subpart Eb of 40 CFR
part 60 (§§ 60.50b, 60.51b, 60.52b, holidays. The telephone number for the
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 60.53b, 60.54b, 60.57b, 60.58b, 60.59b) Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
Agency (EPA). are effective November 6, 2006. The and the telephone number for the EPA
ACTION: Final rule. final rule amendments to the emission Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
guidelines for existing sources in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating subpart Cb of 40 CFR part 60 (§§ 60.30b, Walt Stevenson, Energy Strategies
amendments to the air emission 60.31b, 60.32b, 60.33b, 60.34b, Tables 1, Group, Sector Policies and Programs
standards for existing and new large 2, and 3 to subpart Cb) are effective July Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research
municipal waste combustor (MWC) 10, 2006. Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
units. Standards for MWC units were ADDRESSES: Docket. EPA has established telephone number: (919) 541–5264; e-
promulgated in 1995 and implemented a docket for this action under Docket ID mail address: stevenson.walt@epa.gov.
in 2000. The Clean Air Act (CAA) No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117. All
requires review of these standards every documents in the docket are listed on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
5 years. The review is to be conducted the www.regulations.gov Web site. Regulated Entities. Categories and
in accordance with CAA section 129 Although listed in the index, some entities potentially affected by the final
and section 111 requirements, with information is not publicly available, rule are MWC units with a design
standards revised as necessary. For e.g., CBI or other information whose combustion capacity of greater than 250
existing MWC units, the goal of this disclosure is restricted by statute. tons per day. The NSPS and emission
action is to amend the standards to Certain other material, such as guidelines for municipal waste
reflect the actual performance levels copyrighted material, is not placed on combustors affect the following
being achieved by existing MWC units. the Internet and will be publicly categories of sources:
SIC code
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities
(optional)
Industry, Federal government, and State/local/tribal 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors or incinerators at waste-to-
governments. 92411 9511 energy facilities that generate electricity or steam
from the combustion of garbage (typically municipal
solid waste); and solid waste combustors or inciner-
ators at facilities that combust garbage (typically
municipal solid waste) and do not recover energy
from the waste combustion.
This table is not intended to be posted a copy of the final rule on the Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide TTN’s policy and guidance page for further provides that ‘‘only an objection
for readers regarding entities likely to be newly proposed or promulgated rules at to a rule or procedure which was raised
regulated by the final rule. To determine http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN with reasonable specificity during the
whether your facility is regulated by the provides information and technology period for public comment (including
final rule, you should examine the exchange in various areas of air any public hearing) may be raised
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.32b pollution control. during judicial review.’’ This section
of subpart Cb and 40 CFR 60.50b of also provides a mechanism for the EPA
Judicial Review. Under CAA section to convene a proceeding for
subpart Eb. If you have any questions
307(b)(1), judicial review of the final reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising
regarding the applicability of the final
rule to a particular entity, contact the rule is available only by filing a petition the objection can demonstrate to the
person listed in the preceding FOR for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals EPA that is was impracticable to raise
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
for the District of Columbia Circuit by such an objection within the period for
Docket. The docket number for the July 10, 2006. Under CAA section public comment or if the grounds for
large MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the such objection arose after the period for
subpart Eb) and emission guidelines (40 final rule that was raised with public comment (but within the time
CFR part 60, subpart Cb) is Docket ID reasonable specificity during the period specified for judicial review) and if such
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117. for public comment can be raised during objection is of central relevance to the
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition judicial review. Moreover, under CAA outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
to being available in the docket, an section 307(b)(2), the requirements seeking to make such a demonstration to
electronic copy of the final rule is established by today’s final action may the EPA should submit a Petition for
available on the WWW through the not be challenged separately in any civil Reconsideration to the Office of the
Technology Transfer Network Web site or criminal proceedings brought by EPA Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
(TTN Web). Following signature, EPA to enforce these requirements. Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27325
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with C. Regulatory Flexibility Act appropriate, revise the NSPS and
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act emission guidelines. The EPA has
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism completed that review. On December
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
CONTACT section, and the Director of the 19, 2005 (70 FR 75348), EPA proposed
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of Governments amendments to the NSPS and emission
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of guidelines to reflect the revisions EPA
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Children from Environmental Health and believes are appropriate. EPA carefully
NW., Washington, DC 20004. Safety Risks considered comments received on the
Organization of This Document. The H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That proposal, and this action promulgates
following outline is provided to aid in Significantly Affect Energy Supply, those revisions.
locating information in this preamble. Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer II. Summary of Amendments
I. Background Information Advancement Act
II. Summary of Amendments J. Congressional Review Act A. What are the major revisions
A. What are the major revisions resulting resulting from the review?
from the review? I. Background Information
B. What are the revised emission limits? Section 129 of the CAA, entitled Two major revisions result from
C. Are other amendments being ‘‘Solid Waste Combustion,’’ requires EPA’s review: Revisions to the emission
promulgated?
D. Is an implementation schedule being
EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and limits and revisions to compliance
promulgated? emission guidelines for solid waste testing provisions. Relative to the 1995
E. Has EPA revised the applicability date incineration units pursuant to CAA emission guidelines for existing MWC
of the NSPS? sections 111 and 129. Section 111(b) of units, the emission limits are revised for
III. Responses to Significant Comments the CAA (NSPS program) addresses dioxin, cadmium, lead, mercury, and
A. What areas of the proposal received the emissions from new MWC units and particulate matter. The nitrogen oxides
most comments? section 111(d) of the CAA (emission emission limit for mass burn rotary
B. Why did EPA not recalculate the MACT guidelines program) addresses waterwall type MWC units is also
floor? emissions from existing MWC units.
C. Relative to technical issues, how were revised. Relative to the 1995 NSPS for
statistical methods used to develop
The NSPS are directly enforceable new MWC units, the emission limits are
emission limits? Federal regulations. The emission revised for cadmium, lead, mercury, and
D. How were the final emission limits guidelines are not directly enforceable particulate matter. For both the
selected? but, rather, are implemented by State air emission guidelines and NSPS, the
E. What types of comments were received pollution control agencies through compliance testing provisions have been
on the EPA statistical methods? sections 111(d)/129 State plans. revised to require increased data
F. What comments were received on the In December 1995, EPA adopted
EPA database and data screening
availability from continuous emissions
NSPS (subpart Eb of 40 CFR part 60) monitoring systems (CEMS). The
procedures? and emission guidelines (subpart Cb of
G. What was the most important factor revisions require CEMS to generate at
40 CFR part 60) for MWC units with a least 95 percent data availability on a
affecting emissions estimates?
H. What emission variability factor is combustion capacity greater than 250 calendar year basis and at least 90
appropriate? tons per day. These MWC units are
percent data availability on a calendar
I. What other significant comments were referred to as large MWC units. Both the
quarter basis. The emission guidelines
received on the proposal, and how were NSPS and emission guidelines require
and NSPS have also been revised to
they addressed in the final rule? compliance with emission limitations
J. What comments were received on the allow the optional use of CEMS to
that reflect the performance of
proposed 95 percent CEMS data maximum achievable control monitor particulate matter and mercury.
availability requirement and how were technology (MACT). The NSPS apply to
they addressed in the final rule?
B. What are the revised emission limits?
new MWC units after the effective date
K. What comments were received on the The final amendments revise many of
expanded use of continuous emission of the NSPS or at start-up, whichever is
monitors technology, and how were the later. The emission guidelines apply to the emission limits in both the NSPS
comments addressed in the final rule? existing MWC units built before the and emission guidelines. Relative to the
L. Would the use of particulate matter NSPS applicability date and required NSPS, the most significant revisions are
continuous emission monitors or compliance by December 2000. These in the cadmium and mercury emission
mercury continuous emission monitors retrofits were completed on time, and limits. Relative to the emission
for compliance testing require EPA to the controls installed to meet the guidelines, the most significant
adopt alternative particulate matter and required emission limitations were revisions are in the dioxin/furan (for
mercury emission limits? units equipped with electrostatic
IV. Impacts of the Final Amendments for
highly effective in reducing emissions of
Existing Units all of the CAA section 129 pollutants precipitators (ESPs)) and mercury
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews emitted by large MWC units. emission limits, as well as nitrogen
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires oxides for mass burn rotary combustors.
Planning and Review EPA to conduct a 5-year review of the Table 1 of this preamble contains a
B. Paperwork Reduction Act NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if summary of the final emission limits.
TABLE 1.—FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS

Pollutant Emission limit for existing MWC units a Emission limit for new MWC units a
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) .................................... 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter b 13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
total mass basis (non-ESP equipped units)/ total mass basis.
35 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
total mass basis (ESP-equipped units).
Cadmium (Cd) .................................................... 35 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter .. 10 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter.
TABLE 1.—FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS—Continued

Pollutant Emission limit for existing MWC units a Emission limit for new MWC units a
Lead (Pb) ........................................................... 400 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 140 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Mercury (Hg) ...................................................... 50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
or 85 percent reduction of mercury emis- or 85 percent reduction of mercury emis-
sions. sions.
Particulate Matter (PM) ...................................... 25 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter .... 20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) .................................... b 29 parts per million dry volume or 95 percent b 25 parts per million dry volume or 95 percent
reduction of hydrogen chloride emissions. reduction of hydrogen chloride emissions.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ........................................... b 29 parts per million dry volume or 75 percent b 30 parts per million dry volume or 80 percent
reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions. reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ...................................... Varies by combustor type (see table 1 to sub- b 180 parts per million dry volume/150 parts
part Cb of part 60). per million dry volume after first year of op-
eration.
a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
b No change promulgated.
C. Are other amendments being combustor’’ and ‘‘semi-suspension RDF- from an exceptionally well-operated
promulgated? fired combustor/wet RDF process MWC unit (i.e., MWC unit with dioxin
conversion.’’ emissions for 2 years in a row below 15
The final amendments also make the
nanogram/dry standard cubic meter (ng/
following changes based on information Operating Parameters
dscm) for existing MWC units and
received during implementation of the • The final amendments revise below 7 ng/dscm for new MWC units)
MWC emission guidelines and apply § 60.58b(m) to establish an 8-hour block be applied to all identical units at the
equally to the NSPS and emission average for measuring activated carbon same plant site without retesting for
guidelines, unless otherwise specified. injection (ACI) rate. This makes the dioxin.
Following is a list of the most NSPS and emission guidelines for large • The final amendments revise the
significant changes compared to the MWC units consistent with the newer particulate matter and mercury
1995 NSPS and emission guidelines. (year 2000) CAA section 129 regulations compliance testing requirements to
Operating Practices for small MWC units (40 CFR part 60, allow the optional use of a particulate
subparts AAAA and BBBB), which matter CEMS or mercury CEMS in place
• The final amendments revise the monitor ACI rate using an 8-hour block of stack testing and would allow the
operator stand-in provisions in average. optional use of multi-metal, hydrogen
§ 60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift
Performance Testing and Monitoring chloride, dioxin/furan CEMS in place of
supervisor is allowed to be off site when
stack tests after which performance
a provisionally certified control room • The final amendments revise the specifications for these CEMS are
operator is standing in. A provisionally annual mercury testing requirements to promulgated.
certified control room operator may additionally allow for optimization of • The final amendments add
stand in for up to 12 hours without mercury control operating parameters provisions for monitoring the activated
notifying EPA; for up to 2 weeks if EPA by waiving operating parameter limits carbon injection pressure or equivalent
is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if during the mercury performance test parameter.
EPA is notified and the MWC owner and during the 2 weeks preceding the • The final amendments revise the
demonstrates to EPA that a good faith mercury performance test. This is data availability requirement for CEMS.
effort is being made to ensure that a already done for dioxin testing. It is Data must be available for at least 90
certified chief facility operator or recommended that both dioxin and percent of the hours of operation per
certified shift supervisor is on site as mercury testing be done during calendar quarter and at least 95 percent
soon as practicable. In the final optimization testing. of the hours of operation per calendar
amendments, a provisionally certified • The final amendments revise the year.
operator who is newly promoted or relative accuracy criterion for sulfur • The final amendments clarify the
recently transferred to a shift supervisor dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS. exclusion of monitoring data from
position or chief facility operator • The final amendments add compliance calculations during periods
position is able to serve up to 6 months flexibility to the annual compliance of startup, shutdown, or malfunctions,
without notification before taking the testing schedule so that a facility tests but requires identification of such
American Society of Mechanical once per calendar year, but no less than periods and an explanation for
Engineer’s (ASME) Standard for the 9 months and no more than 15 months exclusion of such data.
Qualification and Certification of since the previous test. The revision
Resource Recovery Facility Operators provides flexibility to facilities when Other Amendments
(QRO) certification exam for full facing scheduled and unscheduled • The final amendments clarify the
certification. outages, adverse local weather meaning of the term ‘‘Administrator’’ in
• The final amendments add two conditions, and other conditions, while the standards.
additional classifications of MWC units still meeting the intent of the
to the emission guidelines and add compliance testing. The final D. Is an implementation schedule being
associated carbon monoxide limits to amendments also require at least five promulgated?
assure good combustion practices. The compliance tests be completed in each Yes. Under the emission guidelines,
two new classifications are ‘‘spreader 5-year calendar period. and consistent with CAA section 129,
stoker fixed floor refuse-derived fuel • The final amendments allow the revised State plans containing the
(RDF)-fired/100 percent coal capable use of parametric monitoring limits revised emission limits and other
requirements in the revised emission are subject to more stringent emission MACT floor. A more natural reading of
guidelines are due within 1 year after limits. Under the final amendments, the provision is that EPA is to conduct
promulgation of these revisions. That is, units that commenced construction after a periodic review to determine whether
revised State plans must be submitted to September 20, 1994, and on or before advances in technology warrant
EPA by May 10, 2007. December 19, 2005, continue to be revisions to the standards. This is the
The emission guidelines then allow subject to the NSPS emission limits that same general approach taken by EPA in
MWC units two compliance schedules. were promulgated in 1995 and that reviewing CAA section 111 standards.
As a first option, MWC units have up to remain in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart There is nothing in the language of
2 years from the date of EPA approval Eb NSPS. Units that commence section 129(a)(5) that speaks directly to
of a State plan to comply. Consistent construction after December 19, 2005, the issue of whether another floor
with CAA section 129, EPA expects are subject to the new NSPS limits being analysis is required. EPA believes that a
States to require compliance as added to subpart Eb. reasonable interpretation of the
expeditiously as practicable. Large The EPA is not aware of, and reference cited by the commenter leads
MWC units have already installed the commenters did not identify, any MWC to the conclusion that such an analysis
emission control equipment necessary units that were modified or is not required. EPA believes that a
to meet the revised limits, and EPA, reconstructed after June 19, 1996 reasonable interpretation of the
therefore, anticipates that most State (effective date of the December 19, 1995 reference requires EPA to determine
plans will include compliance dates less NSPS), therefore, EPA simplified the ‘‘the degree of emission limitation
than 2 years following approval of State applicability text for the NSPS to be achievable through application of the
plans. In most cases, the only changes MWC units that commenced best system of emission reduction
necessary are to review the revisions construction, modification, or which (taking into account the cost of
and adjust the emission monitoring and reconstruction after September 20, 1994. achieving such reduction and any non-
reporting accordingly. State plan The use of one date is the most air quality health and environmental
revisions are not approvable until the understandable. As noted in adopting impact and energy requirements) the
related State rule or enforceable regulations for MWC in 1995, any Administrator determines has been
mechanism is adopted and becomes change made to an MWC unit for the adequately demonstrated.’’ See, Clean
effective. As a second compliance principal purpose of complying with the Air Act section 111(a)(1). Recalculating
option, an owner or operator of an MWC subpart Cb, 40 CFR part 60, emission the floor as advocated by the commenter
unit that plans a substantial upgrade, guidelines or subpart Eb NSPS is not would eviscerate the Administrator’s
can apply to the EPA Administrator (if considered to be a modification or ability to effectively consider factors
the MWC is regulated by a Federal reconstruction. that Congress has otherwise mandated
Section 111(d)/129 plan) or the State be considered. That is, once a new floor
Administrator (if the MWC is regulated III. Responses to Significant Comments has been calculated, the Administrator
by an EPA approved State section A. What areas of the proposal received cannot establish emission limits which
111(d)/129 plan), for a site-specific the most comments? are less stringent than that floor even if
compliance schedule that can extend up consideration of costs and other factors
to 5 years following publication of these The comment letters received by EPA would otherwise lead him to conclude
amendments. on the proposed rule, identified more that this is appropriate. EPA believes
In revising the emission limits in a than 50 issues for consideration. The that Congress would have been explicit
State plan, a State has two options. most common issue was related to the in its instructions had it intended this
First, it could insert the new emission statistical methods used by EPA to assist result. Since it was not, EPA believes
limits in place of the current emission in development of the proposed that a reasonable interpretation of
limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part emission limits. Associated comments section 129(a)(5) is that it does not
60, subpart B, and submit a revised included those on the adequacy of the require EPA to recalculate the floor for
State plan to EPA for approval. If the database, appropriateness of the data existing units.
revised State plan contains only the new screening procedures, and development EPA also believes that interpreting
emission limits (i.e., the existing of emissions variability factors. In section 129(a)(5) as requiring additional
emission limits are not retained), then addition, EPA received legal comments floor determinations could effectively
the new emission limits must become on recalculating the MACT floor. convert existing source standards into
effective immediately since the current new source standards. After 5 years, all
B. Why did EPA not recalculate the
limits would be removed from the State sources will be performing at least at the
MACT floor?
plan. A second approach would be for existing source MACT level of
a State plan to include both the current Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires performance and some sources will be
and the new emission limits. This EPA to ‘‘* * * review, and in performing at the new source MACT
allows a phased approach in applying accordance with this section and section level of performance. As a result, it is
the new limits. That is, the State plan 111, revise’’ performance standards and likely that the average performance of
would make it clear that the existing other requirements under section 129. the best performing 12 percent of
emission limits remain in force and The provision does not mandate that sources will be at or near the new
apply until the date the new emission this review be conducted in a single, source MACT level of performance. This
limits are effective (as defined in the unvarying manner. One commenter, would result in existing sources being
State plan). nevertheless, maintains that because of subject to new source MACT
the reference to ‘‘this section and requirements on a 5-year cycle
E. Has EPA revised the applicability section 111,’’ EPA is necessarily regardless of whether those sources
date of the NSPS? required to repeat the CAA section have undergone a change which would
No. The applicability date for the 129(a) standards development process, otherwise require compliance with that
NSPS units remains September 20, which includes re-determining the standard. EPA sees no indication that
1994; however, units for which MACT floor for new and existing MWC section 129(a)(5) was intended to have
construction or modification is units. EPA does not read the provision this inexorable downward ratcheting
commenced after December 19, 2005, as requiring another analysis of the effect. Rather, we read the provision as
requiring EPA to consider developments approach presented by the Integrated data screening to non-screening changed
in pollution control at the sources and Waste Services Association (IWSA). the estimate by 1 micrograms/dry
to revise the standards based on it EPA concludes that the IWSA approach standard cubic meter (µg/dscm) (31 µg/
evaluation of the costs, non-air quality presents another generally acceptable dscm to 32 µg/dscm). A more significant
effects and energy implications of doing methodology for developing emission change resulting from changing from
so. limits. Based on public comments, EPA data screening to non-screening was in
revised its methodology and updated the estimate for the lead emission limit.
C. Relative to technical issues, how were EPA found that data received
the database and conducted another
the statistical methods used to develop following proposal showed highly
analysis. The revised methodology used
emission limits? variable lead emissions. The statistical
by EPA followed that used by IWSA, but
The statistical methods were used as improved upon it with more accurate analysis data for lead used by EPA and
an aid. One must remember that selection of frequency distributions on IWSA was not as variable as data for
statistical methods attempt to estimate which to base the analyses. Regardless subsequent years that were obtained
what could occur in the future based on of the statistical methodology used, the after the statistical analyses were
what occurred in the past. Statistical results of the statistical analysis were completed. Therefore, EPA discounted
methods provide an estimate of what used only as a tool to aid in selection both the EPA and industry statistical
could occur, but they are not the actual of appropriate emission limits. That is, estimates, and based the final limit on
process. Actual events will determine the estimates from the new statistical a review of the year 2000–2005 test data
what actually occurs. The usefulness of analysis were used as an aid in selecting and public comment, selecting a higher
statistical methods is affected by the the final emission limits. The new emission limit.
appropriateness of the model and analysis is contained in the docket. In selecting the final mercury
assumptions used as well as the quality emission limit, EPA again discounted
and size of the database. Statistical F. What comments were received on the both the EPA and industry statistical
methods are a useful aid in making an EPA database and data screening estimates, and based the final limit on
informed decision but they alone cannot procedures? a review of the year 2000–2005 test data
dictate a decision. Human judgment Although the MWC database is one of and public comment, this time selecting
must always be applied in making the the larger databases EPA has had for a lower emission limit. The EPA and
final decision. standards development, a number of IWSA analyses used year 2000 test data,
commenters indicated the database is and both analyses supported retention
D. How were the final emission limits
inadequate because of its age. They of the existing mercury limit of 80 µg/
selected? indicated that the data from initial dscm. However, EPA obtained mercury
The final emission limits were MACT compliance tests (year 2000) is test data for 68 different tests conducted
selected in a three-step process. The old and should be supplemented with on ESP-equipped MWC units in the
first step was to develop statistical more current data. Some commenters 2000 to 2005 time period. These data
estimates. The second step was to suggested the more current data would showed that mercury emissions are
consider the statistical estimates in address emission control performance considerably lower than suggested by
relation to current performance levels. over time including deterioration of the the statistical analyses. To understand
The third step was for EPA to select control system. (It could also be argued this performance, EPA reviewed
emission limits. Relative to the first more current data could show improved uncontrolled mercury emissions data
step, EPA identified an appropriate performance as MWC operators became from a number of MWC units for the
statistical model, defined reasonable more familiar with operating an 1995 to 2005 time period. The data
assumptions, and applied the model to emission control system.) EPA believes showed that in 1995, when the MACT
year 2000 compliance data for all MWC the size of the year 2000 database standards were adopted, average
units with the relevant control adequate to address emission variability uncontrolled mercury emission levels
technologies to estimate the peak for developing estimates; however, EPA were about 250 µg/dscm, and, by 2005,
emission rate that is estimated to occur did collect 2000 to 2005 test data from the level was reduced by about 50
from time to time, considering inherent more than a dozen MWC units to aid in percent to about 125 µg/dscm. The
variability in emission levels. Next, EPA reviewing emission control performance result of application of 85 percent
obtained year 2000 to 2005 test data over time and to compare to the mercury control to these lower mercury
from more than a dozen MWC units. statistical estimates. Additionally, inlet levels has resulted in much lower
This data was compared to the commenters identified a number of mercury outlet levels, as demonstrated
statistical estimates and considered in errors in the database. These were by the test data. A 50 percent reduction
relation to public comments. As a last corrected by EPA. Relative to data in inlet mercury levels suggests an
step, EPA selected the emission limits screening as done by EPA at proposal, emission limit of 40 µg/dscm in the
for the final standards. commenters claimed its use MACT standards. Public comments and
inappropriate and that it introduced test data suggested that levels less than
E. What types of comments were bias to the results. At proposal, EPA had 30 µg/dscm are being achieved.
received on the EPA statistical methods? screened data to identify values that However, in consideration of the
A range of comments were received required additional investigation not potential use of mercury CEMS and the
on the statistical methodology. Some because the values were high or low. higher mercury variability that may be
commenters simply presented their own Based on public comments, EPA observed with CEMS use, the final
statistical methodology, which they dropped the data screening procedure in standards were set at 50 µg/dscm for
claimed was more conventional or its final analysis. In some cases, using both existing and new MWC units.
appropriate for the data analysis being the unscreened data rather than the
conducted. They went on to claim their screened data changed estimates, but in G. What was the most important factor
methodology would lead to more other cases it did not. For example, the affecting emissions estimates?
appropriate emission limits. The most particulate matter emissions limit with The emission variability factor was
common statistical methodology or without data screening did not the most important factor affecting
identified by commenters followed the change. For cadmium, the change from emissions estimates. The emission
variability factor is an emission factor estimating emission limits enforced by requirement and on a calendar year
that is added to the mean performance infrequent stack testing must also reflect basis for the 95 percent requirement.
level in order to estimate the peak a reasonable consideration of emissions The current requirement of obtaining
emissions level that will occur from variability and compliance limitations CEMS data for 75 percent of the
time to time. For example, over an of stack testing. Based on EPA’s operating hours per day before data is
extended period (many years) experience, EPA concluded a 99 counted toward the CEMS data
particulate matter emissions from an percentile was appropriate to estimate availability requirement has been
MWC could average 15 milligrams per achievable emission levels for emission removed from the MWC regulations to
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). limits enforced by stack testing. assure consistency with CEMS
Clearly, individual particulate matter Therefore, just as done in the December requirements for other source categories.
tests would be above and below 15 mg/ 19, 2005 proposal, EPA continues to use
K. What comments were received on the
dscm. The emission variability factor a 99 percentile for estimating emission
expanded use of CEMS technology, and
addresses how much individual test limits to be enforced by stack testing
how were the comments addressed in
values are estimated to be above the 15 and 99.7 percentile for estimating
the final rule?
mg/dscm mean value. If the variability emission limits to be enforced by CEMS.
factor were 10 mg/dscm, it would mean The commenters did not provide any In the proposal, EPA allowed the
that it is estimated that from time to persuasive information for the use of a optional use of particulate matter CEMS
time particulate matter emissions could 99.7 percentile for both CEMS and stack and requested comment on the optional
be as high as 25 mg/dscm (15 + 10 = 25). test compliance methods. use of particulate matter CEMS, multi-
metal CEMS, hydrogen chloride CEMS,
H. What emission variability factor is I. What other significant comments were and semi-continuous dioxin monitoring.
appropriate? received on the proposal, and how were Some commenters stated the CEMS
Although most commenters and EPA they addressed in the final rule? have not been validated on MWC units;
used similar statistical methodology, Other significant comment topics that PM CEMS have not been installed
differences were identified in included CEMS data availability and in any MWC in the United States; and
assumptions used to develop emission increased use of CEMS, including the use of PM CEMS on MWCs in
variability factors. EPA used percentiles. particulate matter CEMS and other new Europe are not indicative of the
The percentile addresses how often one CEMS technology. The CEMS data appropriateness of their use in the
would estimate that an emissions level availability issue and increased use of United States, because of differences in
may exceed a certain value (the CEMS technology are discussed below. how CEMS are used for enforcement.
standard). For analysis of CEMS data, Other comments are addressed in the While PM CEMS are used in the United
such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen response to comment document, which States on other types of sources, there
oxides, where 365 tests (24-hr CEMS is contained in the docket. could be some operational differences
average) are conducted per year, EPA between these sources and MWCs that
J. What comments were received on the
and commenters agreed the emission affect the performance of PM CEMS on
proposed 95 percent CEMS data
limit should be set at a level that would MWCs.
availability requirement, and how were In the final rule, EPA is allowing, as
be expected to be exceeded only once
they addressed in the final rule? optional test methods, the use of
per year at a well-operated MWC plant.
Once per year translates into a 99.7 Most commenters agreed that 95 particulate matter CEMS and mercury
percentile level. A number of percent CEMS data availability was CEMS, since performance specifications
commenters suggested the use of a 99.7 achievable by a single CEMS, but are available for these CEMS. In the
percentile for development of limits indicated that legally requiring regulations, the owners or operators of
using both CEMS data (sulfur dioxide demonstration of such high availability an MWC would provide EPA a 30 day
and nitrogen oxide) and stack test data levels on a short term basis may result notice before starting to use the CEMS
(cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate in the installation of a second backup and provide a 30 day notice if they elect
matter, dioxin, and hydrogen chloride). CEMS to assure compliance. to discontinue the use of the CEMS. As
This is one area where EPA disagrees Commenters indicated that from time to an incentive for the optional application
with these commenters. EPA concludes time it is necessary to obtain of CEMS in the MWC context, EPA is
a different assumption is appropriate. replacement parts for CEMS, sometimes modifying the monitoring availability
For stack test emission limits, EPA from foreign suppliers, and this can requirements. The 90 percent and 95
used a different and lower percentile. quickly deteriorate data availability percent CEMS data availability
This is the same approach EPA used at levels on a short term basis. In requirements do not apply to particulate
proposal. Analysis of data to estimate proposing the 95 percent data matter CEMS or mercury CEMS use for
emission limits to be enforced by stack availability requirement, it was not the first 2 years of application. For the
test methods must be done using a EPA’s intention to require installation of other CEMS (multi-metal, hydrogen
different approach than where a second backup CEMS. To address chloride, and semi-continuous dioxin
enforcement is to be based on CEMS. these concerns, the final rule addresses monitoring), their optional use is
Historically, for stack test data, EPA CEMS data availability in two steps. allowed after their respective
used its judgment to select appropriate First, a 90 percent CEMS data performance specifications are adopted
emission limits in consideration of availability requirement is applied on a by EPA. No dates for adoption are
emissions variability over a wide range calendar quarter basis. Second, a 95 currently scheduled.
of operating conditions, and percent data availability requirement is
consideration of the limitations of applied on a calendar year basis. The L. Would the use of particulate matter
compliance determination by infrequent procedure for calculation of data CEMS or mercury CEMS for compliance
stack testing. For this rulemaking, EPA availability is also revised in the final testing require EPA to adopt alternative
moved a step forward using statistical rule to be hours of valid CEMS data particulate matter and mercury
methods to aid in estimating collected divided by the hours of MWC emission limits?
appropriate emission levels for stack operation. This is done on a calendar Theoretically, yes. The use of
test compliance. The percentile for quarter basis for the 90 percent particulate matter CEMS or mercury
CEMS for compliance testing would Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory previously applicable instructions and
theoretically require EPA to adopt action’’ as one that is likely to result in requirements; train personnel to be able
alternative particulate matter and a rule that may: to respond to a collection of
mercury emission limits. The move (1) Have an annual effect on the information; search data sources;
from once per year stack testing (where economy of $100 million or more or complete and review the collection of
emission limits were calculated from adversely affect in a material way the information; and transmit or otherwise
the 99 percentile) to CEMS (99.7 economy, a sector of the economy, disclose the information.
percentile) suggests the emission limit productivity, competition, jobs, the An Agency may not conduct or
should be increased if the same data environment, public health or safety, or sponsor, and a person is not required to
averaging period is used. To address State, local, or Tribal governments or respond to a collection of information
this, the final rule increases the data communities; unless it displays a currently valid OMB
averaging period from 8 hours (typical (2) Create a serious inconsistency or control number. The OMB control
particulate matter and mercury stack otherwise interfere with an action taken numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
test period) to a 24-hr daily average if or planned by another agency; in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.
particulate matter or mercury CEMS are (3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
used. Past analysis of sulfur dioxide
CEMS and nitrogen oxides CEMS data or loan programs, or the rights and EPA has determined that it is not
(and utility particulate matter CEMS obligations of recipients thereof; or necessary to prepare a regulatory
data) indicate increasing the averaging (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues flexibility analysis in connection with
period to a 24-hr daily average will arising out of legal mandates, the the final rule.
President’s priorities, or the principles For purposes of assessing the impacts
reduce emissions variability and
set forth in the Executive Order. of the final rule on small entities, small
associated peak emissions estimates.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive entity is defined as follows: (1) A small
EPA supports the optional use of
Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA business in the regulated industry that
particulate matter and mercury CEMS,
that it considers the final rule a has gross annual revenues of less than
but is fully aware that no particulate
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within $6 million; (2) a small governmental
matter CEMS or mercury CEMS data
the meaning of the Executive Order. jurisdiction that is a government of a
from MWC units are available from
EPA has submitted today’s action to city, county, town, school district or
domestic MWC units. EPA encourages
OMB for review. Changes made in special district with a population of less
MWC owners or operators who elect to
response to OMB suggestions or than 50,000; or (3) a small organization
apply particulate matter or mercury
recommendations will be documented that is any not-for-profit enterprise that
CEMS, to notify EPA as soon as data are
in the public record. is independently owned and operated
collected to allow a determination if
and is not dominant in its field.
alternative emission limits are B. Paperwork Reduction Act After considering the economic
appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget impacts of the final rule on small
IV. Impacts of the Final Amendments previously approved the information entities, EPA has concluded that today’s
collection requirements contained in the action will not have a significant
EPA projects the final amendments
NSPS and emission guidelines for large economic impact on a substantial
will have no additional impacts to air,
MWC units under the provisions of the number of small entities. The final rule
water, or energy since the final emission
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. will not impose any requirements on
limits can be achieved using the same
3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and small entities.
air pollution control technology that
emission guidelines were promulgated
was used to comply with the current D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
on December 19, 1995 and subsequent
emission limits. Similarly, EPA expects Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
recertifications. The information
minimal cost and no economic impact Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public
collection request has been assigned
for the same reason. Existing large MWC Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
OMB Control Number 2060–0210 (EPA
units will continue to use their existing Federal agencies to assess the effects of
ICR No. 1506.10).
MACT control technology to meet the The final amendments result in no their regulatory actions on State, local,
emission limits, and will not incur costs changes to the information collection and tribal governments and the private
to retrofit equipment. In addition, EPA requirements of the NSPS or emission sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
does not believe that the revised limits guidelines and will have no impact on EPA generally must prepare a written
will result in any increase in operating the information collection estimate of statement, including a cost-benefit
or maintenance costs. The same project cost and hour burden made and analysis, for proposed and final rules
conclusions apply to new MWC units approved by OMB. Therefore, the with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
since EPA expects that new MWC units information collection requests have not result in expenditures by State, local,
will be equipped with the same control been revised. and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
technology used to comply with the Burden means the total time, effort, or or by the private sector, of $100 million
1995 NSPS. financial resources expended by persons or more in any 1 year. Before
V. Statutory and Executive Order to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose promulgating an EPA rule for which a
Reviews or provide information to or for a written statement is needed, section 205
Federal agency. This includes the time of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory needed to review instructions; develop, identify and consider a reasonable
Planning and Review acquire, install, and utilize technology number of regulatory alternatives and
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR and systems for the purposes of adopt the least costly, most cost-
51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must collecting, validating, and verifying effective, or least burdensome
determine whether the regulatory action information, processing and alternative that achieves the objectives
is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to maintaining information, and disclosing of the rule. The provisions of section
review by OMB and the requirements of and providing information; adjust the 205 do not apply when they are
the Executive Order. The Executive existing ways to comply with any inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to compliance costs on State or local H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
adopt an alternative other than the least governments because the regulations Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
costly, most cost-effective, or least will not require any change in the Distribution or Use
burdensome alternative if the emission control technology currently This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
Administrator publishes with the final used to comply with the 1995 NSPS and action’’ as defined in Executive Order
rule an explanation why that alternative emissions guidelines, and will not 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
was not adopted. preempt State law. Thus, Executive because it is not likely to have a
Before EPA establishes any regulatory Order 13132 does not apply to the final significant adverse effect on the supply,
requirements that may significantly or
amendments. distribution, or use of energy.
uniquely affect small governments,
Since there would be no change in
including tribal governments, EPA must F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
energy consumption resulting from the
have developed a small government and Coordination With Indian Tribal
agency plan under section 203 of the final rule, EPA does not expect any
Governments price increase for any energy type. We
UMRA. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, also expect that there will be no impact
governments, enabling officials of November 9, 2000), requires EPA to on the import of foreign energy
affected small governments to have develop an accountable process to supplies, and no other adverse
meaningful and timely input in the outcomes are expected to occur with
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
development of EPA’s regulatory regards to energy supplies. Therefore,
tribal officials in the development of
proposals with significant Federal EPA concludes that the final rule is not
regulatory policies that have tribal
intergovernmental mandates, and likely to have a significant adverse effect
implications.’’ on the supply, distribution, or use of
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with The final rule does not have tribal energy.
the regulatory requirements. implications, as specified in Executive
I. National Technology Transfer
EPA has determined that the final rule Order 13175. They will not have
Advancement Act
does not contain a Federal mandate that substantial direct effects on tribal
may result in expenditures of $100 governments, on the relationship Section 12(d) of the National
million or more for State, local, and between the Federal government and Technology Transfer and Advancement
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113;
the private sector in any 1 year because power and responsibilities between the 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to
the final rule does not require a change Federal government and Indian tribes, use voluntary consensus standards in
in the control technology applied. Thus, as specified in Executive Order 13175. regulatory activities unless to do so
the final rule is not subject to the EPA is not aware of any large MWC unit would be inconsistent with applicable
requirements of section 202 and 205 of law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
owned or operated by tribal
the UMRA. In addition, EPA has consensus standards are technical
government. Thus, Executive Order
determined that the final rule contains standards (e.g., materials specifications,
13175 does not apply to the final rule.
no regulatory requirements that might test methods, sampling procedures, and
significantly or uniquely affect small G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of business practices) developed or
governments. Therefore, the final rule is Children From Environmental Health adopted by one or more voluntary
not subject to the requirements of and Safety Risks consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs
section 203 of the UMRA. EPA to provide Congress, through
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, annual reports to the Office of
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: Management and Budget (OMB), with
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically explanations when an agency does not
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to significant’’ as defined under Executive use available and applicable voluntary
develop an accountable process to Order 12866, and (2) concerns an consensus standards.
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by environmental health or safety risk that The MWC NSPS and emission
State and local officials in the EPA has reason to believe may have a guidelines involve technical standards.
development of regulatory policies that disproportionate effect on children. If The EPA cites the following methods in
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies the regulatory action meets both criteria, the NSPS and emission guidelines:
that have federalism implications’’ is EPA must evaluate the environmental Methods 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A or 6C, 7
defined in the Executive Order to health or safety effects of the planned or 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E, 9, 10, 10A or 10B,
include regulations that have rule on children, and explain why the 19, 22, 23, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, planned regulation is preferable to other part 60, appendix A; Performance
on the relationship between the national Specifications (PS) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of
potentially effective and reasonably
government and the States, or on the 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and
feasible alternatives EPA considered.
distribution of power and appendix F to 40 CFR part 60.
responsibilities among the various The EPA interprets Executive Order In previous searches and review,
levels of government.’’ 13045 as applying only to those which have been documented and
The final rule does not have regulatory actions that are based on placed in the docket, EPA identified
federalism implications. It will not have health or safety risks, such that the four voluntary consensus standards that
substantial direct effects on the States, analysis required under section 5–501 of have already been incorporated by
on the relationship between the national the Executive Order has the potential to reference in 40 CFR 60.17. The
government and the States, or on the influence the regulation. The final voluntary consensus standard ASTM
distribution of power and amendments are not subject to D6216 (1998), ‘‘Standard Practice for
responsibilities among the various Executive Order 13045 because they are Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to
levels of government, as specified in based on technology performance and Certify Conformance with Design and
Executive Order 13132. The final rule not on health and safety risks. Performance Specifications,’’ is an
will not impose substantial direct acceptable alternative for opacity
monitor design specifications given in PTC 19–10–1981—Part 10 are not Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
EPA’s PS 1 (promulgated in March acceptable as a substitute for EPA
1983). As a result, EPA incorporated Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7E, 10, and 10B. Subpart Cb—[Amended]
ASTM D6216–98 by reference into PS 1 The instrumental methods are only
■ 2. Revise § 60.30b to read as follows:
as the design specifications for opacity general descriptions of procedures and
monitors in August 2000. (40 CFR part are not true methods. Therefore, while § 60.30b Scope and delegation of
60, appendix B.) The MWC NSPS and some of the manual methods are authority.
emission guidelines also incorporate by acceptable alternatives to EPA methods, (a) This subpart contains emission
reference into 40 CFR part 60.17 ASME the instrumental methods are not. guidelines and compliance schedules
QRO–1–1994, ‘‘Standard for the The voluntary consensus standard for the control of certain designated
Qualification and Certification of ASTM D6784–02, ‘‘Standard Test pollutants from certain municipal waste
Resource Recovery Facility Operators’’ Method for Elemental, Oxidized, combustors in accordance with section
for operator qualification and Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 111(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air
certification; ASME PTC 4.1–1964 Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Act and subpart B of this part. The
(reaffirmed 1991), ‘‘Power Test Codes: Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ is an provisions in these emission guidelines
Test Code for Steam Generating Units,’’ alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion apply instead of the provisions of
for steam or feedwater flow; and ASME for mercury only) as a method for § 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part.
Interim Supplement 19.5 (6th Edition, measuring mercury. A full discussion of (b) The following authorities are
1971), ‘‘Instruments and Apparatus: acceptable and unacceptable voluntary retained by EPA:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters,’’ for consensus standards is contained in a (1) Approval of exemption claims in
nozzle and orifice design. memorandum in the docket. § 60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e), (f)(1), (i)(1);
In this search and review, EPA (2) Approval of a nitrogen oxides
conducted searches to identify J. Congressional Review Act
trading program under § 60.33b(d)(2);
voluntary consensus standards in The Congressional Review Act, 5 (3) Approval of major alternatives to
addition to EPA methods in the MWC U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small test methods;
NSPS and emission guidelines. No Business Regulatory Enforcement (4) Approval of major alternatives to
applicable voluntary consensus Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides monitoring;
standards were identified for EPA that before a rule may take effect, the (5) Waiver of recordkeeping; and
Methods 7D, 9, 10A, 19, and 22; and PS agency promulgating the rule must (6) Performance test and data
3 and 4A. The search for emissions submit a rule report, which includes a reduction waivers under § 608(b).
measurement procedures identified 27 copy of the rule, to each House of the ■ 3. Amend § 60.31b by adding the
voluntary consensus standards Congress and to the Comptroller General definitions of ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘Semi-suspension
potentially applicable to the final of the United States. EPA will submit a refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet
amendments. One of the 27 voluntary report containing the final rule and refuse-derived fuel process conversion,’’
consensus standards identified in this other required information to the U.S. and ‘‘Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-
search was not available at the time the Senate, the U.S. House of derived fuel-fired combustor/100
review was conducted for the purposes Representatives, and the Comptroller percent coal capable’’ in alphabetical
of the amendments because the standard General of the United States prior to order to read as follows:
is under development by a voluntary publication of the final rule in the
consensus body: ASTM WK3159 (Begun Federal Register. A major rule cannot § 60.31b Definitions.
in 2003), ‘‘Practice for Quality take effect until 60 days after it is EPA means the Administrator of the
Assurance of Instrumental Monitoring U.S. EPA or employee of the U.S. EPA
published in the Federal Register. This
Systems.’’ The EPA determined that two who is delegated to perform the
final rule is not a major rule’’ as defined
of the remaining 26 standards identified specified task.
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule
for measuring emissions subject to the
amendments to the standards of * * * * *
NSPS and emission guidelines were
performance for new stationary sources Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-
practical alternatives to EPA test
is effective November 6, 2006. The final fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel
methods for the purposes of the final
rule amendments to the emission process conversion means a combustion
amendments. EPA determined that 24
guidelines for existing sources is unit that was converted from a wet
standards were not practical alternatives
effective on July 10, 2006. refuse-derived fuel process to a dry
to EPA test methods, therefore, EPA
does not intend to adopt these standards List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 refuse-derived fuel process, and because
for this purpose. The reasons for EPA’s of constraints in the design of the
Environmental protection, system, includes a low furnace height
determinations are discussed in a
Administrative practice and procedure, (less than 60 feet between the grate and
memorandum in the docket.
EPA identified two voluntary Air pollution control, Intergovernmental the roof) and a high waste capacity-to-
consensus standards as alternatives to relations, Reporting and recordkeeping undergrate air zone ratio (greater than
EPA test methods. ASME PTC 19–10– requirements. 300 tons of waste per day (tpd) fuel per
1981—Part 10, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Dated: April 28, 2006. each undergrate air zone).
Analyses’’ includes manual and Stephen L. Johnson, Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-
instrumental methods of analyses for Administrator.
derived fuel-fired combustor/100
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, percent coal capable means a spreader
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, stoker type combustor with a fixed floor
oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. The manual
title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal grate design that typically fires 100
methods of ASME PTC 19–10–1981—
Regulations is amended as follows: percent refuse-derived fuel but is

Part 10 for measuring the nitrogen
oxide, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide equipped to burn 100 percent coal
PART 60—[AMENDED]
content of exhaust gas are acceptable instead of refuse-derived fuel to fulfill
alternatives to Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 100 percent steam or energy demand.
7C. The instrumental methods of ASME continues to read as follows: ■ 4. Amend § 60.32b by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); (1) For approval, a State plan shall limit for lead contained in the gases
■ b. Revising paragraph (d); include emission limits for particulate discharged to the atmosphere from a
■ c. Revising paragraph (e); matter and opacity at least as protective designated facility is 440 micrograms
■ d. Revising paragraph (f)(1); as the emission limits for particulate per dry standard cubic meter, corrected
■ e. Revising paragraph (i)(1); and matter and opacity specified in to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April
■ f. Adding paragraph (n) to read as paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of 28, 2009, the emission limit for lead
follows: this section. contained in the gases discharged to the
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission atmosphere from a designated facility is
§ 60.32b Designated facilities.
limit for particulate matter contained in 400 micrograms per dry standard cubic
* * * * * the gases discharged to the atmosphere meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(b) * * * from a designated facility is 27
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption * * * * *
milligrams per dry standard cubic (c) The emission limits for municipal
claim, meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. On waste combustor organics, expressed as
* * * * * and after April 28, 2009, the emission
(d) A qualifying small power total mass dioxin/furan, are specified in
limit for particulate matter contained in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
production facility, as defined in section the gases discharged to the atmosphere
3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 section.
from a designated facility is 25 (1) For approval, a State plan shall
U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns milligrams per dry standard cubic include an emission limit for dioxin/
homogeneous waste (such as automotive meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. furan contained in the gases discharged
tires or used oil, but not including (ii) [Reserved]. to the atmosphere from a designated
refuse-derived fuel) for the production (iii) The emission limit for opacity
facility at least as protective as the
of electric energy is not subject to this exhibited by the gases discharged to the
emission limit for dioxin/furan
subpart if the owner or operator of the atmosphere from a designated facility is
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
facility notifies EPA of this exemption 10 percent (6-minute average).
(2) For approval, a State plan shall (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as
and provides data documenting that the
include emission limits for cadmium at applicable.
facility qualifies for this exemption.
least as protective as the emission limits (i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission
(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility,
for cadmium specified in paragraphs limit for designated facilities that
as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section. employ an electrostatic precipitator-
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission based emission control system is 60
796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous
limit for cadmium contained in the nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
waste (such as automotive tires or used
gases discharged to the atmosphere from (total mass), corrected to 7 percent
oil, but not including refuse-derived
a designated facility is 40 micrograms oxygen.
fuel) for the production of electric
per dry standard cubic meter, corrected (ii) On and after April 28, 2009, the
energy and steam or forms of useful
to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April emission limit for designated facilities
energy (such as heat) that are used for
28, 2009, the emission limit for that employ an electrostatic
industrial, commercial, heating, or
cadmium contained in the gases precipitator-based emission control
cooling purposes, is not subject to this
discharged to the atmosphere from a system is 35 nanograms per dry
subpart if the owner or operator of the
designated facility is 35 micrograms per standard cubic meter (total mass),
facility notifies EPA of this exemption
dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
and provides data documenting that the
percent oxygen. (iii) The emission limit for designated
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(ii) [Reserved]. facilities that do not employ an
(f) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption (3) For approval, a State plan shall electrostatic precipitator-based emission
claim, and include emission limits for mercury at control system is 30 nanograms per dry
least as protective as the emission limits standard cubic meter (total mass),
* * * * * corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(i) * * * specified in this paragraph. Before April
28, 2009, the emission limit for mercury (d) * * *
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption (2) A State plan may establish a
claim, contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is program to allow owners or operators of
* * * * * municipal waste combustor plants to
(n) Any affected facility meeting the 80 micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter or 15 percent of the potential engage in trading of nitrogen oxides
applicability requirements under this emission credits. A trading program
section is not subject to subpart E of this mercury emission concentration (85-
percent reduction by weight), corrected must be approved by EPA before
part. implementation.
to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
■ 5. Amend § 60.33b by: (3) For approval, a State plan shall
stringent. On and after April 28, 2009,
■ a. Revising paragraph (a); include emission limits for nitrogen
the emission limit for mercury
■ b. Revising paragraph (c); oxides from fluidized bed combustors at
■ c. Removing table 1 from paragraph
contained in the gases discharged to the
atmosphere from a designated facility is least as protective as the emission limits
(d) introductory text and table 2 from listed in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and
paragraph (d)(1)(iii); and 50 micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter or 15 percent of the potential (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3)
mercury emission concentration (85- * * * * *
introductory text to read as follows:
percent reduction by weight), corrected § 60.34b [Amended]
§ 60.33b Emission guidelines for to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
municipal waste combustor metals, acid stringent. ■ 6. Amend § 60.34b by removing table
gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides. (4) For approval, a State plan shall 3 from paragraph (a) introductory text.
(a) The emission limits for municipal include an emission limit for lead at ■ 7. Amend § 60.39b by:
waste combustor metals are specified in least as protective as the emission limit ■ a. Revising paragraph (b);
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this for lead specified in this paragraph. ■ b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
section. Before April 28, 2009, the emission text;
■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B); specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c), and (d) and the revised testing
■ d. Revising paragraph (e); and (c)(5) of this section. provisions in § 60.38b(b).
* * * * * (1) Compliance with the revised April
■ e. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to
(4) * * * 28, 2009 emission limits is required as
read as follows: (iii) * * * expeditiously as practicable, but no later
§ 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping (B) The owner or operator of a than April 28, 2009, except as provided
guidelines and compliance schedules. designated facility may request that the in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
Administrator waive the requirement (2) The owner or operator of an
* * * * *
specified in § 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of affected facility who is planning an
(b) Except as provided in paragraph this part for chief facility operators, shift extensive emission control system
(e) of this section, not later than supervisors, and control room operators upgrade may petition the Administrator
December 19, 1996, each State in which who have obtained provisional for a longer compliance schedule and
a designated facility is located shall certification from the American Society must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
submit to EPA a plan to implement and of Mechanical Engineers on or before the Administrator the need for the
enforce all provisions of this subpart the initial date of State plan approval. additional time. If approved, the
except the revised April 28, 2009 * * * * * schedule may exceed the schedule in
emission limits in § 60.33b(a), (c), and (e) Not later than August 25, 1998, paragraph (g)(1) of this section, but
(d). Not later than April 28, 2007, each each State in which a designated facility cannot exceed May 10, 2011.
State in which a designated facility is is operating shall submit to EPA a plan (h) In the event no plan for
located shall submit to EPA a plan to to implement and enforce all provisions implementing the emission guidelines is
implement and enforce all provisions of of this subpart specified in approved by EPA, all designated
this subpart, as amended on May 10, § 60.33b(b)(3) and (d)(3) and the facilities meeting the applicability
2006. The submittal schedule specified emission limit in paragraph (a)(4) that requirements under § 60.32b shall be in
in this paragraph is in accordance with applies before April 28, 2009. compliance with all of the guidelines,
section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act * * * * * including the revised April 28, 2009
and applies instead of the schedule (g) For approval, a revised State plan emission limits in § 60.33b(a), (b), (c),
provided in § 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of submitted not later than April 28, 2007 (d), and § 60.34b(a), and the revised
this part. in accordance with paragraph (b) of this testing provisions in § 60.38b(b), no
(c) For approval, a State plan that is section, shall include compliance later than May 10, 2011.
submitted prior to May 10, 2006 shall schedules for meeting the revised April ■ 8. Add tables 1, 2, and 3 to the end
include the compliance schedules 28, 2009 emission limits in § 60.33b(a), of subpart Cb to read as follows:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART Cb OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES

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

Mass burn rotary waterwall ..................................................................... 250 ................................................ 210.
Refuse-derived fuel combustor ................................................................ 250 ................................................ 250.
Fluidized bed combustor ......................................................................... 180 ................................................ 180.
Mass burn refractory combustors ............................................................ No limit .......................................... No limit.
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART Cb OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES LIMITS FOR EXISTING DESIGNATED FACILITIES INCLUDED IN AN
EMISSIONS AVERAGING PLAN AT A MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANT b
Before April 28, On and after April
2009, nitrogen 28, 2009, nitrogen
oxides emission oxides emission
Municipal waste combustor technology limit (parts per limit (parts per
million by million by
volume) b volume) a
Mass burn waterwall .................................................................................................................................... 185 185

Mass burn rotary waterwall ......................................................................................................................... 220 190
Refuse-derived fuel combustor .................................................................................................................... 230 230
Fluidized bed combustor ............................................................................................................................. 165 165
a Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors and other MWC technologies not listed above may not be included in an emissions aver-
aging plan.
b Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART Cb OF PART 60.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES

Carbon monoxide
emissions levels Averaging time
Municipal waste combustor technology (parts per million (hrs) b
by volume) a
Mass burn waterwall .................................................................................................................................... 100 4
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART Cb OF PART 60.—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR OPERATING GUIDELINES—Continued

Carbon monoxide
emissions levels Averaging time
Municipal waste combustor technology (parts per million (hrs) b
by volume) a
Mass burn refractory .................................................................................................................................... 100 4

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

Circulating fluidized bed combustor ............................................................................................................ 100 4
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ................................................................. 150 4
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ........................................................ 200 24
Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel process conversion .......... 250 c 24
Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/100 percent coal capable ....................... 250 c 24
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. Cal-
culated as an arithmetic average.
b Averaging times are 4-hour or 24-hour block averages.
c 24-hour block average, geometric mean.
Subpart E—[Amended] (e) A qualifying small power (3) Determination of compliance with
production facility, as defined in section the siting requirements as specified in
■ 9. Amend § 60.50 by adding 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 § 60.57b(a);
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns (4) Acceptance of relationship
follows: homogeneous waste (such as automotive between carbon monoxide and oxygen
§ 60.50 Applicability and designation of
tires or used oil, but not including as part of initial and annual
affected facility. refuse-derived fuel) for the production performance tests as specified in
of electric energy is not subject to this § 60.58b(b)(7);
* * * * *
(c) Any facility covered by subpart Cb, subpart if the owner or operator of the (5) Approval of other monitoring
Eb, AAAA, or BBBB of this part is not facility notifies EPA of this exemption systems used to obtain emissions data
covered by this subpart. and provides data documenting that the when data is not obtained by CEMS as
(d) Any facility covered by an EPA facility qualifies for this exemption. specified in § 60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12),
approved State section 111(d)/129 plan (f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, (i)(11), and (n)(14), and (p)(11);
implementing subpart Cb or BBBB of as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the (6) Approval of a site-specific
this part is not covered by this subpart. Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. monitoring plan for the continuous
(e) Any facility covered by subpart 796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous emission monitoring system specified in
FFF or JJJ of part 62 of this title (Federal waste (such as automotive tires or used ‘‘60.58b(n)(13) and (o) of this section or
section 111(d)/129 plan implementing oil, but not including refuse-derived the continuous automated sampling
subpart Cb or BBBB of this part) is not fuel) for the production of electric system specified in § 60.58b(p)(10) and
covered by this subpart. energy and steam or forms of useful (q) of this section;
energy (such as heat) that are used for (7) Approval of major alternatives to
Subpart Eb—[Amended] industrial, commercial, heating, or test methods;
cooling purposes, is not subject to this (8) Approval of major alternatives to
■ 10. Amend § 60.50b by: subpart if the owner or operator of the
■ a. Revising paragraph (a); monitoring;
facility notifies EPA of this exemption (9) Waiver of recordkeeping; and
■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and provides data documenting that the
■ c. Revising paragraph (e); (10) Performance test and data
■ d. Revising paragraph (f); facility qualifies for this exemption.
(g) * * * reduction waivers under ‘‘608(b).
■ e. Revising paragraph (g)(1); * * * * *
■ f. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption
■ g. Revising paragraph (n). claim; and ■ 11. Amend § 60.51b by revising the
* * * * * definition of ‘‘Federally enforceable’’
§ 60.50b Applicability and delegation of (j) * * * and adding the definitions for
authority. (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption ‘‘Administrator,’’ ‘‘Continuous
(a) The affected facility to which this claim; automated sampling system,’’ and
subpart applies is each municipal waste * * * * * ‘‘EPA,’’ in alphabetical order to read as
combustor unit with a combustion (n) The following authorities are follows:
capacity greater than 250 tons per day retained by the Administrator of the
of municipal solid waste for which § 60.51b Definitions.
U.S. EPA and are not transferred to a
construction, modification, or State: Administrator means:
reconstruction is commenced after (1) Approval of exemption claims in (1) For approved and effective State
September 20, 1994. paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g) and (j) of this Section 111(d)/129 plans, the Director of
(b) * * * section; the State air pollution control agency, or
(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption (2) Enforceability under Federal law employee of the State air pollution
claim; of all Federally enforceable, as defined control agency that is delegated the
* * * * * in § 60.51b, limitations and conditions; authority to perform the specified task;
(2) For Federal Section 111(d)/129 atmosphere from that affected facility is required to be completed under § 60.8
plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an any gases that contain particulate matter of subpart A of this part, no owner or
employee of the EPA, the Director of the in excess of the limits specified in operator of an affected facility shall
State air pollution control agency, or paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this cause to be discharged into the
employee of the State air pollution section. atmosphere from the affected facility
control agency to whom the authority (i) For affected facilities that any gases that contain mercury in excess
has been delegated by the Administrator commenced construction, modification, of the limits specified in paragraph
of the EPA to perform the specified task; or reconstruction after September 20, (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
and 1994, and on or before December 19, (i) For affected facilities that
(3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the 2005, the emission limit is 24 commenced construction, modification,
EPA, an employee of the EPA, the milligrams per dry standard cubic or reconstruction after September 20,
Director of the State air pollution meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 1994 and on or before December 19,
control agency, or employee of the State (ii) For affected facilities that 2005, the emission limit is 80
air pollution control agency to whom commenced construction, modification, micrograms per dry standard cubic
the authority has been delegated by the or reconstruction after December 19, meter or 15 percent of the potential
Administrator of the EPA to perform the 2005, the emission limit is 20 mercury emission concentration (85-
specified task. milligrams per dry standard cubic percent reduction by weight), corrected
* * * * * meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
Continuous automated sampling * * * * * stringent.
system means the total equipment and (3) On and after the date on which the (ii) For affected facilities that
procedures for automated sample initial performance test is completed or commenced construction, modification,
collection and sample recovery/analysis is required to be completed under § 60.8 or reconstruction after December 19,
to determine a pollutant concentration of subpart A of this part, no owner or 2005, the emission limit is 50
or emission rate by collecting a single or operator of an affected facility shall micrograms per dry standard cubic
multiple integrated sample(s) of the cause to be discharged into the meter, or 15 percent of the potential
pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent atmosphere from that affected facility mercury emission concentration (85-
on-or off-site analysis; integrated any gases that contain cadmium in percent reduction by weight), corrected
sample(s) collected are representative of excess of the limits specified in to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less
the emissions for the sample time as paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this stringent.
specified by the applicable requirement. section. * * * * *
* * * * * (i) For affected facilities that ■ 13. Amend § 60.53b by:
EPA means the Administrator of the commenced construction, modification, ■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
U.S. EPA or employee of the U.S. EPA or reconstruction after September 20, ■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
1994, and on or before December 19, ■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
who is delegated to perform the
2005, the emission limit is 20 ■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
specified task.
■ e. Adding paragraph (d) to read as
Federally enforceable means all micrograms per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. follows:
limitations and conditions that are
enforceable by EPA including the (ii) For affected facilities that § 60.53b Standards for municipal waste
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR commenced construction, modification, combustor operating practices.
part 61, and 40 CFR part 63, or reconstruction after December 19, * * * * *
requirements within any applicable 2005, the emission limit is 10 (b) * * *
State implementation plan, and any micrograms per dry standard cubic (1) During the annual dioxin/furan or
permit requirements established under meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. mercury performance test and the 2
40 CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 (4) On and after the date on which the weeks preceding the annual dioxin/
and 40 CFR 51.24. initial performance test is completed or furan or mercury performance test, no
* * * * * is required to be completed under § 60.8 municipal waste combustor unit load
of subpart A of this part, no owner or limit is applicable if the provisions of
■ 12. Amend § 60.52b by:
operator of an affected facility shall paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
cause to be discharged into the (2) The municipal waste combustor
text;
atmosphere from the affected facility unit load limit may be waived in writing
■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
any gases that contain lead in excess of by the Administrator for the purpose of
■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(4); and
the limits specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) evaluating system performance, testing
■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as
or (a)(4)(ii) of this section. new technology or control technologies,
follows: (i) For affected facilities that diagnostic testing, or related activities
commenced construction, modification, for the purpose of improving facility
§ 60.52b Standards for municipal waste or reconstruction after September 20, performance or advancing the state-of-
combustor metals, acid gases, organics, 1994, and on or before December 19, the-art for controlling facility emissions.
and nitrogen oxides. 2005, the emission limit is 200 The municipal waste combustor unit
(a) The limits for municipal waste micrograms per dry standard cubic load limit continues to apply, and
combustor metals are specified in meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. remains enforceable, until and unless
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this (ii) For affected facilities that the Administrator grants the waiver.
section. commenced construction, modification, (c) * * *
(1) On and after the date on which the or reconstruction after December 19, (1) During the annual dioxin/furan or
initial performance test is completed or 2005, the emission limit is 140 mercury performance test and the 2
is required to be completed under § 60.8 micrograms per dry standard cubic weeks preceding the annual dioxin/
of subpart A of this part, no owner or meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. furan or mercury performance test, no
operator of an affected facility shall (5) On and after the date on which the particulate matter control device
cause to be discharged into the initial performance test is completed or temperature limitations are applicable if
the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this no other certified operator is on site, the for a construction permit is submitted
section are met. provisionally certified control room under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part
(2) The particulate matter control operator may perform the duties of the 52, as applicable.
device temperature limits may be certified chief facility operator or * * * * *
waived in writing by the Administrator certified shift supervisor without ■ 16. Amend § 60.58b by:
for the purpose of evaluating system approval by the Administrator. ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)
performance, testing new technology or However, the owner or operator of the introductory text;
control technologies, diagnostic testing, affected facility must take two actions: ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
or related activities for the purpose of (A) Notify the Administrator in ■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
improving facility performance or writing. In the notice, state what caused text;
advancing the state-of-the-art for the absence and what actions are being ■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(6)(i);
controlling facility emissions. The taken by the owner or operator of the ■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(7);
temperature limits continue to apply, facility to ensure that a certified chief ■ f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
and remain enforceable, until and facility operator or certified shift text;
unless the Administrator grants the supervisor is on site as expeditiously as ■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
waiver. practicable. ■ h. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
(d) Paragraph (m)(2) of § 60.58b (B) Submit a status report and ■ i. Revising paragraph (c)(9);
addresses treatment of activated carbon corrective action summary to the ■ j. Adding paragraph (c)(10);
injection rate during dioxin/furan or Administrator every four weeks ■ k. Revising paragraph (c)(11);
mercury testing. following the initial notification. If the ■ l. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);
■ 14. Amend § 60.54b by revising Administrator provides notice that the ■ m. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(vii);
paragraph (c)(2) and adding paragraph status report or corrective action ■ n. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii);
(c)(3) to read as follows: summary is disapproved, the municipal ■ o. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
waste combustion unit may continue ■ p. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iv);
§ 60.54b Standards for municipal waste operation for 90 days, but then must ■ q. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ix);
combustor operator training and ■ r. Revising paragraph (e)(7)
certification.
cease operation. If corrective actions are
taken in the 90-day period such that the introductory text;
* * * * * Administrator withdraws the ■ s. Revising paragraph (e)(12)
(c) * * * disapproval, municipal waste introductory text;
(2) If both the certified chief facility ■ t. Revising paragraph (e)(12)(i)(A);
combustion unit operation may
operator and certified shift supervisor ■ u. Revising paragraph (e)(12)(i)(B);
continue.
are unavailable, a provisionally certified ■ v. Revising paragraph (e)(14);
(3) A provisionally certified operator
control room operator on site at the ■ w. Adding paragraph (f)(8);
who is newly promoted or recently
municipal waste combustion unit may ■ x. Revising paragraph (g)(2);
transferred to a shift supervisor position
fulfill the certified operator ■ y. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(i);
or a chief facility operator position at ■ z. Adding paragraph (g)(5)(ii);
requirement. Depending on the length of
the municipal waste combustion unit ■ aa. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(iii);
time that a certified chief facility
may perform the duties of the certified ■ bb. Revising paragraph (g)(7);
operator and certified shift supervisor
chief facility operator or certified shift ■ cc. Revising paragraph (h)(6)
are away, the owner or operator of the
supervisor without notice to, or introductory text;
affected facility must meet one of three
approval by, the Administrator for up to ■ dd. Revising paragraph (h)(10)(i)(B);
criteria:
six months before taking the ASME ■ ee. Revising paragraph (h)(12);
(i) When the certified chief facility
QRO certification exam. ■ ff. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)
are both off site for 12 hours or less, and * * * * * introductory text;
no other certified operator is on site, the ■ 15. Amend § 60.57b by revising ■ gg. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B);
provisionally certified control room paragraphs (a) introductory text and ■ hh. Revising paragraph (i)(8);
(a)(6) to read as follows: ■ ii. Revising paragraph (i)(9);
operator may perform the duties of the
■ jj. Revising paragraph (i)(10)
certified chief facility operator or
certified shift supervisor.
§ 60.57b Siting requirements. introductory text;
(ii) When the certified chief facility (a) The owner or operator of an ■ kk. Revising paragraph (i)(11);
affected facility shall prepare a materials ■ ll. Revising paragraph (m)
are off site for more than 12 hours, but separation plan, as defined in § 60.51b, introductory text;
for the affected facility and its service ■ mm. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(ii);
for two weeks or less, and no other
area, and shall comply with the ■ nn. Revising paragraph (m)(2);
certified operator is on site, the
requirements specified in paragraphs ■ oo. Adding paragraph (b)(8);
provisionally certified control room
(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section. The ■ pp. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
operator may perform the duties of the
initial application is defined as ■ qq. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
certified chief facility operator or ■ rr. Adding paragraph (g)(10);
certified shift supervisor without notice representing a good faith submittal as
determined by EPA. ■ ss. Adding paragraph (m)(4);
to, or approval by, the Administrator. ■ tt. Adding paragraph (n);
However, the owner or operator of the * * * * * ■ uu. Adding paragraph (o);
affected facility must record the period (6) As required under § 60.59b(a), the ■ vv. Adding paragraph (p); and
when the certified chief facility operator owner or operator shall submit to EPA ■ ww. Adding paragraph (q) to read as
and certified shift supervisor are off site a copy of the notification of the public follows:
and include that information in the meeting, a transcript of the public
annual report as specified under meeting, the document summarizing § 60.58b Compliance and performance
§ 60.59b(g)(5). responses to public comments, and testing.
(iii) When the certified chief facility copies of both the preliminary and final (a) * * *
operator and certified shift supervisor draft materials separation plans on or (1) Except as provided by § 60.56b,
are off site for more than two weeks, and before the time the facility’s application the standards under this subpart apply
at all times except during periods of report if the relationship is reestablished instead of conducting performance
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. during the annual performance test. testing using EPA Method 5 is not
Duration of startup, shutdown, or (8) During a loss of boiler water level required to complete performance
malfunction periods are limited to 3 control or loss of combustion air control testing for particulate matter as
hours per occurrence, except as malfunction period as specified in specified in paragraph (c)(9) of this
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, a section and is not required to
section. During periods of startup, diluent cap of 14 percent for oxygen or continuously monitor opacity as
shutdown, or malfunction, monitoring 5 percent for carbon dioxide may be specified in paragraph (c)(8) of this
data shall be dismissed or excluded used in the emissions calculations for section.
from compliance calculations, but shall sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. (i) Notify the Administrator one
be recorded and reported in accordance (c) Except as provided in paragraph month before starting use of the system.
with the provisions of 40 CFR (c)(10) of this section, the procedures (ii) Notify the Administrator one
60.59b(d)(7). and test methods specified in month before stopping use of the
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(11) of this system.
* * * * * (iii) The monitor shall be installed,
(iii) For the purpose of compliance section shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limits for evaluated, and operated in accordance
with the carbon monoxide emission with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
limits in § 60.53b(a), if a loss of boiler particulate matter and opacity under
§ 60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2). (iv) The initial performance
water level control (e.g., boiler evaluation shall be completed no later
waterwall tube failure) or a loss of * * * * * than 180 days after the date of initial
combustion air control (e.g., loss of (2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A startup of the affected facility, as
combustion air fan, induced draft fan, or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC– specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of
combustion grate bar failure) is 19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, this part or within 180 days of
determined to be a malfunction, the shall be used for gas analysis. notification to the Administrator of use
duration of the malfunction period is (3) EPA Reference Method 5 shall be
of the continuous monitoring system if
limited to 15 hours per occurrence. used for determining compliance with
the owner or operator was previously
During such periods of malfunction, the particulate matter emission limit.
determining compliance by Method 5
monitoring data shall be dismissed or The minimum sample volume shall be
performance tests, whichever is later.
excluded from compliance calculations, 1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter (v) The owner or operator of an
but shall be recorded and reported in holder heating systems in the sample affected facility may request that
accordance with the provisions of train shall be set to provide a gas compliance with the particulate matter
§ 60.59b(d)(7). temperature no greater than 160 °C. An emission limit be determined using
* * * * * oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement carbon dioxide measurements corrected
shall be obtained simultaneously with to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.
(b) The owner or operator of an
each Method 5 run. The relationship between oxygen and
affected facility shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a continuous * * * * * carbon dioxide levels for the affected
emission monitoring system for (9) Following the date that the initial facility shall be established as specified
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide performance test for particulate matter in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
content of the flue gas at each location is completed or is required to be (vi) The owner or operator of an
where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of affected facility shall conduct an initial
nitrogen oxides emissions, or particulate this part for an affected facility, the performance test for particulate matter
matter (if the owner or operator elects to owner or operator shall conduct a emissions as required under § 60.8 of
continuously monitor emissions under performance test for particulate matter subpart A of this part. Compliance with
paragraph (n) of this section) are on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 the particulate matter emission limit
monitored and record the output of the calendar months and no more than 15 shall be determined by using the
system and shall comply with the test calendar months following the previous continuous emission monitoring system
procedures and test methods specified performance test; and must complete specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8) of five performance tests in each 5-year section to measure particulate matter
this section. calendar period). and calculating a 24-hour block
(10) In place of particulate matter arithmetic average emission
* * * * * testing with EPA Reference Method 5, concentration using EPA Reference
(6) * * * an owner or operator may elect to Method 19, section 12.4.1.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method install, calibrate, maintain, and operate (vii) Compliance with the particulate
3B shall be used to determine the a continuous emission monitoring matter emission limit shall be
relationship between oxygen and carbon system for monitoring particulate matter determined based on the 24-hour daily
dioxide at a sampling location. Method emissions discharged to the atmosphere (block) average of the hourly arithmetic
3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ASME and record the output of the system. The average emission concentrations using
PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10, as owner or operator of an affected facility continuous emission monitoring system
applicable, shall be used to determine who elects to continuously monitor outlet data.
the oxygen concentration at the same particulate matter emissions instead of (viii) After April 28, 2008, at a
location as the carbon dioxide monitor. conducting performance testing using minimum, valid continuous monitoring
* * * * * EPA Method 5 shall install, calibrate, system hourly averages shall be
(7) The relationship between carbon maintain, and operate a continuous obtained as specified in paragraphs
dioxide and oxygen concentrations that emission monitoring system and shall (c)(10)(viii)(A) and (c)(10)(viii)(B) for at
is established in accordance with comply with the requirements specified least 90 percent of the operating hours
paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall be in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through per calendar quarter and 95 percent of
submitted to EPA as part of the initial (c)(10)(xiv) of this section. The owner or the operating hours per calendar year
performance test report and, if operator who elects to continuously that the affected facility is combusting
applicable, as part of the annual test monitor particulate matter emissions municipal solid waste.
(A) At least two data points per hour (11) Following the date that the initial five performance tests in each 5-year
shall be used to calculate each 1-hour performance test for opacity is calendar period).
arithmetic average. completed or is required to be * * * * *
(B) Each particulate matter 1-hour completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of (3) In place of cadmium and lead
arithmetic average shall be corrected to this part for an affected facility, the testing with EPA Reference Method 29
7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis owner or operator shall conduct a as an alternative ASTM D6784–02, an
using the 1-hour arithmetic average of performance test for opacity on an owner or operator may elect to install,
the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) annual basis (no less than 9 calendar calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system months and no more than 15 calendar continuous emission monitoring system
data. months following the previous for monitoring cadmium and lead
(ix) The 1-hour arithmetic averages performance test; and must complete emissions discharged to the atmosphere
required under paragraph (c)(10)(vii) of five performance tests in each 5-year and record the output of the system
this section shall be expressed in calendar period) using the test method according to the provisions of
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) section. (4) In place of mercury testing with
and shall be used to calculate the 24- (d) * * * EPA Reference Method 29 or as an
hour daily arithmetic average emission (1) * * * alternative ASTM D6784–02, an owner
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic (ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or operator may elect to install,
averages shall be calculated using the or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC– calibrate, maintain, and operate a
data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) 19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, continuous emission monitoring system
of subpart A of this part. shall be used for flue gas analysis. or a continuous automated sampling
(x) All valid continuous emission system for monitoring mercury
monitoring system data shall be used in * * * * * emissions discharged to the atmosphere
calculating average emission (vii) Following the date of the initial and record the output of the system
concentrations even if the minimum performance test or the date on which according to the provisions of
continuous emission monitoring system the initial performance test is required paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section, or
data requirements of paragraph to be completed under § 60.8 of subpart paragraphs (p) and (q) of this section, as
(c)(10)(viii) of this section are not met. A of this part, the owner or operator of appropriate. The owner or operator who
(xi) The continuous emission an affected facility shall conduct a elects to continuously monitor mercury
monitoring system shall be operated performance test for compliance with in place of mercury testing with EPA
according to Performance Specification the emission limits for cadmium and Reference Method 29 or as an
11 in appendix B of this part. lead on a calendar year basis (no less alternative ASTM D6784–02 is not
(xii) During each relative accuracy test than 9 calendar months and no more required to complete performance
run of the continuous emission than 15 calendar months following the testing for mercury as specified in
monitoring system required by previous performance test; and must paragraph (d)(2)(ix) of this section.
Performance Specification 11 in complete five performance tests in each (e) * * *
appendix B of this part, particulate 5-year calendar period). (7) At a minimum, valid continuous
matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) * * * * * monitoring system hourly averages shall
data shall be collected concurrently (or (2) * * * be obtained as specified in paragraphs
within a 30- to 60-minute period) by (ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, (e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) for 90 percent of
both the continuous emission monitors or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC– the operating hours per calendar quarter
and the test methods specified in 19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, and 95 percent of the operating days per
paragraphs (c)(10)(xii)(A) and shall be used for flue gas analysis. calendar year that the affected facility is
(c)(10)(xii)(B) of this section. (iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 or combusting municipal solid waste.
(A) For particulate matter, EPA as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 shall * * * * *
Reference Method 5 shall be used. be used to determine the mercury (12) The continuous emission
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), monitoring system shall be operated
emission concentration. The minimum
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as according to Performance Specification
sample volume when using Method 29
applicable shall be used. 2 in appendix B of this part. For sources
(xiii) Quarterly accuracy as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 for
mercury shall be 1.7 cubic meters. that have actual inlet emissions less
determinations and daily calibration than 100 parts per million dry volume,
drift tests shall be performed in (iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
measurement shall be obtained the relative accuracy criterion for inlet
accordance with procedure 2 in sulfur dioxide continuous emission
appendix F of this part. simultaneously with each Method 29 or
as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 test monitoring systems should be no greater
(xiv) When particulate matter than 20 percent of the mean value of the
emissions data are not obtained because run for mercury required under
reference method test data in terms of
of continuous emission monitoring paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section.
the units of the emission standard, or 5
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration * * * * * parts per million dry volume absolute
checks, and zero and span adjustments, (ix) Following the date that the initial value of the mean difference between
emissions data shall be obtained by performance test for mercury is the reference method and the
using other monitoring systems as completed or is required to be continuous emission monitoring
approved by the Administrator or EPA completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of systems, whichever is greater.
Reference Method 19 to provide, as this part, the owner or operator of an (i) * * *
necessary, valid emissions data for a affected facility shall conduct a (A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference
minimum of 90 percent of the hours per performance test for mercury emissions Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an alternative
calendar quarter and 95 percent of the on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10, shall
hours per calendar year that the affected calendar months and no more than 15 be used.
facility is operated and combusting calendar months from the previous (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
municipal solid waste. performance test; and must complete EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
as an alternative ASME PTC–19–10– different affected facility at the dioxin/furan emission level greater than
1981—Part 10, as applicable, shall be municipal waste combustor plant shall 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic
used. be tested, and the affected facilities at meter (total mass), performance tests
* * * * * the plant shall be tested in sequence shall thereafter be conducted annually
(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as on all affected facilities at the plant
data are not obtained because of applicable). until and unless all annual performance
continuous emission monitoring system (B) Upon meeting the requirements in tests for all affected facilities at the plant
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section for over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/
and/or zero and span adjustments, one affected facility, the owner or furan emission level less than or equal
emissions data shall be obtained by operator may elect to apply the average to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic
using other monitoring systems as carbon mass feed rate and associated meter (total mass).
approved by EPA or EPA Reference carbon injection system operating * * * * *
Method 19 to provide, as necessary, parameter levels for dioxin/furan as (7) The owner or operator of an
valid emissions data for a minimum of established in paragraph (m) of this affected facility where activated carbon
90 percent of the hours per calendar section to similarly designed and is used shall follow the procedures
quarter and 95 percent of the hours per equipped units on site. specified in paragraph (m) of this
(C) Upon testing each subsequent unit section for measuring and calculating
calendar year that the affected facility is
in accordance with the testing schedule the carbon usage rate.
operated and combusting municipal
established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of
solid waste. * * * * *
this section, the dioxin/furan and
(f) * * * (10) In place of dioxin/furan sampling
mercury emissions of the subsequent
(8) In place of hydrogen chloride and testing with EPA Reference Method
unit shall not exceed the dioxin/furan
testing with EPA Reference Method 26 23, an owner or operator may elect to
and mercury emissions measured in the
or 26A, an owner or operator may elect sample dioxin/furan by installing,
most recent test of that unit prior to the
to install, calibrate, maintain, and calibrating, maintaining, and operating a
revised operating parameter levels.
operate a continuous emission (D) The owner or operator of an continuous automated sampling system
monitoring system for monitoring affected facility that selects to follow the for monitoring dioxin/furan emissions
hydrogen chloride emissions discharged performance testing schedule specified discharged to the atmosphere, recording
to the atmosphere and record the output in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section the output of the system, and analyzing
of the system according to the and apply the carbon injection system the sample using EPA Method 23. This
provisions of paragraphs (n) and (o) of operating parameters to similarly option to use a continuous automated
this section. designed and equipped units on site sampling system takes effect on the date
(g) * * * shall follow the procedures specified in a final performance specification
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, § 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting. applicable to dioxin/furan from
or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC– (iii) Where all performance tests over monitors is published in the Federal
19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, a 2-year period indicate that dioxin/ Register or the date of approval of a site-
shall be used for flue gas analysis. furan emissions are less than or equal to specific monitoring plan. The owner or
* * * * * 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic operator of an affected facility who
(5) * * * meter (total mass) for all affected elects to continuously sample dioxin/
(i) For affected facilities, performance facilities located within a municipal furan emissions instead of sampling and
tests shall be conducted on a calendar waste combustor plant, the owner or testing using EPA Method 23 shall
year basis (no less than 9 calendar operator of the municipal waste install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
months and no more than 15 calendar combustor plant may elect to conduct a continuous automated sampling
months following the previous annual performance tests for one system and shall comply with the
performance test; and must complete affected facility (i.e., unit) per year at requirements specified in paragraphs (p)
five performance tests in each 5-year the municipal waste combustor plant. and (q) of this section.
calendar period). At a minimum, a performance test for (h) * * *
(ii) For the purpose of evaluating dioxin/furan emissions shall be (6) At a minimum, valid continuous
system performance to establish new conducted on a calendar year basis (no emission monitoring system hourly
operating parameter levels, testing new less than 9 calendar months and no averages shall be obtained as specified
technology or control technologies, more than 15 months following the in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of
diagnostic testing, or related activities previous performance test; and must this section for 90 percent of the
for the purpose of improving facility complete five performance tests in each operating hours per calendar quarter
performance or advancing the state-of- 5-year calendar period) for one affected and for 95 percent of the operating
the-art for controlling facility emissions, facility at the municipal waste hours per calendar year that the affected
the owner or operator of an affected combustor plant. Each year a different facility is combusting municipal solid
facility that qualifies for the affected facility at the municipal waste waste.
performance testing schedule specified combustor plant shall be tested, and the * * * * *
in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, affected facilities at the plant shall be (10) * * *
may test one unit for dioxin/furan and tested in sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, (i) * * *
apply the dioxin/furan operating unit 3, as applicable). If each annual (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
parameters to similarly designed and performance test continues to indicate a EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or
equipped units on site by meeting the dioxin/furan emission level less than or as an alternative ASME PTC–19–10–
requirements specified in paragraphs equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard 1981—Part 10, as applicable, shall be
(g)(5)(ii)(A) through (g)(5)(ii)(D) of this cubic meter (total mass), the owner or used.
section. operator may continue conducting a * * * * *
(A) Follow the testing schedule performance test on only one affected (12) When nitrogen oxides continuous
established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of facility per calendar year. If any annual emission data are not obtained because
this section. For example, each year a performance test indicates either a of continuous emission monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration the maximum demonstrated particulate (ii) An average carbon mass feed rate
checks, and zero and span adjustments, matter control device temperature shall in kilograms per hour or pounds per
emissions data shall be obtained using be determined during the initial hour shall be estimated during the
other monitoring systems as approved performance test for dioxins/furans and initial performance test for dioxin/furan
by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to each subsequent performance test emissions and each subsequent
provide, as necessary, valid emissions during which compliance with the performance test for dioxin/furan
data for a minimum of 90 percent of the dioxin/furan emission limit specified in emissions. If a subsequent dioxin/furan
hours per calendar quarter and 95 § 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum performance test is being performed on
percent of the hours per calendar year demonstrated particulate matter control only one affected facility at the MWC
the unit is operated and combusting device temperature shall be the highest plant, as provided in paragraph
municipal solid waste. 4-hour arithmetic average temperature (g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or
(i) * * * achieved at the particulate matter operator may elect to apply the same
(3) * * * control device inlet during four estimated average carbon mass feed rate
(ii) During each relative accuracy test consecutive hours during the most from the tested facility for all the
run of the continuous emission recent test during which compliance similarly designed and operated affected
monitoring system required by with the dioxin/furan limit was facilities at the MWC plant.
Performance Specification 4A in achieved. If a subsequent dioxin/furan (2) During operation of the affected
appendix B of this part, carbon performance test is being performed on facility, the carbon injection system
monoxide and oxygen (or carbon only one affected facility at the MWC operating parameter(s) that are the
dioxide) data shall be collected plant, as provided in paragraph primary indicator(s) of the carbon mass
concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- (g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) shall
minute period) by both the continuous operator may elect to apply the same be averaged over a block 8-hour period,
emission monitors and the test methods maximum particulate matter control and the 8-hour block average must equal
specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) and device temperature from the tested or exceed the level(s) documented
(i)(3)(ii)(B) of this section. For affected facility for all the similarly designed during the performance tests specified
facilities subject to the 100 parts per and operated affected facilities at the under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii)
million dry volume carbon monoxide MWC plant. of this section, except as specified in
standard, the relative accuracy criterion (10) At a minimum, valid continuous paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this
of 5 parts per million dry volume is emission monitoring system hourly section.
calculated as the absolute value of the averages shall be obtained as specified (i) During the annual dioxin/furan or
mean difference between the reference in paragraphs (i)(10)(i) and (i)(10)(ii) of mercury performance test and the 2
method and continuous emission this section for at least 90 percent of the weeks preceding the annual dioxin/
monitoring systems. operating hours per calendar quarter furan or mercury performance test, no
* * * * * and 95 percent of the operating hours limit is applicable for average mass
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), per calendar year that the affected carbon feed rate if the provisions of
EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or facility is combusting municipal solid paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section are
ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10 waste. met.
(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17 * * * * * (ii) The limit for average mass carbon
of subpart A of this part), as applicable, (11) All valid continuous emission feed rate may be waived in accordance
shall be used. monitoring system data must be used in with permission granted by the
* * * * * calculating the parameters specified Administrator for the purpose of
(8) The maximum demonstrated under paragraph (i) of this section even evaluating system performance, testing
municipal waste combustor unit load if the minimum data requirements of new technology or control technologies,
shall be determined during the initial paragraph (i)(10) of this section are not diagnostic testing, or related activities
performance test for dioxins/furans and met. When carbon monoxide for the purpose of improving facility
each subsequent performance test continuous emission data are not performance or advancing the state-of-
during which compliance with the obtained because of continuous the-art for controlling facility emissions.
dioxin/furan emission limit specified in emission monitoring system * * * * *
§ 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, (4) Pneumatic injection pressure or
demonstrated municipal waste and zero and span adjustments, other carbon injection system
combustor unit load shall be the highest emissions data shall be obtained using operational indicator shall be used to
4-hour arithmetic average load achieved other monitoring systems as approved provide additional verification of proper
during four consecutive hours during by EPA or EPA Reference Method 10 to carbon injection system operation. The
the most recent test during which provide, as necessary, the minimum operational indicator shall provide an
compliance with the dioxin/furan valid emission data. instantaneous visual and/or audible
emission limit was achieved. If a * * * * * alarm to alert the operator of a potential
subsequent dioxin/furan performance (m) The owner or operator of an interruption in the carbon feed that
test is being performed on only one affected facility where activated carbon would not normally be indicated by
affected facility at the MWC plant, as injection is used to comply with the direct monitoring of carbon mass feed
provided in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this mercury emission limit under rate (e.g., continuous weight loss feeder)
section, the owner or operator may elect § 60.52b(a)(5), and/or the dioxin/furan or monitoring of the carbon system
to apply the same maximum municipal emission limits under § 60.52(b)(c), or operating parameter(s) that are the
waste combustor unit load from the the dioxin/furan emission level indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate
tested facility for all the similarly specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this (e.g., screw feeder speed). The carbon
designed and operated affected facilities section shall follow the procedures injection system operational indicator
at the MWC plant. specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through used to provide additional verification
(9) For each particulate matter control (m)(4) of this section. of carbon injection system operation,
device employed at the affected facility, (1) * * * including basis for selecting the
indicator and operator response to the shall be established as specified in specifications in paragraphs (n)(11)(i)
indicator alarm, shall be included in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. through (n)(11)(iii) of this section or the
section (e)(6) of the site-specific (6) The owner or operator shall approved site-specific monitoring plan.
operating manual required under conduct an initial performance test for (i) For mercury, Performance
§ 60.54b(e) of this subpart. emissions as required under § 60.8 of Specification 12A in appendix B of this
(n) In place of periodic manual testing subpart A of this part. Compliance with part.
of mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen the emission limits shall be determined (ii) [Reserved]
chloride with EPA Reference Method by using the continuous emission (iii) [Reserved]
26, 26A, 29, or as an alternative ASTM monitoring system specified in (12) During each relative accuracy test
D6784–02 (as applicable), the owner or paragraph (n) of this section to measure run of the continuous emission
operator of an affected facility may elect emissions and calculating a 24-hour monitoring system required by the
to install, calibrate, maintain, and block arithmetic average emission performance specifications in paragraph
operate a continuous emission concentration using EPA Reference (n)(11) of this section, mercury,
monitoring system for monitoring Method 19, section 12.4.1. cadmium, lead, hydrogen chloride, and
emissions discharged to the atmosphere (7) Compliance with the emission oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data shall be
and record the output of the system. The limits shall be determined based on the collected concurrently (or within a 30-
option to use a continuous emission 24-hour daily (block) average of the to 60-minute period) by both the
monitoring system for mercury takes hourly arithmetic average emission continuous emission monitors and the
effect on the date of approval of the site- concentrations using continuous test methods specified in paragraphs
specific monitoring plan required in emission monitoring system outlet data. (n)(12)(i) through (n)(12)(iii) of this
paragraph (n)(13) and (o) of this section. (8) Beginning on April 28, 2008 for section.
The option to use a continuous emission mercury and on the date two years after (i) For mercury, cadmium, and lead,
monitoring system for cadmium, lead, final performance specifications for EPA Reference Method 29 or as an
or hydrogen chloride takes effect on the cadmium, lead or hydrogen chloride alternative ASTM D6784–02 shall be
date a final performance specification monitors are published in the Federal used.
Register or the date two years after (ii) For hydrogen chloride, EPA
applicable to cadmium, lead, or
approval of a site-specific monitoring Reference Method 26 or 26A shall be
hydrogen chloride monitor is published
plan, valid continuous monitoring used.
in the Federal Register or the date of (iii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide),
approval of the site-specific monitoring system hourly averages shall be
obtained as specified in paragraphs EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as
plan required in paragraphs (n)(13) and applicable shall be used.
(o) of this section. The owner or (n)(8)(i) and (n)(8)(ii) of this section for
at least 90 percent of the operating (13) The owner or operator who elects
operator of an affected facility who to install, calibrate, maintain, and
elects to continuously monitor hours per calendar quarter and 95
percent of the operating hours per operate a continuous emission
emissions instead of conducting manual monitoring system for mercury,
performance testing shall install, calendar year that the affected facility is
combusting municipal solid waste. cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride
calibrate, maintain, and operate a must develop and implement a site-
(i) At least two data points per hour
continuous emission monitoring system specific monitoring plan as specified in
shall be used to calculate each 1-hour
and shall comply with the requirements paragraph (o) of this section. The owner
arithmetic average.
specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (ii) Each 1-hour arithmetic average or operator who relies on a performance
(n)(13) of this section. shall be corrected to 7 percent oxygen specification may refer to that document
(1) Notify the Administrator one on an hourly basis using the 1-hour in addressing applicable procedures and
month before starting use of the system. arithmetic average of the oxygen (or criteria.
(2) Notify the Administrator one carbon dioxide) continuous emission (14) When emissions data are not
month before stopping use of the monitoring system data. obtained because of continuous
system. (9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages emission monitoring system
(3) The monitor shall be installed, required under paragraph (n)(7) of this breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
evaluated, and operated in accordance section shall be expressed in and zero and span adjustments,
with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part. micrograms per dry standard cubic parametric monitoring data shall be
(4) The initial performance evaluation meter for mercury, cadmium, lead and obtained by using other monitoring
shall be completed no later than 180 parts per million dry volume for systems as approved by EPA.
days after the date of initial startup of hydrogen chloride corrected to 7 (o) The owner or operator who elects
the affected facility, as specified under percent oxygen (dry basis) and shall be to install, calibrate, maintain, and
§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part or within used to calculate the 24-hour daily operate a continuous emission
180 days of notification to the arithmetic (block) average emission monitoring system for mercury,
Administrator of use of the continuous concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride
monitoring system if the owner or averages shall be calculated using the must develop and submit for approval
operator was previously determining data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) by EPA, a site-specific mercury,
compliance by Method 26, 26A, 29, or of subpart A of this part. cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride
as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 (as (10) All valid continuous emission monitoring plan that addresses the
applicable) performance tests, monitoring system data shall be used in elements and requirements in
whichever is later. calculating average emission paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(7) of this
(5) The owner or operator may request concentrations even if the minimum section.
that compliance with the emission continuous emission monitoring system (1) Installation of the continuous
limits be determined using carbon data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of emission monitoring system sampling
dioxide measurements corrected to an this section are not met. probe or other interface at a
equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The (11) The continuous emission measurement location relative to each
relationship between oxygen and carbon monitoring system shall be operated affected process unit such that the
dioxide levels for the affected facility according to the performance measurement is representative of
control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., semiannual compliance reports required (6) Conduct a performance evaluation
on or downstream of the last control in § 60.59b(g) or (h). of each continuous emission monitoring
device). (5) Ongoing data quality assurance system in accordance with the site-
(2) Performance and equipment procedures for continuous emission specific monitoring plan.
specifications for the sample interface, monitoring systems as described in (7) Operate and maintain the
the pollutant concentration analyzer, paragraphs (o)(5)(i) and (o)(5)(ii) of this continuous emission monitoring system
and the data collection and reduction section. in continuous operation according to
system. (i) Develop and implement a the site-specific monitoring plan.
(3) Performance evaluation continuous emission monitoring system (p) In place of periodic manual testing
procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., quality control program. As part of the of dioxin/furan or mercury with EPA
calibrations). quality control program, the owner or Reference Method 23, 29, or as an
(4) Provisions for periods when the operator shall develop and submit to alternative ASTM D6784–02 (as
continuous emission monitoring system EPA for approval, upon request, a site- applicable), the owner or operator of an
is out of control as described in specific performance evaluation test affected facility may elect to install,
paragraphs (o)(4)(i) through (o)(4)(iii) of plan for the continuous emission calibrate, maintain, and operate a
this section. monitoring system performance continuous automated sampling system
(i) A continuous emission monitoring evaluation required in paragraph for determining emissions discharged to
system is out of control if either of the (o)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, the atmosphere. This option takes effect
conditions in paragraphs (o)(4)(i)(A) or each quality control program shall on the date a final performance
include, at a minimum, a written specification applicable to such
(o)(4)(ii)(B) of this section are met.
protocol that describes procedures for continuous automated sampling systems
(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if
each of the operations described in is published in the Federal Register or
applicable), or high-level calibration
paragraphs (o)(7)(i)(A) through the date of approval of a site-specific
drift exceeds two times the applicable
(o)(7)(i)(F) of this section. monitoring plan required in paragraphs
calibration drift specification in the
(p)(10) and (q) of this section. The
applicable performance specification or (A) Initial and any subsequent
owner or operator of an affected facility
in the relevant standard; or calibration of the continuous emission
who elects to use a continuous
(B) The continuous emission monitoring system;
automated sampling system to
monitoring system fails a performance (B) Determination and adjustment of
determine emissions instead of
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), the calibration drift of the continuous
conducting manual performance testing
relative accuracy audit, relative emission monitoring system;
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
accuracy test audit, or linearity test (C) Preventive maintenance of the
operate the sampling system and
audit. continuous emission monitoring system,
conduct analyses in compliance with
(ii) When the continuous emission including spare parts inventory;
the requirements specified in
monitoring system is out of control as (D) Data recording, calculations, and
paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(12) of this
defined in paragraph (o)(4)(i) of this reporting;
section.
section, the owner or operator of the (E) Accuracy audit procedures, (1) Notify the Administrator one
affected source shall take the necessary including sampling and analysis month before starting use of the system.
corrective action and shall repeat all methods; and (2) Notify the Administrator one
necessary tests that indicate that the (F) Program of corrective action for a month before stopping use of the
system is out of control. The owner or malfunctioning continuous emission system.
operator shall take corrective action and monitoring system. (3) The initial performance evaluation
conduct retesting until the performance (ii) The performance evaluation test shall be completed no later than 180
requirements are below the applicable plan shall include the evaluation days after the date of initial startup of
limits. The beginning of the out-of- program objectives, an evaluation the affected facility, as specified under
control period is the hour the owner or program summary, the performance § 60.8 of subpart A of this part or within
operator conducts a performance check evaluation schedule, data quality 180 days of notification to the
(e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an objectives, and both an internal and Administrator of use of the continuous
exceedance of the performance external quality assurance program. monitoring system if the owner or
requirements established under this Data quality objectives are the pre- operator was previously determining
part. The end of the out-of-control evaluation expectations of precision, compliance by manual performance
period is the hour following the accuracy, and completeness of data. The testing using Method 23, 29, or as an
completion of corrective action and internal quality assurance program shall alternative ASTM D6784–02 (as
successful demonstration that the include, at a minimum, the activities applicable), whichever is later.
system is within the allowable limits. planned by routine operators and (4) The owner or operator may request
During the period the continuous analysts to provide an assessment of that compliance with the emission
emission monitoring system is out of continuous emission monitoring system limits be determined using carbon
control, recorded data shall not be used performance, for example, plans for dioxide measurements corrected to an
in data averages and calculations or to relative accuracy testing using the equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
meet any data availability requirements appropriate reference method in relationship between oxygen and carbon
in paragraph (n)(8) of this section. § 60.58b(n)(12) of this section. The dioxide levels for the affected facility
(iii) The owner or operator of a external quality assurance program shall shall be established as specified in
continuous emission monitoring system include, at a minimum, systems audits paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
that is out of control as defined in that include the opportunity for on-site (5) The owner or operator shall
paragraph (o)(4) of this section shall evaluation by the Administrator of conduct an initial performance test for
submit all information concerning out- instrument calibration, data validation, emissions as required under § 60.8 of
of-control periods, including start and sample logging, and documentation of subpart A of this part. Compliance with
end dates and hours and descriptions of quality control data and field the emission limits shall be determined
corrective actions taken in the annual or maintenance activities. by using the continuous automated
sampling system specified in paragraph automated sampling system availability requirements in paragraph
(p) of this section to collect integrated breakdowns, repairs, quality assurance (p)(8) of this section.
samples and analyze emissions for the checks, or adjustments, parametric (iii) The owner or operator of a
time period specified in paragraphs monitoring data shall be obtained by continuous automated sampling system
(p)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. using other monitoring systems as that is out of control as defined in
(i) For dioxin/furan, the continuous approved by EPA. paragraph (q)(4) of this section shall
automated sampling system shall collect (q) The owner or operator who elects submit all information concerning out-
an integrated sample over each 2-week to install, calibrate, maintain, and of-control periods, including start and
period. The collected sample shall be operate a continuous automated end dates and hours and descriptions of
analyzed using Method 23. sampling system for dioxin/furan or corrective actions taken in the annual or
(ii) For mercury, the continuous mercury must develop and submit for semiannual compliance reports required
automated sampling system shall collect approval by EPA, a site-specific in § 60.59b(g) or (h).
an integrated sample over each 24-hour monitoring plan that has sufficient (5) Ongoing data quality assurance
daily period and the sample shall be detail to assure the validity of the procedures for continuous automated
analyzed according to the applicable continuous automated sampling system sampling systems as described in
final performance specification or the data and that addresses the elements paragraphs (q)(5)(i) and (q)(5)(ii) of this
approved site-specific monitoring plan and requirements in paragraphs (q)(1) section.
required by paragraph (q) of this section. through (q)(7) of this section. (i) Develop and implement a
(6) Compliance with the emission (1) Installation of the continuous continuous automated sampling system
limits shall be determined based on 2- automated sampling system sampling and analysis quality control program. As
week emission concentrations for probe or other interface at a part of the quality control program, the
dioxin/furan and on the 24-hour daily measurement location relative to each owner or operator shall develop and
emission concentrations for mercury affected process unit such that the submit to EPA for approval, upon
using samples collected at the system measurement is representative of request, a site-specific performance
outlet. The emission concentrations control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., evaluation test plan for the continuous
shall be expressed in nanograms per dry on or downstream of the last control automated sampling system
standard cubic meter (total mass) for device). performance evaluation required in
dioxin/furan and micrograms per dry (2) Performance and equipment paragraph (q)(5)(ii) of this section. In
standard cubic meter for mercury, specifications for the sample interface, addition, each quality control program
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry the pollutant concentration analytical shall include, at a minimum, a written
basis). method, and the data collection system. protocol that describes procedures for
(7) Beginning on the date two years (3) Performance evaluation each of the operations described in
after the respective final performance procedures and acceptance criteria. paragraphs (q)(7)(i)(A) through
specification for continuous automated (4) Provisions for periods when the (q)(7)(i)(F) of this section.
sampling systems for dioxin/furan or continuous automated sampling system (A) Correct placement, installation of
mercury is published in the Federal is malfunctioning or is out of control as the continuous automated sampling
Register or two years after approval of described in paragraphs (q)(4)(i) through system such that the system is collecting
a site-specific monitoring plan, the (q)(4)(iii) of this section. a representative sample of gas;
continuous automated sampling system (i) The site-specific monitoring plan (B) Initial and subsequent calibration
must be operated and collect emissions shall identify criteria for determining of flow such that the sample collection
for at least 90 percent of the operating that the continuous automated sampling rate of the continuous automated
hours per calendar quarter and 95 system is out of control. This shall sampling system is known and
percent of the operating hours per include periods when the sampling verifiable;
calendar year that the affected facility is system is not collecting a representative (C) Procedures to assure
combusting municipal solid waste. sample or is malfunctioning, or when representative (e.g., proportional or
(8) All valid data shall be used in the analytical method does not meet isokinetic) sampling;
calculating emission concentrations. site-specific quality criteria established (D) Preventive maintenance of the
(9) The continuous automated in paragraph (q)(5) of this section. continuous automated sampling system,
sampling system shall be operated (ii) When the continuous automated including spare parts inventory and
according to the final performance sampling system is out of control as procedures for cleaning equipment,
specification in paragraphs (p)(9)(i) or defined in paragraph (q)(4)(i) of this replacing sample collection media, or
(p)(9)(ii) of this section or the approved section, the owner or operator shall take other servicing at the end of each
site-specific monitoring plan. the necessary corrective action and shall sample collection period;
(i) [Reserved] repeat all necessary tests that indicate (E) Data recording and reporting,
(ii) [Reserved] that the system is out of control. The including an automated indicator and
(10) The owner or operator who elects owner or operator shall take corrective recording device to show when the
to install, calibrate, maintain, and action and conduct retesting until the continuous automated monitoring
operate a continuous automated performance requirements are within system is operating and collecting data
sampling system for dioxin/furan or the applicable limits. The out-of-control and when it is not collecting data;
mercury must develop and implement a period includes all hours that the (F) Accuracy audit procedures for
site-specific monitoring plan as sampling system was not collecting a analytical methods; and
specified in paragraph (q) of this representative sample or was (G) Program of corrective action for a
section. The owner or operator who malfunctioning, or hours represented by malfunctioning continuous automated
relies on a performance specification a sample for which the analysis did not sampling system.
may refer to that document in meet the relevant quality criteria. (ii) The performance evaluation test
addressing applicable procedures and Emissions data obtained during an out- plan shall include the evaluation
criteria. of-control period shall not be used in program objectives, an evaluation
(11) When emissions data are not determining compliance with the program summary, the performance
obtained because of continuous emission limits or to meet any data evaluation schedule, data quality
objectives, and both an internal and (2) * * * reasons for not obtaining the data and a
external quality assurance program. (i) The measurements specified in description of corrective actions taken.
Data quality objectives are the pre- paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through * * * * *
evaluation expectations of precision, (d)(2)(i)(F) of this section shall be (iv) Municipal waste combustor unit
accuracy, and completeness of data. The recorded and be available for submittal load data;
internal quality assurance program shall to the Administrator or review on site (v) Particulate matter control device
include, at a minimum, the activities by an EPA or State inspector. temperature data; and
planned by routine operators and * * * * * (vi) For owners and operators who
analysts to provide an assessment of (E) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor
continuous automated sampling system elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead,
performance, for example, plans for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride
relative accuracy testing using the mercury, or hydrogen chloride emissions instead of performance
appropriate reference method in emissions instead of conducting testing by EPA manual test methods,
60.58b(p)(3), and an assessment of performance testing using EPA manual particulate matter, cadmium, lead,
quality of analysis results. The external test methods, all 1-hour average mercury, or hydrogen chloride
quality assurance program shall include, particulate matter, cadmium, lead, emissions data.
at a minimum, systems audits that mercury, or hydrogen chloride emission (vii) For owners and operators who
include the opportunity for on-site concentrations as specified under elect to use continuous automated
evaluation by the Administrator of § 60.58b(n). sampling systems for dioxins/furans or
instrument calibration, data validation, (ii) The average concentrations and mercury as allowed under ‘‘60.58b(p)
sample logging, and documentation of percent reductions, as applicable, and (q), dates and times when the
quality control data and field specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) sampling systems were not operating or
maintenance activities. through (d)(2)(ii)(F) of this section shall were not collecting a valid sample.
(6) Conduct a performance evaluation be computed and recorded, and shall be (7) Identification of each occurrence
of each continuous automated sampling available for submittal to the that sulfur dioxide emissions data,
system in accordance with the site- Administrator or review on-site by an nitrogen oxides emissions data,
specific monitoring plan. EPA or State inspector. particulate matter emissions data,
(7) Operate and maintain the * * * * * cadmium emissions data, lead
continuous automated sampling system (E) For owners and operators who emissions data, mercury emissions data,
in continuous operation according to elect to continuously monitor hydrogen chloride emissions data, or
the site-specific monitoring plan. particulate matter, cadmium, lead, dioxin/furan emissions data (for owners
■ 17. Amend § 60.59b by: mercury, or hydrogen chloride and operators who elect to continuously
■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) emissions instead of conducting monitor particulate matter, cadmium,
introductory text; performance testing using EPA manual lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or
■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) test methods, all 24-hour daily who elect to use continuous automated
introductory text; arithmetic average particulate matter, sampling systems for dioxin/furan or
■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(3); cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen mercury emissions, instead of
■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(6) chloride emission concentrations as conducting performance testing using
introductory text; specified under § 60.58b(n). EPA manual test methods) or
■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(iv); (F) For owners and operators who operational data (i.e., carbon monoxide
■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(v); elect to use a continuous automated emissions, unit load, and particulate
■ g. Revising paragraph (d)(7); sampling system to monitor mercury or matter control device temperature) have
■ h. Adding paragraph (d)(10); dioxin/furan instead of conducting been excluded from the calculation of
■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(12) performance testing using EPA manual average emission concentrations or
introductory text; test methods, all integrated 24-hour parameters, and the reasons for
■ j. Revising paragraph (d)(14); mercury concentrations or all integrated excluding the data.
■ k. Revising paragraph (g) introductory 2-week dioxin/furan concentrations as * * * * *
text; specified under § 60.586(p). (10) An owner or operator who elects
■ l. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii); (3) Identification of the calendar dates to continuously monitor emissions
■ m. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv); when any of the average emission instead of performance testing by EPA
■ n. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v); concentrations, percent reductions, or manual methods must maintain records
■ o. Revising paragraph (g)(4); operating parameters recorded under specified in paragraphs (10)(i) through
■ p. Revising paragraph (h)(1); paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (iii) of this section.
■ q. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E); (d)(2)(ii)(F) of this section, or the (i) For owners and operators who
■ r. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E);
opacity levels recorded under paragraph elect to continuously monitor
■ s. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F);
(d)(2)(i)(A) of this section are above the particulate matter instead of conducting
■ t. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi);
applicable limits, with reasons for such performance testing using EPA manual
■ u. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vii);
exceedances and a description of test methods), as required under
■ v. Adding paragraph (d)(12)(iv);
corrective actions taken. appendix F of this part, procedure 2, the
■ w. Adding paragraph (g)(5);
■ x. Adding paragraph (m); * * * * * results of daily drift tests and quarterly
■ y. Adding paragraph (n); and (6) Identification of the calendar dates accuracy determinations for particulate
■ z. Adding paragraph (o) to read as and times (hours) for which valid matter.
follows: hourly data specified in paragraphs (ii) For owners and operators who
(d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(vi) of this section elect to continuously monitor cadmium,

§ 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping have not been obtained, or continuous lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride
requirements. automated sampling systems were not instead of conducting EPA manual test
* * * * * operated as specified in paragraph methods, the results of all quality
(d) * * * (d)(6)(vii) of this section, including evaluations, such as daily drift tests and
periodic accuracy determinations, tests for dioxin/furan emissions and quarter and per calendar year expressed
specified in the approved site-specific recorded under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and as a percent of the hours per calendar
performance evaluation test plan (d)(4)(ii) of this section, respectively, quarter or year that the affected facility
required by § 60.58b(o)(5). with reasons for such feed rates and a was operating and combusting
(iii) For owners and operators who description of corrective actions taken. municipal solid waste.
elect to use continuous automated * * * * * (C) For owners and operators who
sampling systems for dioxin/furan or (g) Following the first year of elect to use continuous automated
mercury, the results of all quality municipal waste combustor operation, sampling systems for dioxin/furan or
evaluations specified in the approved the owner or operator of an affected mercury, the total number of hours per
site-specific performance evaluation test facility shall submit an annual report calendar quarter and hours per calendar
plan required by § 60.58b(q)(5). that includes the information specified year that the sampling systems were not
* * * * * in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this operating or were not collecting a valid
(12) The records specified in section, as applicable, no later than sample based on the data recorded
paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through (d)(12)(iv) February 1 of each year following the under paragraph (d)(6)(vii) of this
of this section. calendar year in which the data were section. Also, the number of hours
* * * * * collected (once the unit is subject to during which the continuous automated
(iv) Records of when a certified permitting requirements under title V of sampling system was operating and
operator is temporarily off site. Include the Act, the owner or operator of an collecting a valid sample as a percent of
two main items: affected facility must submit these hours per calendar quarter or year that
(A) If the certified chief facility reports semiannually). the affected facility was operating and
operator and certified shift supervisor (1) * * * combusting municipal solid waste.
are off site for more than 12 hours, but (ii) A list of the highest emission level (v) Periods when valid data were
for 2 weeks or less, and no other recorded for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen excluded from the calculation of average
certified operator is on site, record the oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate emission concentrations or parameters
dates that the certified chief facility matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, as described in paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(A)
operator and certified shift supervisor hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan through (g)(1)(v)(C) of this section.
were off site. (for owners and operators who elect to (A) The total number of hours that
(B) When all certified chief facility continuously monitor particulate data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
operators and certified shift supervisors matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, carbon monoxide, municipal waste
are off site for more than 2 weeks and hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan combustor unit load, and particulate
no other certified operator is on site, emissions instead of conducting matter control device temperature were
keep records of four items: performance testing using EPA manual excluded from the calculation of average
(1) Time of day that all certified test methods), municipal waste emission concentrations or parameters
persons are off site. combustor unit load level, and based on the data recorded under
(2) The conditions that cause those particulate matter control device inlet paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
people to be off site. temperature based on the data recorded (B) For owners and operators who
(3) The corrective actions taken by the under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through elect to continuously monitor
owner or operator of the affected facility (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section. particulate matter, cadmium, lead,
to ensure a certified chief facility * * * * * mercury, or hydrogen chloride
operator or certified shift supervisor is (iv) Periods when valid data were not emissions instead of conducting
on site as soon as practicable. obtained as described in paragraphs performance testing using EPA manual
(4) Copies of the written reports (g)(1)(iv)(A) through (g)(1)(iv)(C) of this test methods, the total number of hours
submitted every 4 weeks that section. that data for particulate matter,
summarize the actions taken by the (A) The total number of hours per cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen
owner or operator of the affected facility calendar quarter and hours per calendar chloride were excluded from the
to ensure that a certified chief facility year that valid data for sulfur dioxide, calculation of average emission
operator or certified shift supervisor nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, concentrations or parameters based on
will be on site as soon as practicable. municipal waste combustor unit load, or the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7)
* * * * * particulate matter control device of this section.
(14) For affected facilities that apply temperature data were not obtained (C) For owners and operators who
activated carbon, identification of the based on the data recorded under elect to use continuous automated
calendar dates when the average carbon paragraph (d)(6) of this section. sampling systems for dioxin/furan or
mass feed rates recorded under (B) For owners and operators who mercury, the total number of hours that
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section were elect to continuously monitor data for mercury and dioxin/furan were
less than either of the hourly carbon particulate matter, cadmium, lead, excluded from the calculation of average
feed rates estimated during performance mercury, and hydrogen chloride emission concentrations or parameters
tests for mercury emissions and emissions instead of conducting based on the data recorded under
recorded under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and performance testing using EPA manual paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
(d)(4)(ii) of this section, respectively, test methods, the total number of hours * * * * *
with reasons for such feed rates and a per calendar quarter and hours per (4) A notification of intent to begin
description of corrective actions taken. calendar year that valid data for the reduced dioxin/furan performance
For affected facilities that apply particulate matter, cadmium, lead, testing schedule specified in
activated carbon, identification of the mercury, and hydrogen chloride were § 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of this section during
calendar dates when the average carbon not obtained based on the data recorded the following calendar year and
mass feed rates recorded under under paragraph (d)(6) of this section. notification of intent to apply the
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section were For each continuously monitored average carbon mass feed rate and
less than either of the hourly carbon pollutant or parameter, the hours of associated carbon injection system
feed rates estimated during performance valid emissions data per calendar operating parameter levels as
established in § 60.58b(m) to similarly inoperative except for zero (low-level) reports required in paragraphs (g) or (h)
designed and equipped units on site. and high-level checks; of this section.
(5) Documentation of periods when (3) The date and time identifying each (o) Additional recordkeeping and
all certified chief facility operators and period during which the continuous reporting requirements for affected
certified shift supervisors are off site for emission monitoring system was out of facilities with continuous automated
more than 12 hours. control, as defined in § 60.58b(o)(4); sampling systems for dioxin/furan or
(h) * * * (4) The specific identification (i.e., the mercury monitoring. In addition to
(1) The semiannual report shall date and time of commencement and complying with the requirements
include information recorded under completion) of each period of excess specified in paragraphs (a) through (m)
paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur emissions and parameter monitoring of this section, the owner or operator of
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon exceedances, as defined in the standard, an affected source who elects to install
monoxide, particulate matter, cadmium, that occurs during startups, shutdowns, a continuous automated sampling
lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and malfunctions of the affected source; system for dioxin/furan or mercury, as
dioxin/furan (for owners and operators (5) The specific identification (i.e., the specified in § 60.58b(p), shall maintain
who elect to continuously monitor date and time of commencement and the records in paragraphs (o)(1) through
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, completion) of each time period of (o)(10) of this section and report the
mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or who excess emissions and parameter information in (o)(11) and (o)(12) of this
elect to use continuous automated monitoring exceedances, as defined in section, relevant to the continuous
sampling systems for dioxin/furan or the standard, that occurs during periods automated sampling system:
mercury emissions, instead of other than startups, shutdowns, and (1) All required 24-hour integrated
conducting performance testing using malfunctions of the affected source; mercury concentration or 2-week
EPA manual test methods) municipal (6) The nature and cause of any integrated dioxin/furan concentration
waste combustor unit load level, malfunction (if known); data (including any data obtained
particulate matter control device inlet (7) The corrective action taken to during unavoidable system breakdowns
temperature, and opacity. correct any malfunction or preventive and out-of-control periods);
measures adopted to prevent further
* * * * * (2) The date and time identifying each
malfunctions;
(m) Owners and operators who elect period during which the continuous
(8) The nature of the repairs or
to continuously monitor particulate automated sampling system was
adjustments to the continuous emission
matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or inoperative;
monitoring system that was inoperative
hydrogen chloride, or who elect to use or out of control; (3) The date and time identifying each
continuous automated sampling systems (9) All procedures that are part of a period during which the continuous
for dioxin/furan or mercury emissions, quality control program developed and automated sampling system was out of
instead of conducting performance implemented for the continuous control, as defined in § 60.58b(q)(4);
testing using EPA manual test methods emission monitoring system under (4) The specific identification (i.e., the
must notify the Administrator one § 60.58b(o); date and time of commencement and
month prior to starting or stopping use (10) When more than one continuous completion) of each period of excess
of the particulate matter, cadmium, emission monitoring system is used to emissions and parameter monitoring
lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and measure the emissions from one affected exceedances, as defined in the standard,
dioxin/furan continuous emission source (e.g., multiple breechings, that occurs during startups, shutdowns,
monitoring systems or continuous multiple outlets), the owner or operator and malfunctions of the affected source;
automated sampling systems. shall report the results as required for (5) The specific identification (i.e., the
(n) Additional recordkeeping and each continuous emission monitoring date and time of commencement and
reporting requirements for affected system. completion) of each time period of
facilities with continuous cadmium, (11) Submit to EPA for approval, the excess emissions and parameter
lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride site-specific monitoring plan required monitoring exceedances, as defined in
monitoring systems. In addition to by § 60.58b(n)(13) and § 60.58b(o), the standard, that occurs during periods
complying with the requirements including the site-specific performance other than startups, shutdowns, and
specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) evaluation test plan for the continuous malfunctions of the affected source;
of this section, the owner or operator of emission monitoring system required by (6) The nature and cause of any
an affected source who elects to install § 60.58(b)(o)(5). The owner or operator malfunction (if known);
a continuous emission monitoring shall maintain copies of the site-specific (7) The corrective action taken to
system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or monitoring plan on record for the life of correct any malfunction or preventive
hydrogen chloride as specified in the affected source to be made available measures adopted to prevent further
§ 60.58b(n), shall maintain the records for inspection, upon request, by the malfunctions;
in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of Administrator. If the site-specific (8) The nature of the repairs or
this section and report the information monitoring plan is revised and adjustments to the continuous
in paragraphs (n)(11) through (n)(12) of approved, the owner or operator shall automated sampling system that was
this section, relevant to the continuous keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions inoperative or out of control;
emission monitoring system: of the plan on record to be made (9) All procedures that are part of a
(1) All required continuous emission available for inspection, upon request, quality control program developed and
monitoring measurements (including by the Administrator, for a period of 5 implemented for the continuous
monitoring data recorded during years after each revision to the plan. automated sampling system under
unavoidable continuous emission (12) Submit information concerning § 60.58b(q);
monitoring system breakdowns and out- all out-of-control periods for each (10) When more than one continuous
of-control periods); continuous emission monitoring system, automated sampling system is used to
(2) The date and time identifying each including start and end dates and hours measure the emissions from one affected
period during which the continuous and descriptions of corrective actions source (e.g., multiple breechings,
emission monitoring system was taken, in the annual or semiannual multiple outlets), the owner or operator
shall report the results as required for the affected source to be made available (12) Submit information concerning
each system. for inspection, upon request, by the all out-of-control periods for each
(11) Submit to EPA for approval, the Administrator. If the site-specific continuous automated sampling system,
site-specific monitoring plan required monitoring plan is revised and including start and end dates and hours
by § 60.58b(p)(11) and § 60.58b(q) approved, the owner or operator shall and descriptions of corrective actions
including the site-specific performance keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions taken in the annual or semiannual
evaluation test plan for the continuous of the plan on record to be made reports required in paragraphs (g) or (h)
emission monitoring system required by available for inspection, upon request, of this section.
§ 60.58(b)(q)(5). The owner or operator
by the Administrator, for a period of 5 [FR Doc. 06–4197 Filed 5–9–06; 8:45 am]
shall maintain copies of the site-specific
years after each revision to the plan.
monitoring plan on record for the life of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: Air Pollution Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Municipal Waste Combustion Units, Large

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rule: Air Pollution Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources: Municipal Waste Combustion Units, Large

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Wednesday,

May 10, 2006

TABLE 1.—FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS

TABLE 1.—FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS—Continued

reduction of hydrogen chloride emissions. reduction of hydrogen chloride emissions.

reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions. reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.

Regulations is amended as follows: percent refuse-derived fuel but is

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass burn refractory .................................................................................................................................... 100 4

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

(d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(vi) of this section elect to continuously monitor cadmium,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen