[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80452-80530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31648]
[[Page 80451]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 247
December 23, 2011
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 241
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units:
Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Solid Waste; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 80452]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 241
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 and EPA-HQ-RCRA 2008-0329; FRL-9503-7]
RIN 2060-AR15 and 2050-AG44
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units:
Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Solid Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rules; Reconsideration of final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated its final response to
the 2001 voluntary remand of the December 1, 2000, new source
performance standards and emission guidelines for commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration units and the vacatur and remand of
several definitions by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals in 2007. Following that action, the Administrator received
petition[s] for reconsideration as well as identified some issues that
warrant further opportunity for public comment. In response to the
petition[s], the EPA is reconsidering and requesting comment on several
provisions of the final new source performance standards and emission
guidelines for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units.
In addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to the regulations
which were codified by the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rule.
Originally promulgated on March 21, 2011, the Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials rule provides the standards and procedures for identifying
whether Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials are solid waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act when used as fuels or
ingredients in combustion units. The purpose of these proposed
amendments is to clarify several provisions in order to implement the
Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rule as the Agency originally
intended.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2012.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by January 3, 2012, a public hearing will be held on
January 9, 2012. For further information on the public hearing and
requests to speak, contact Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541-7946 to verify
that a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration reconsideration and proposed rule, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected], Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0119.
Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. Please include a
total of two copies. We request that a separate copy also be sent to
the contact person identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: In person or by Courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Submit your comments on the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
proposed rule, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, by
one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to:
[email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.
Fax: Comments may be faxed to (202) 566-9744, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.
Mail: Send comments to: RCRA Docket, EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2008-0329. Please include a total of two copies of your comments. We
request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to:
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2008-0329. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments on the commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration reconsideration and proposal to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. Direct your comments on the Non-Hazardous
Secondary Materials proposed rule to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-
0329. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
Public
[[Page 80453]]
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket
Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration reconsideration and
proposed rule, contact Ms. Toni Jones, Fuels and Incineration Group,
Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-0316; fax number: (919) 541-3470; email
address: [email protected].
For further information regarding the Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials proposed rule, contact Mr. George Faison, Program
Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, 5303P, Environmental Protection Agency,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460-0002; telephone number: (703) 305-7652; fax number: (703) 308-
0509; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following
acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.
7-PAH 7 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
16-PAH 16 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
ACI Activated Carbon Injection
ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ARIPPA Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATCM Air Toxic Control Measure
BAT Best Available Technology
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CBO Carbon burn-out
Cd Cadmium
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Catalyst Carbon Monoxide Oxidation Catalyst
Cl2 Chlorine Gas
The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CSA Canadian Standards Association
CWA Clean Water Act
D/F Dioxin/Furan
DIFF Dry Sorbent Injection Fabric Filter
dscf Dry Standard Cubic Foot
dscm Dry Standard Cubic Meter
DSW Definition of Solid Waste
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
EMPC Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration
EOM Extractable Organic Matter
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ERU Energy Recovery Unit
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FF Fabric Filters
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl Hydrogen Chloride
HF Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
Hg Mercury
HMI Hospital, Medical and Infectious
HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste Incineration
HWC Hazardous Waste Combustor
ICR Information Collection Request
ISO International Standards Organization
LBMS Linkageless Burner Management System
LML Lowest Measured Level
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MDL Method Detection Level
mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
mmBtu/hr Million British Thermal Units per Hour
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Megawatts
MWC Municipal Waste Combustor
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
ND Nondetect
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
NHSM Non-Hazardous Secondary Material(s)
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OP Office of Policy
OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pb Lead
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins
PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
PIC Product of Incomplete Combustion
PM Particulate Matter
POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
ppm Parts Per Million
ppmv Parts Per Million by Volume
ppmvd Parts Per Million by Dry Volume
PRA Paper Reduction Act
PS Performance Specification
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDL Reported Detection Level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review
SBA Small Business Administration
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SARU Sulfuric Acid Regeneration Unit
SNCR Selective Noncatalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TBtu Tera British Thermal Unit
TEF Total Equivalency Factor
TEQ Toxic Equivalency
TMB Total Mass Basis
TOX Total Organic Halogens
tpy Tons Per Year
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TSR Thermal Sand Reclamation
TTN Technology Transfer Network
ug/dscm Micrograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UL Upper Limit
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
U.S.C. United States Code
UTL Upper Tolerance Limit
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WWW Worldwide Web
A. Does this document of reconsideration and proposal apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed action
are those that operate CISWI units, and those that generate potentially
affected NHSM. The NSPS and (EG), hereinafter referred to as
``standards,'' for CISWI affect the following categories of sources:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS \1\ Code potentially regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industrial or commercial 211, 212, 486 Mining, oil and gas
facility using a solid waste exploration
incinerator. operations; pipeline
operators.
221 Utility providers.
[[Page 80454]]
321, 322, 337 Manufacturers of wood
products;
manufacturers of
pulp, paper and
paperboard;
manufacturers of
furniture and
related products.
325, 326 Manufacturers of
chemicals and allied
products;
manufacturers of
plastics and rubber
products.
327 Manufacturers of
cement; nonmetallic
mineral product
manufacturing.
333, 336 Manufacturers of
machinery;
manufacturers of
transportation
equipment.
423, 44 Merchant wholesalers,
durable goods;
retail trade.
Any facility or entity 111 Crop Production.
generating a non hazardous
secondary material that may
be burned for fuel or
destruction \2\.
112 Animal Production.
113 Forestry and Logging.
115 Support Activities
for Agriculture and
Forestry.
211 Oil and Gas
Extraction.
212 Mining (except oil
and gas).
221 Utilities.
236 Construction of
Buildings.
311 Food Manufacturing.
312 Beverage and Tobacco
Product
Manufacturing.
313 Textile Mills.
316 Leather and Allied
Product
Manufacturing.
321 Wood Product
Manufacturing.
322 Pulp, Paper, and
Paper Products.
324 Petroleum and Coal
Products
Manufacturing.
325 Chemical
Manufacturing.
326 Plastics and Rubber
Products
Manufacturing.
327 Non-Metallic Mineral
Product
Manufacturing.
331 Primary Metal
Manufacturing.
332 Fabricated and Metal
Product
Manufacturing.
333 Machinery
Manufacturing.
334 Computer and
Electronic Product
Manufacturing.
336 Transportation
Equipment
Manufacturing.
337 Furniture and Related
Product
Manufacturing.
339 Miscellaneous
Manufacturing.
423 Durable Goods
Merchant
Wholesalers.
424 Nondurable Goods
Merchant
Wholesalers.
44-45 Retail Trade.
486 Pipeline
Transportation.
493 Warehousing and
Storage.
511 Publishing Industry
(except Internet).
531 Real Estate.
541 Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services.
611 Educational Services.
622 Hospitals.
623 Nursing and
Residential Care
Facilities.
624 Social Assistance.
713930 Marinas.
721 Lodging, Restaurant.
722 Food Services and
Drinking Places.
813 Religious,
Grantmaking, Civic,
Professional, and
Similar
Organizations.
92 Public
Administration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ May be some overlap with the incinerators.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 60.2010 of subpart CCCC, 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD, and
40 CFR 241. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
the proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be
CBI electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or email. For
comments on the CISWI reconsideration and proposal, send or deliver
information identified as CBI to only the following address: Ms. Toni
Jones, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-119.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the
EPA, mark the
[[Page 80455]]
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. If you submit a disk or CD-ROM that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
The docket number for the proposed action regarding the CISWI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119.
Worldwide Web
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the TTN Web.
Following signature, the EPA posted a copy of the proposed action on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Organization of this Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. CISWI Reconsideration and Proposal
A. Background Information
1. What is the history of the CISWI standards?
2. How is the definition of solid waste addressed in the final
CISWI rule?
3. What is the relationship between this rule and other
combustion rules?
B. Actions We Are Taking
C. Discussion of Issues for Reconsideration
1. Revision of the Subcategories
2. Establishment of Limitations on Fuel Switching Provisions
3. Definitions of Cyclonic Burn Barrels, Burn-off Ovens, Soil
Treatment Units, Laboratory Analysis Units, and Space Heaters from
CISWI Subcategories
4. Providing an affirmative defense for malfunction events
5. Revisions to the CO Monitoring Requirements
6. Establishing a Full-load Stack Test Requirement for CO
Coupled with Continuous Oxygen Monitoring
7. Establishing a Definition of ``Homogeneous Waste''
8. Incorporating Fuel Variability into Emission Limit
Calculations
9. Review of D/F Data and Non-detect Methodology Using Three
Times the Detection Level
10. Providing an Option for Sources to Use Emissions Averaging
to Demonstrate Compliance
11. Definitions
12. Allowances for Using Feed Stream Analysis or Other
Supplemental Information to Demonstrate Compliance
13. Providing Percent Reduction Alternative Standards
14. Providing Parametric Monitoring Provisions for Additional
Control Device Types
15. Revisions to the Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large
ERUs
16. Extending Compliance Dates
D. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
1. Providing a Definition of Municipal Solid Waste
2. Energy Recovery Units Designed to Burn Non-coal Solid
Materials
3. Typographical Errors and Corrections
E. Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
1. What are the Primary Air Impacts?
2. What are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
3. What are the Energy Impacts?
4. What are the Secondary Air Impacts?
5. What are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
6. What are the Benefits?
II. NHSM Proposed Revisions
A. Statutory Authority
B. What is the intent of this proposal?
C. What is the scope of this proposal?
1. Revised Definitions
2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as Fuels
3. Categorical Non-Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used
as Fuels
4. Additional Request for Comment
5. Clarification Letters Issued After Promulgation of the NHSM
Final Rule
6. Clarification of the Process for Submittal of Non-Waste
Petitions
D. Rationale for the Proposed Revisions to the Part 241
Requirements
1. Revised Definitions
2. Revisions to the Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM
Used as Fuels
3. Categorical Determinations That Specific NHSM Are Not Solid
Waste When Used as a Fuel
4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Non-Waste
Determinations
E. Additional Request for Comment
1. Pulp and Paper Sludges
2. Coal Refuse
F. Effect of This Proposed Rule on Other Programs
1. Clean Air Act
2. Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program/Definition of Solid Waste
Rule
G. State Authority
1. Relationship to State Programs
2. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
H. Cost and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. CISWI Reconsideration and Proposal
A. Background Information
1. What is the history of the CISWI standards?
On December 1, 2000, the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG for CISWI
units (60 FR 75338), hereinafter referred to as the 2000 CISWI rule. On
January 30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition for review in the
Court challenging the EPA's final CISWI rule. On August 17, 2001, the
EPA granted a Request for Reconsideration, pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation
and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, related to the
definition of commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit
and commercial or industrial waste in the EPA's CISWI rulemaking. In
granting the petition for reconsideration, the EPA agreed to undertake
further notice and comment proceedings related to these definitions. On
September 6, 2001, the Court entered an order granting the EPA's motion
for a voluntary remand of the CISWI rule, without vacatur. The EPA
requested a voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule to address
concerns related to the EPA's procedures for establishing MACT floors
for CISWI units in light of the Court's decision in Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001)(Cement Kiln).
Neither the EPA's granting of the petition for reconsideration, nor the
Court's order granting a voluntary remand, stayed, vacated or otherwise
influenced the effectiveness of the 2000 CISWI rule. Therefore, the
remand order
[[Page 80456]]
had no impact on the implementation of the 2000 CISWI rule.
On February 17, 2004, the EPA published a proposed rule (CISWI
Definitions Rule) soliciting comments on the definitions of ``solid
waste,'' ``commercial and industrial waste,'' and ``commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration unit''. On September 22, 2005, the
EPA published in the Federal Register the final rule reflecting our
decisions with respect to the CISWI Definitions Rule. The rule was
challenged and, on June 8, 2007, the Court vacated and remanded the
CISWI Definitions Rule. In vacating the rule, the Court found that CAA
section 129 unambiguously includes among the incineration units subject
to its standards, any facility that combusts any solid waste material,
subject to four statutory exceptions. While the Court vacated the CISWI
Definitions Rule, the 2000 CISWI rule remains in effect.
On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG for
CISWI units (76 FR 15704). That action constitutes the EPA's response
to the voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI rule and to the 2007 vacatur
and remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule. In addition, the EPA
addressed the 5-year technology review that is required under CAA
section 129(a)(5). Following that action, the Administrator received
petition[s] for reconsideration as well as identified some issues that
warrant further opportunity for public comment. In response to the
petition[s], the EPA is reconsidering and requesting comment on several
provisions of the final new source performance standards and emission
guidelines for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
units.
2. How is the definition of solid waste addressed in the final CISWI
rule?
The RCRA definition of solid waste is integral in defining the
CISWI source category. The EPA defines the NHSM that are solid waste
under RCRA in the final ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials That Are Solid Waste'' Rulemaking. In an action parallel to
the March 21, 2011, final CISWI rule, the EPA promulgated a final rule
that identifies the standards and procedures for identifying whether
NHSM are or are not solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units. That action, hereinafter referred to as the ``2011
NHSM final rule,'' is relevant to the final CISWI rule because some
ERUs and waste-burning kilns combust, in their combustion units,
secondary materials that are solid waste under the 2011 NHSM final
rule. Commercial and industrial units that combust solid waste are
subject to standards issued pursuant to CAA section 129, rather than to
standards issued pursuant to CAA section 112 that would otherwise be
applicable to such units (e.g., boilers, process heaters and cement
kilns).
3. What is the relationship between this rule and other combustion
rules?
These amendments address the combustion of solid waste materials
(as defined by the Administrator under RCRA in the concurrent Non-
hazardous Solid Waste Definition Rulemaking) in combustion units at
commercial and industrial facilities. If an owner or operator of a
CISWI unit permanently ceases combusting solid waste, the affected unit
would no longer be subject to this regulation under CAA section 129.
Section 112 rules of the CAA, applicable to boilers and process heaters
at major sources and boilers at area sources, would apply to subject
boilers and process heaters that do not combust solid waste. Boilers
and process heaters that combust solid waste are subject to CISWI as
ERUs. EPA has also finalized revised CAA section 112 NESHAP from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (75 FR 21136, September 9,
2010). Cement kilns combusting solid waste are waste-burning kilns
subject to CISWI, not the otherwise applicable NESHAP.
B. Actions We Are Taking
In this notice, we are granting reconsideration of, and requesting
comment on, certain issues raised by Petitioners in their petitions for
reconsideration and the issues identified by the EPA in the March 21,
2011, notice of reconsideration. These provisions are: (1) Revision of
the subcategory of ERUs; (2) establishment of limitations on fuel
switching provisions; (3) revision of the definition of cyclonic burn
barrels; (4) establishment of the procedures for providing an
affirmative defense for malfunction events; (5) revisions to the carbon
monoxide monitoring requirements; (6) establishment of a full-load
stack test requirement for CO coupled with continuous oxygen monitoring
for CISWI units; and (7) establishment of a definition of ``homogeneous
waste'' in the CISWI rule. The EPA is also proposing certain revisions,
which are: (1) Revised emission limits for the waste-burning kiln and
ERU subcategories to reflect updated inventories and additional data,
(2) the removal of continuous CO monitoring with CO CEMS requirements,
(3) the removal of oxygen correction requirements for CO emission
limits for ERUs during periods of startup and shutdown, and (4) the
replacement of continuous PM monitoring for ERUs greater than 250
MMBtu/hr design heat input capacity with continuous parameter
monitoring system requirements. The EPA is taking comment on those
revisions . Additionally, the EPA is proposing amendments and technical
corrections to the final rule to clarify questions on final rule
language and correct minor typographical errors raised by stakeholders
subject to the final rule. Section I.C. of this preamble summarizes
these issues and discusses our proposed responses to each issue.
We are also proposing other clarification changes and technical
corrections to certain provisions in the final rule.
We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically
identified in this notice. We will not respond to any comments
addressing other aspects of the final rule or any other related
rulemakings.
C. Discussion of Issues for Reconsideration
This section of the preamble contains the EPA's basis for the
provisions we are reconsidering in this proposed rule. We solicit
comment on all proposed responses and revisions discussed in the
following sections.
1. Revision of the Subcategories
Today's proposal incorporates new emission limits based on revised
inventories for two of the final rule subcategories, solid-fuel burning
ERUs and waste-burning kilns. Tables 1 and 2 present the proposed
emission limits for all subcategories for existing and new sources,
respectively.
[[Page 80457]]
Table 1--Comparison of Existing Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CISWI Subcategories
Incinerators --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \a\ (2000 CISWI ERUs--Liquid/ Small, remote
limit) Incinerators ERUs--Solids Gas Waste-burning kilns incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)........................... 62 29 0.50.................... \b\ 14 3.0 \b\................ 220
CO (ppmv)............................ 157 \b\ 36 490 (biomass units)/46 36 120 (long kilns)/410 20
(coal units). (preheater/
precalciner).
Pb (mg/dscm)......................... 0.04 0.0036 0.0019 (biomass units)/ 0.096 0.0043................. 2.7
0.0031 (coal units).
Cd (mg/dscm)......................... 0.004 0.0026 0.00078 (biomass units)/ 0.023 0.00082................ 0.61
0.058 (coal units).
Hg (mg/dscm)......................... 0.47 0.0054 0.0020.................. \b\ 0.0031 0.011 \b\.............. 0.0057
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)............. 70 34 11 (biomass units)/86 110 9.2.................... 230
(coal units).
Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)...... (no limit) 4.6 0.52 (biomass units)/ \b\ 2.9 3.6.................... 1,200
0.51 (coal units) \b\.
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)........ 0.41 0.13 0.12 (biomass units)/ \b\ 0.32 0.075 \b\.............. 57
0.075 (coal units) \b\.
NOX (ppmv)........................... 388 53 290 (biomass units)/.... 76 630.................... 240
340 (coal units)........
SO2 (ppmv)........................... 20 11 7.3 (biomass units)/.... 720 830.................... 420
650 (coal units)........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are expressed as concentrations corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
\b\ See the memorandum ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for Reconsideration Proposal'' for details on this calculation.
Table 2--Comparison of New Source MACT Floor Limits for 2000 CISWI Rule and the Proposed MACT Floor Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final CISWI Subcategories
Incinerators --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant (units) \a\ (2000 limit) ERUs--Liquid/ Small, remote
Incinerators ERUs--Solids Gas Waste-burning kilns incinerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl (ppmv)........................... 62 0.091 0.50 \c\................ \b\ 14 3.0 \b\................ 200
CO (ppmv)............................ 157 12 160 (biomass units)/46 36 90 (long kilns)/320 12
(coal units). (preheater/
precalciner).
Pb (mg/dscm)......................... 0.04 \b\ 0.0019 0.0019 (biomass units)/ 0.096 0.0043 \c\............. 0.26
0.0031 (coal units) \c\.
Cd (mg/dscm)......................... 0.004 0.0023 0.00014 (biomass units)/ 0.023 0.00082 \c\............ \c\ 0.61
0.058 (coal units).
Hg (mg/dscm)......................... 0.47 \b\ 0.00084 0.0020 \c\.............. \d\ 0.00091 0.0037 \b\............. \b\ 0.0035
PM, filterable (mg/dscm)............. 70 18 5.1 (biomass units)/86 110 8.9.................... \c\ 230
(coal units) \c\.
Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm)...... (no limit) \b\ 0.058 0.52 (biomass units)/ (no limit) 0.51 \b\............... \c\ 1,200
0.51 (coal units) \b\.
Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm)........ 0.41 0.13 0.076 (biomass units)/ \d\ 0.093 0.075 \b\.............. 31
0.075 (coal units) \b\.
NOX (ppmv)........................... 388 23 290 \c\ (biomass units)/ 76 200 \b\................ 78
340 (coal units).
SO2 (ppmv)........................... 20 \c\ 11 7.3 \c\ (biomass units)/ 720 130.................... 1.2
650 (coal units).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
\b\ See the memorandum ``CISWI Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for Reconsideration Proposal'' for details on this calculation.
\c\ The NSPS limit equals the EG limit. The EG limit was selected as the NSPS limit.
\d\ D/F TEQ and Hg limits for ERUs--liquid/gas were replaced with D/F TEQ limits for liquid fuel major source boilers. See ``CISWI Emission Limit
Calculations for Existing and New Sources for Reconsideration Proposal'' for details.
\e\ Hg limit was developed using material input data from CISWI kilns identified within the Portland Cement NESHAP database. See the memorandum ``CISWI
Emission Limit Calculations for Existing and New Sources for Reconsideration Proposal'' for details on this calculation.
a. Energy Recovery Units
In the final rule, we established separate subcategories based on
the types of fuels and wastes ERUs were designed to burn. Energy
Recovery Units (i.e., units that would be boilers and process heaters
but that they combust solid waste) designed to burn gaseous fuels and
liquids that are solid waste were included in one primary subcategory,
and the other primary subcategory was for units designed to
[[Page 80458]]
burn solid fuels or predominantly non-coal solid materials. The solid
fuel ERU subcategory was further divided into separate subcategories
for coal and biomass units, with separate limits for CO, NOX
and SO2 to account for significant differences in unit
design for these two types of fuels and the impacts the different unit
designs have on emissions of these pollutants.
Petitioners have contended that they did not have adequate
opportunity to comment on the ERU subcategories presented in the final
rule. Some have suggested that all nine emission limits should be
divided between coal and biomass ERUs, instead of only having different
limits for CO, NOX and SO2. We are granting
reconsideration of our subcategorization approach for ERUs and are also
proposing to divide emission limits for PM, Cd, Pb and D/F between coal
and biomass units. The generation of PM is affected by the combustor
design and operation. Therefore, design differences between biomass and
coal ERU units have an impact on the generation of PM. We also are
separating Cd and Pb with PM primarily due to the observation that
these metals typically precipitate onto PM and are controlled along
with PM. Finally, while D/F formation depends to some extent on the
amount of chlorine available in the combustion gases, it is also
affected by the amount of time the chlorine and hydrocarbon materials
remain within a particular temperature range. The time gases remain in
this range is a function of the combustor design, therefore, we have
proposed separate limits for D/F as well. We are taking comment on the
proposed revisions to the subcategorization of ERUs, including whether
we should also subcategorize for HCl and Hg.
Since issuing the final CISWI rule, we have received data and
information in both petitions and data submittals that indicated our
inventory of ERUs used to develop the final rule standards required
some adjustments to more accurately reflect the definition of solid
waste in the 2011 NHSM final rule. Based on the new data, we removed
five units from the final rule inventory that we determined to be non-
waste burning units, and we added three units to our inventory that we
determined combust solid waste. We also received emissions data for the
newly added units and re-analyzed the performance of ERUs in the solid-
biomass and solid-coal ERU subcategories. The emission limits in
today's proposal reflect the new inventory and emission data received;
however, we have used the same methodology as in the final rule for
establishing emission limits. We are not taking comment on this
methodology.
b. Waste-Burning Kilns
The EPA has performed an analysis of the materials being combusted
in the entire inventory of Portland cement kilns in light of the final
NHSM rule (See memorandum ``Revised Floors without Kilns that Would
have been CISWI Kilns Had the Solid Waste Definition Applied'' in the
CISWI docket). As a result of this analysis, we have added 11 more
kilns to our inventory of waste-burning kilns. We have also obtained
emissions test data for the newly identified CISWI kilns and re-
calculated the MACT floor emission limits for the waste-burning kilns
subcategory based on the new inventory and additional data.
We determined that in the case of CO emissions, it is appropriate
to subcategorize by kiln type. In this case we are subcategorizing into
two kiln types, long kilns (which include both dry and wet process
kilns) and kilns that have preheaters (with or without precalciners. A
review of the available data for CO emissions for CISWI kilns indicates
that there are significant differences between CO emissions for these
two types of kilns. The CO emissions from the three long kilns were all
below 100 ppmv. CO emissions from the three preheater kilns were all
above 300 ppmv. We note that the CO emission factors for long kilns are
at least a factor of 5 less than those for preheater or preheater
precalciner kilns. We attribute this difference to the presence of the
preheater, which results in a different temperature profile than exists
in the cold end section of a long kiln.
As with the new ERU standards, we have used the same methodology to
establish today's proposed emission limits as we used for the final
rule; therefore, we are not accepting comment on the methodology used
to calculate the limits. We are also requesting comment on whether
waste-burning kiln emission limits should be expressed on a production
(e.g., lb per million tons clinker produced) basis instead of, or in
addition to, concentration based limits. Table 3 presents the emission
limits for PM, NOX, SO2 and Hg on a production
basis for comparison. Comments should clarify which pollutants could
warrant production-based limits and the rationale for using a
production basis.
Table 3--Waste-Burning Kiln Emission Limits Expressed in Production
Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing
Pollutant (units) kilns New kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg (lb/MM ton clinker).................... 58 21
PM (lb/ton clinker)....................... 0.052 0.050
NOX (lb/ton clinker)...................... 6.7 2.1
SO2 (lb/ton clinker)...................... 12.3 1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Establishment of Limitations on Fuel Switching Provisions
The final rule included provisions to address the situation where
CISWI units cease combusting solid waste, and where existing commercial
and industrial facilities start combusting solid waste. Units that
cease combusting solid waste remain subject to CISWI for at least 6
months after solid waste is added to the combustion chamber. After 6
months, sources must either comply with any applicable section 112
standards or, if they intend to combust solid waste in the unit in the
future, opt to remain subject to CISWI. Sources switching out of CISWI
due to cessation of solid waste combustion must submit advance
notification of the effective date of the waste-to-non-waste fuel
switch consistent with new procedures in the final rule. Units that
begin combusting solid waste are considered affected sources under
CISWI EG, and must comply as expeditiously as possible as required by
the state or federal CISWI 111(d)/129 plan revision, whichever is
applicable.
The EPA acknowledges that sources may stop and start combusting
solid waste in their combustion units, and that regulatory procedures
are necessary to guide sources through the changes in applicability
that may result due to a switch in combustion materials. The provisions
in the final rule account for the fact that facilities may start and
stop combusting solid waste and ensure that any resulting changes in
applicability
[[Page 80459]]
between section 129 and section 112 rules do not occur with so much
frequency that sources are unable to demonstrate continuing compliance
with the applicable standards. To ensure that frequent switching does
not impede our ability to determine continuous compliance and create
undue permitting and testing burdens, sources remain subject to CISWI
for a minimum of 6 months. The definition of CISWI unit has been
revised to clarify that a CISWI unit includes a distinct operating unit
of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts any solid waste
in a consecutive 6-month period. We believe this change will reduce
administrative and compliance costs to both the source and the
regulatory agencies. For example, sources will not have to re-establish
initial compliance with CISWI or revise their operating permit to
reflect a switch out of and back into the CISWI regulations. Instead,
facilities that combust solid waste would continue to be subject to the
CISWI regulations for the 6-month period after waste is added to the
combustion unit. For example, if a source burns waste on January 1,
they would be subject to CISWI through June 30. If during that 6-month
period they burned waste again, for example on March 1, the 6-month
window would now be until September 30. The regulations also allow
facilities to remain subject to CISWI beyond 6 months after cessation
of solid waste combustion, at their own discretion, if the source
determines that continued compliance with CISWI is appropriate because
the source intends to combust solid waste in the future. Source owners
or operators may, alternatively, choose a date at least 6 months after
ceasing solid waste combustion on which they would no longer be subject
to CISWI, and would instead be subject to any applicable section 112
standards. This date is called the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch.
Specifically, the new provisions direct a source owner or operator
to establish an effective date for the waste-to-non-waste fuel, or non-
waste fuel-to-waste switch, and that date becomes the date on which all
of the newly applicable requirements apply. When a source begins
combusting solid waste, the effective date of the non-waste fuel-to-
waste switch must be the same as the actual date the unit begins
combusting solid waste because by statute any source that combusts any
solid waste is a solid waste incineration unit subject to standards
under CAA section 129. See section 129(g)(1) (defining ``solid waste
incineration unit''). For sources that cease burning solid waste, the
effective date for the waste-to-fuel switch is a date that is at least
6 months after the last date on which solid waste is added to the
combustion unit. This allows sources that cease combusting solid waste
to comply with an applicable NESHAP or opt to remain subject to CISWI
at the discretion of the owner or operator. We allow the owner or
operator of a CISWI unit the option of remaining subject to CISWI to
account for sources that may want to retain the ability to burn waste
intermittently without having to periodically switch between the
section 112 and section 129 regulatory programs. If a source wishes to
end applicability of CISWI to its unit, the source must submit an
advance notification of the effective date, established as described
above, of the waste-to-non-waste fuel switch. The source must be in
compliance on the effective date of the waste-to-non-waste fuel switch
with any NESHAP that applies as a result of ceasing the combustion of
solid waste. The source must remain in continuous compliance with the
CISWI regulations until that date.
The new waste-to-non-waste fuel switch provisions in the final rule
include requirements to conduct performance testing that will assure
compliance with all applicable standards. Specifically, performance
tests must be conducted within 60 days of the date on which the unit
begins combusting solid waste. In addition, the owner or operator must
collect and report any PM CEMS and/or PM parametric monitoring data for
those monitors that are operated at the same time as the performance
test to determine whether the existing calibrations and/or correlations
are still applicable. After the testing is completed, and it is
demonstrated that the source is operating in compliance with the
applicable standards, the owner or operator should adjust any PM CEMS
calibration and any correlation for PM to correspond to the performance
test results and data.
The new provisions also require advance notification of the
effective date of the waste-to-non-waste fuel switch. The notification
includes basic information that will enable the reviewing authority to
determine the date on which CISWI will no longer apply to the facility
and the date on which any newly applicable section 112 regulations may
apply. Notification must be submitted to both the EPA Regional Office
and the delegated state or local agency. To ensure that frequent
switching does not impede our ability to determine continuous
compliance, sources may not switch between applicable section 129 and
section 112 standards without completing the initial performance test.
Therefore, sources that wish to start burning solid waste before they
have demonstrated compliance with their existing section 112 standard
must complete the performance test for the 112 rule before switching to
solid waste combustion. If a source switches back to a non-waste fuel
or non-waste material for which a performance test was conducted within
the 6 months preceding the effective date of the switch, and if there
are no changed conditions that would affect emissions, the source need
not retest that source until 6 months from the effective date of the
switch. If a source is subject to any emission limits for which
compliance is determined on an annual average or other averaging period
that is for a period of time greater than the period in which the
source will be combusting the fuel or non-waste material, the source
must comply with the emission limit averaged over the shorter time
period in which the fuel or material is combusted. For example, if a
source chooses to demonstrate compliance with the Hg limits of the
major source Boiler NESHAP through fuel analysis, which has a 12-month
rolling average limit, and opts to start combusting solid waste and
become subject to CISWI after combusting the fuel under the Boiler
NESHAP for only 9 months, the source must demonstrate compliance with
the Hg limit based on a 9 month rolling average instead of the annual
average. The EPA believes this is necessary to assure that switching to
solid waste combustion does not compromise our ability to determine
compliance with standards under section 112.
The rules do not allow for compliance extensions associated with
changes to the fuels or materials that are combusted. After the first
substantive compliance date (e.g., the effective date of the state
program or 5 years after publication of the final CISWI rule for
incineration units), sources must be in compliance with the standard
that is applicable to the source based on the type of unit and the
fuels or materials that are combusted. An existing source will not be
considered a new source solely due to a combustion material switch.
Assuming new source applicability is not triggered, existing sources
that change fuels or materials are considered existing sources and, as
such, they must be in compliance on the date they begin combusting the
new fuel or material. For all sources that commence combustion of solid
waste,
[[Page 80460]]
the CISWI requirements become applicable on the date that the fuel
switch occurs.
While we believe the final rule reflects reasonable approaches
consistent with the requirements of the CAA, we believe reconsideration
and an additional opportunity for public review and comment are
appropriate. Therefore, we are seeking comment on the fuel switching
provisions included in the final CISWI rule, particularly on whether
the provisions should include further clarification on the timeline and
regulatory requirements of a fuel switch. Additionally, we are
soliciting comment on an alternative time period for switching
frequency (e.g., 12 months).
3. Definitions of Cyclonic Burn Barrels, Burn-off Ovens, Soil Treatment
Units, Laboratory Analysis Units, and Space Heaters from CISWI
Subcategories
The EPA included in the final rule definitions for units that
differentiated such units from the four subcategories for which the
Agency finalized standards on March 21, 2011. The definitions were not
proposed and the EPA is proposing those definitions in this notice to
provide the public an opportunity to comment on them. We discuss each
definition below.
In the proposed CISWI rule, the EPA included cyclonic burn barrels
within the definition for incinerators. Based on the information
received during the comment period, the EPA determined that cyclonic
burn barrels and traditional incinerators should be separate
subcategories. See 40 CFR 60.2265 and 60.2875 (defining ``cyclonic burn
barrel'' to mean a combustion device for waste materials that is
attached to a 55 gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of a lid,
which fits onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces
combustion air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing
of waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an ERU or a small, remote incinerator
under subparts CCCC or DDDD.)
In addition, information we have obtained since proposal indicates
that there may be many more cyclonic burn barrels than those we have
identified, and we have almost no emission data on which to set
emissions standards for cyclonic burn barrels. We also received
information that it is difficult, if not impossible, to test cyclonic
burn barrels for the CAA section 129 pollutants using available test
methods. For these reasons, we concluded in the final rules that
cyclonic burn barrels were not incinerators and that we could not
establish standards for such units at the time we issued the final
rules. We further determined in the final rule that we did not need to
regulate cyclonic burn barrels to comply with our CAA section 112(c)(6)
obligation for the reasons set forth in the preamble to the final rule.
We have not received any new emission data for cyclonic burn barrels;
therefore, we are not proposing to establish standards for such units
in this notice. We solicit comment concerning our decisions in regard
to cyclonic burn barrels and the definition as set forth in the final
rule.
We estimated in the proposed CISWI rule that there were
approximately 36 burn-off ovens and we proposed standards for the
subcategory based on an incomplete emission data set. We received many
comments during the comment period that indicated that there may be
15,000 more units in the burn-off oven subcategory than we had
identified, and the comments also indicated that the subcategory for
which we established one set of standards in fact has many different
types of units that should not be regulated under one standard. Based
on the comments, the lack of data, and our determination that we did
not need to regulate burn-off ovens to comply with our CAA section
112(c)(6) obligation, we did not finalize standards for burn-off ovens.
We revised the definition of burn-off oven in the final rule to
distinguish such units from the units for which we established
standards. We have not received data that would allow us to establish
standards for the various burn-off oven subcategories and, therefore,
we are not proposing standards in this reconsideration notice. We
solicit comment on our decisions concerning to burn-off ovens and on
our definition as set forth in the final rule.
The EPA believed there were two soil treatment units prior to
proposing the CISWI standards and we proposed to include soil treatment
units in the waste-burning kilns subcategory. Commenters indicated that
soil treatment units are not kilns and also that the Agency had
significantly underestimated the number of such units currently in
operation. Based on the comments and our determination that we did not
need such units to comply with our CAA section 112(c)(6) obligation, we
did not finalize standards for soil treatment units. We included a
definition for soil treatment unit in the final rule to distinguish
such units from the units for which we established standards. We have
not received additional data since issuing the final standards that
would allow us to adequately characterize the soil treatment unit
subcategory and we are not proposing standards for such units in this
reconsideration notice. We solicit comment concerning our decisions in
regard to soil treatment units and our definition as set forth in the
final rule.
The EPA received many comments concerning laboratory analysis units
during the comment period on the proposed rule. The EPA concluded based
on those comments that samples used in laboratory analysis units have a
purpose separate from the disposal of material. Furthermore, we believe
based on the information available that the material that is combusted
in such units is likely not a solid waste as that term is defined in
the 2011 NHSM final rule. For these reasons and because we determined
we do not need such units to comply with our CAA 112(c)(6) obligation,
we included in the final rule a definition of laboratory analysis unit
that distinguishes such units from the units for which we established
standards. We have not received any information since issuing the final
rule on the emissions from laboratory analysis units or the nature of
the material combusted in such units that causes us to revise the
conclusions reached in the final rule. We solicit comment concerning
our decisions in regard to laboratory analysis units and our definition
as set forth in the final rule.
The EPA did not consider space heaters in the proposed rule. The
Agency received comments inquiring whether such units were subject to
the proposed standards if they combusted solid waste. Because the EPA
did not consider such units when proposing the CISWI standards and we
did not have emissions data for space heaters, we included in the final
rule a definition of space heaters that was intended to distinguish
such units from the units for which the Agency finalized standards. As
with the other units discussed in this section, the EPA does not have
to regulate space heaters to comply with the CAA 112(c)(6) obligation.
We have not received any emissions information on space heaters since
issuing the final CISWI standards; therefore, we are not proposing to
regulate such units in the reconsideration notice. We have, however,
identified typographical errors included in the definition of space
heater contained in the final CISWI standards and we are proposing a
definition that corrects those typographical errors: ``Space heater
means a usually portable appliance for heating a relatively small area.
A space heater is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy
recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.'' We
solicit comment our
[[Page 80461]]
decisions in regard to space heaters and our revised definition set
forth above.
4. Providing an affirmative defense for malfunction events
The EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly designed
and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can sometimes
cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See, e.g.,
State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983)). The EPA therefore added to the final rule an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are
caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 60.2265 and 60.2875 (defining
``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.). We also added other regulatory provisions
to specify the elements that are necessary to establish this
affirmative defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 60.2120 and
60.2685. See 40 CFR 22.24. The criteria ensure that the affirmative
defense is available only where the event that causes an exceedance of
the emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by
poor maintenance and/or careless operation). For example, to
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by
a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control
and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in
a normal or usual manner. * * *'' The criteria also are designed to
ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize
emissions in accordance with section Sec. 60.11(d) and to prevent
future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded.* * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health * * *'' In any judicial or administrative
proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the
affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA.
See also 40 CFR 22.77.
While we believe the final rule reflects reasonable approaches
consistent with the requirements of the CAA, we believe reconsideration
and additional opportunity for public review and comment should be
obtained. We are therefore seeking comment on the inclusion of the
affirmative defense provisions in the final rule.
5. Revisions to the CO Monitoring Requirements
In the March 21, 2011, notice of reconsideration, the EPA initiated
reconsideration of the requirements to continuously monitor for CO.
Petitioners have identified computational issues for correcting CO
concentration measurements to 7 percent oxygen for periods when the
oxygen content of the flue gas approaches the ambient air oxygen
content. The equation for the 7 percent oxygen correction is X ppm
CO*(20.9-7)/(20.9-%O2 of flue gas stream). As seen by this equation, as
the flue gas stream oxygen content gets closer to 20.9, the value of X
is multiplied by an ever increasing factor. For example, when the stack
gas oxygen content is 4 percent, the factor is 0.82. If the stack gas
oxygen content is 20 percent, the factor increases to 15.4. Therefore,
a flue gas CO concentration reading of 100 ppm would be corrected to 82
ppm for a stack gas at 4 percent oxygen content, but would become a
1,540 ppm corrected concentration for a stack gas at 20 percent oxygen
content. In the extreme, at a 20.8 percent stack gas concentration
(i.e., approximating ambient air oxygen content), the same 100 ppm
measurement would be corrected to 13,700 ppm.
Petitioners have noted that oxygen contents relatively close to
ambient air are often maintained during combustion unit startup and
shutdown in order to safely operate the combustion unit. Therefore, CO
readings during these periods would be multiplied by an
uncharacteristically high correction factor, and the resulting
corrected CO concentrations are artificially inflated due to the 7
percent oxygen correction. Petitioners and commenters argue and
presented data that show these artificially inflated data points drive
the 30-day rolling average values for the unit beyond the emission
limit.
Petitioners have suggested various approaches to remedy this
situation, with one being to simply waive the 7 percent oxygen
correction requirement during unit startup and shutdowns. In other
words, the CEMS data as reported at stack gas concentration would be
included in the rolling average calculations for periods when the
combustion unit is either being started up or shutdown. During all
other operating periods, the CEMS data are corrected to a 7 percent
oxygen concentration prior to calculating the rolling average.
We received data for one unit in one subcategory (coal ERUs) that
indicates startups usually occur over a 4 hour period, and shutdowns
occur over a 1 hour period. Therefore, we are proposing provisions for
calculating the 30-day CO rolling average that allow the uncorrected
CEMS reading to be used during the first 4 hours of operation from a
cold start and the 1 hour of operation following the last waste
material being fed to the combustion unit during shutdown procedures of
the unit. Sources must indicate in the CEMS data records which CEMS
data are obtained during the 4 hour startup and 1 hour shutdown period.
Additionally, in order to be consistent with similar requirements
for non-waste fuel-fired boilers and process heaters, we are proposing
to remove continuous CO monitoring requirements for new and existing
ERU units, instead making CO monitoring with CEMS a compliance
alternative and, for larger units, requiring annual CO stack tests and
continuous oxygen monitoring instead. We have also removed the
continuous CO monitoring requirements for new CISWI units in the other
subcategories, but allow them to demonstrate compliance using CO CEMS
if they so choose. The 7 percent oxygen correction waiver during
startup and shutdowns discussed above would apply to any CISWI sources
that elect to demonstrate compliance with the CO limits with a CO CEMS
instead of performing stack tests. We are requesting comment on these
proposed revisions to the final rule CO monitoring requirements.
6. Establishing a Full-load Stack Test Requirement for CO Coupled with
Continuous Oxygen Monitoring
In the March 21, 2011, notice of reconsideration, the EPA initiated
reconsideration on the requirement of coupling a full-load stack test
for CO coupled with continuous oxygen monitoring to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the CO emission limits. While this
requirement pertains
[[Page 80462]]
primarily to requirements contained within the major source boiler
NESHAP, there are similar requirements in the final CISWI rule for
existing units. Specifically, existing ERUs with a design heat input
capacity over 100 MMBtu/hr must demonstrate continuous compliance with
the CO emission limits with an annual CO stack test and monitoring the
oxygen content of the flue gas using a continuous oxygen monitoring
system.
As discussed earlier, we have removed the CO CEMS requirements for
existing units, instead allowing the option for sources to use CO CEMS
to demonstrate compliance with the standards. We are also requesting
comment on whether allowing the option to use CO CEMS instead of oxygen
monitoring is of potential use to affected sources and implementing
agencies, and also whether the oxygen monitoring requirements coupled
with an annual CO stack provides an appropriate parameter to ensure
optimized combustion short of direct CO measurements.
Petitioners have also commented that the final rule continuous
oxygen monitoring requirements would preclude the use of existing
oxygen monitoring systems that may already be installed on these units
to help manage combustor operation. Petitioners have claimed that, by
requiring the system meet Performance Specification 3 requirements, it
is unlikely that existing oxygen monitors are located in a position
that would enable their use for compliance demonstration. As a result,
sources would need to install and operate an additional oxygen
monitoring system. Petitioners contend that this additional system
would be an added expense and would be located too far downstream of
the combustion chamber to provide accurate data regarding combustion
characteristics so would be of no use to combustor operation.
We are therefore proposing revisions to the continuous oxygen
monitoring provisions in today's action that would afford the ability
for existing sources to use their current oxygen analyzer and oxygen
trim systems to demonstrate continuous compliance. We are requesting
comment on the practicality of the proposed provisions, and whether
alternative monitoring approaches are available that would ensure that
the oxygen monitoring system is sited and operated to give accurate
readings while minimizing the need for potentially duplicative
monitoring systems.
7. Establishing a Definition of ``Homogeneous Waste''
The EPA included in the final CISWI rule a definition of homogenous
waste and a process for evaluating claims that a particular waste
stream is homogenous.
Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in formulation, have
known fuel properties, have a defined origin, have predictable chemical
and physical attributes, and result in consistent combustion
characteristics and have a consistent emissions profile. Qualifying
small power production and cogeneration facilities requesting an
exemption from CISWI on the basis that they burn homogeneous waste may
be asked to demonstrate, using defined test methods acceptable to the
EPA, that the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste are
consistent throughout such that the emission profile of any sample of
waste combusted is similar or identical to any other sample. Mixtures
of different types of wastes are generally not homogeneous, unless the
mixtures are from materials that are each individually determined to be
homogeneous, are from known origin, are mixed in constant proportion,
and are conditioned or processed, such as could occur in the
gasification of the wastes. MSW can never be homogeneous because it
does not have a defined origin. Likewise, refuse derived fuel cannot be
homogeneous because it is derived from MSW. Refuse derived fuel is also
specifically excluded from the qualifying small power production and
cogeneration facilities exemption at CAA section 129(g)(1).
In the final rule, the EPA stated that a determination concerning
whether a waste is homogeneous is made on a case-by-case basis. The EPA
added provisions to the CISWI final rule that require source owners or
operators seeking the exemption to submit a request for a homogeneous
waste fuel determination to the EPA, and that they support their
request with information describing the materials to be combusted and
why they believe the waste is homogeneous. The final rule also
indicated that the determination of what constitutes a homogeneous
waste is not delegable to the state or local agencies.
We are proposing the definition of homogeneous waste and the
provisions for making homogenous waste determinations to provide the
public an opportunity to comment on the provision.
8. Incorporating Fuel Variability Into Emission Limit Calculations
The proposed and final CISWI rule emission limits were calculated
based primarily on emissions test data. Commenters urged the EPA to
incorporate fuel variability into the emission limit calculations as
was done in the boiler NESHAP. Petitioners have since claimed that the
EPA did not adequately address comments regarding this issue. In
today's proposal, we are providing further clarification on our
response to this issue.
In the preamble to the final CISWI rule, we explained the
methodology used to establish the final emission limits, which relied
almost exclusively on direct measurements. Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration units by definition are burning wastes,
usually in combination with various non-waste fuels, and often with a
variety of different waste streams. As a result, fuel variability data
would only account for a variability found in a fraction of the
materials being input into the unit. We have, in fact, considered total
material feed variability in establishing limits for Hg for waste-
burning kilns (76 FR 15727). To enable this analysis, we had to rely on
data available from sources that provided materials analysis for all
materials being fed into Portland cement kilns over a 30-day span. We
did not, and do not still, have such data available for other
pollutants and other types of CISWI units. Therefore, we are not
proposing the use of fuel variability in our emission limit
methodology, except as noted above. We are requesting comments and
supporting data that would allow us to consider an approach similar to
the waste-burning kiln Hg limits for other pollutants and
subcategories.
9. Review of D/F Data and Non-Detect Methodology Using Three Times the
Detection Level
Several petitioners have argued that the D/F emission limits are
based primarily on emissions data that are below detection levels and
have suggested that these data not be included in emissions
calculations, or at a minimum, establish a minimum emission limit value
that is quantifiable by most laboratories available to analyze this
data. We proposed and, in the final rule, used a methodology that sets
the emission limit at a level that is at least three times the
detection limit of the emission tests of the best performing units used
in the MACT floor emission limit calculations. We have, however,
reviewed the D/F data in more detail to
[[Page 80463]]
ensure that all data are correctly identified as either non-detection
or detection level limited, where some of the fractions may be non-
detection, but not all of them. While our findings found the most data
were accurately identified, there were a few average values that were
reclassified as ``detection level limited.'' However, these
corresponding run data were correctly identified and were included in
the three times the detection limit methodology. Therefore, no D/F
emission limits were impacted due to this review.
In addition, the EPA conducted a review of sampling volumes and
detection levels across various emission testing ICR efforts on various
combustion sources (See memorandum ``Updated data and procedure for
handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant
emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits'' in the CISWI
docket). As a result of this analysis, we have determined recommended
values for three times the RDL (3xRDL) that may be used as a minimum
emission limit value that can be accurately measured by most
laboratories. These recommended values were then compared with
calculated emission limits and, if the calculated limit is less than
the recommended 3xRDL, the 3xRDL value is selected as the limit. This
premise for this approach is the same as described in the final rule,
but using a broader data set to establish the 3xRDL value. We have not
changed the methodology of the emission limit calculation or tabulation
of the three times the detection limit value that was used in the final
CISWI rule. Therefore, we are not accepting comment on the emission
limit calculation methodology.
One petitioner has suggested that D/F emission limits should not be
less than 0.3 ng/dscm. We are requesting comment and data on whether
0.3 ng/dscm or the recommended 3xRDL values for each test method are
sufficient to reflect quantifiable concentration levels, or whether
other values should be selected as a lower quantification boundary for
emission limits for CISWI sources.
10. Providing an Option for Sources To Use Emissions Averaging To
Demonstrate Compliance
Several petitioners contend that the EPA did not adequately address
comments on the issue of allowing sources with multiple CISWI units at
a facility to use emissions averaging to demonstrate compliance,
similar to the provisions provided in the major source boiler NESHAP.
The boiler MACT allows emissions averaging across subcategories within
an affected facility. The applicability of CISWI is such that each unit
is an affected facility, if it otherwise meets the applicability of the
rule. We cannot allow emissions averaging across affected facilities
because we establish MACT on an affected facility basis and it would be
impossible to justify MACT when averaged across affected facilities.
11. Definitions
a. Establishing a Definition of Foundry Sand Thermal Reclamation Unit
Following publication of the final rule and the NHSM rule, we were
made aware of a certain class of unit that had not previously been
considered a CISWI unit, but could potentially be considered a type of
CISWI once the NHSM rule came into effect. These units are called TSR
units, and are a component of a foundry's ``sand loop.'' We have
concluded that these units are parts reclamation units as defined in
the 2000 CISWI rule. We defined parts reclamation units as ``unit[s]
that burn coatings off parts (e.g., tools, equipment) so that the parts
can be reconditioned and reused.'' In the 2011 CISWI rule, parts
reclamation units are a subcategory of burn-off ovens. Thermal
reclamation units that recover foundry sands serve the same purpose as
other parts reclamation units that recover metal parts. Specifically,
foundry sand units recover parts (i.e., sand) by removing coatings
(e.g., binders and resins) from the foundry molds. Thus, TSR units are
part reclamation units that remove coatings that are on foundry sand,
which allows re-use of the sand. As with other burn-off ovens, TSR
parts reclamation units conserve natural resources (i.e., virgin sand)
and minimize the use of landfill capacity for foundry sand.
As with other burn-off ovens, we do not currently have emissions
data for TSR units and regulation of such units is not required to
comply with the Agency's CAA 112(c)(6) obligation. For these reasons,
we are not proposing standards for TSR units are this time.
We are soliciting comment on the proposed definition of TSR units.
b. Removing the Definition of Contained Gaseous Material
The EPA did not propose to remove the definition of contained
gaseous material in the proposed CISWI standards. In the final CISWI
rule preamble (76 FR 15708), we removed definitions that define or
clarify what constitutes a solid waste from the standards to minimize
confusion in light of the definition of solid waste in the final NHSM
rule. The definition of ``contained gaseous material'' was one of the
definitions that was removed from the 2000 CISWI standards.
Several petitioners asked for confirmation that the Agency had not
changed its historical interpretation of what gases could be considered
to be solid waste (i.e., a ``contained gas''). These petitioners also
requested that the EPA reconsider the removal of the definition of
``contained gaseous material'' in the CISWI rule, since the same
definition appears in subparts EEEE and FFFF of part 60 (Sec. 60.2977
and Sec. 60.3078) and subpart III of part 62 (Sec. 62.14840). The
Agency did not intend to create ambiguity by removing the definition of
``contained gaseous material'' from the CISWI rule. Accordingly, the
proposed CISWI reconsideration rule includes the same definition of
``contained gaseous material'' that was removed from the final CISWI
rule. This definition is consistent with the definition in the subparts
cited above. Moreover, our proposal to add the definition of
``contained gaseous material'' to the proposed CISWI reconsideration
rule is consistent with the position in other sections of this preamble
that address the NHSM rule where we make clear that the Agency is not
changing any of its previous positions with regard to contained gas.
The EPA is soliciting comment on the need to retain the definition of
contained gaseous material.
c. Revising Definition of Chemical Recovery Unit
Following publication of the final rule and the NHSM rule, we
received additional information about a handful of combustion units
that had previously not been regulated as CISWI sources, but could
potentially be considered a type of CISWI unit once the 2011 NHSM final
rule came into effect. However, these units do not adequately fit into
any of the four subcategories of units in the final CISWI standards.
The units that have been identified are SARUs that may be burning
sulfur-bearing compounds which are classified as non-hazardous waste at
facilities that are non-RCRA part B permitted SARUs. Stakeholders have
identified four such facilities, and have contended that response to
comments and preamble language in both the 2011 NHSM final rule and the
final CISWI rule are confusing and inadequately address their
particular questions on applicability of CISWI to these units. The
stakeholders ask specifically which subcategory should apply to these
units,
[[Page 80464]]
noting that none of the four subcategory definitions expressly includes
SARUs in their definitions. Furthermore, stakeholders note that the EPA
has included a definition of chemical recovery unit in the final rule
that more properly addresses SARUs as well as other types of chemical
recovery unit.
To address this issue and clarify applicability for chemical
recovery units more generally, we are revising the definition of
chemical recovery unit to clarify that chemical recovery units are not
incinerators, waste-burning kilns, ERUs or small, remote incinerators
under subparts CCCC or DDDD.
12. Allowances for Using Feed Stream Analysis or Other Supplemental
Information To Demonstrate Compliance
The final rule specifies emissions testing, continuous emissions
monitoring, and control device parameter monitoring to ensure
continuing compliance with the emission standards. Some petitioners
have requested responses to comments on providing provisions that would
allow use of feed stream analysis and other supplemental information
instead of the monitoring requirements specified. As an example,
petitioners have asked if a source could use a material analysis to
show that only minimal amounts of a pollutant compound enter the
combustion unit. That data, along with data on the flue gas flow rate
information could be used by sources to calculate a maximum possible
pollutant concentration. The petitioners further argue that the source
could then demonstrate that the maximum potential concentration is less
than the applicable emission limit, and the source would not have to
perform an emissions test for that pollutant.
We have not proposed any such provisions in today's rule, and
believe that direct measurement of emissions is the most comprehensive
and accurate method to ascertain compliance with the final standards.
Furthermore, CAA section 129(c) states that the EPA ``shall * * *
promulgate regulations requiring the owner or operator of each solid
waste incineration unit--(1) To monitor emissions from the unit at the
point at which such emissions are emitted into the ambient air * * *
and at such other points as necessary to protect public health and the
environment.'' The EPA is thus constrained by the statute in our
ability to implement the commenter's proposed monitoring approach.
13. Providing Percent Reduction Alternative Standards
The final rule contains numeric emission limits for all nine
pollutants listed in CAA section 129(a)(4) (requiring numerical
emissions limits for the 9 identified pollutants). The proposed and
final rules describe at length the methodology used to establish these
emission limits. However, petitioners and commenters suggested that the
EPA should also establish alternative percent reduction standards to
the numeric emission limits. Petitioners allege that we did not
adequately address this comment in the preamble to our final rule or
supporting documents. Therefore, we are providing our response to this
issue in today's proposal.
The CISWI database does not include percent removal data except in
very limited instances. These data were seldom provided voluntarily,
and were not required by the EPA during the emission test ICR. This is
due to the increased cost of performing pre- and post-emission control
device emissions tests to determine the removal efficiency of the
control device. Source operators will typically not choose to perform
extra testing at additional cost voluntarily, and the EPA went to great
lengths to minimize burden on sources during the testing ICR. As a
result, we do not have percent reduction data for the best performing
CISWI sources, and cannot develop a percent reduction alternative
standard that reflects the best sources' performance.
Additionally, there are arguments that percent reduction standards
are not legally permissible (See 74 FR 21149). As discussed in the
Portland cement NESHAP proposal preamble, the Brick MACT opinion states
``that best performers are those emitting the least HAP.'' It further
discusses how a percent reduction standard downplays the role of
pollutant inputs on emissions, thereby allowing more pollutants to be
emitted provided a given level of removal efficiency.
Finally, we do not specify the control devices necessary to meet
the numeric limits as in some other rules. Sources may evaluate their
source emissions and determine the appropriate control strategy or
devices needed to comply with the emission limits. Percent reduction
standards are more appropriately applied when there is a specified
control device that potential emission streams must be routed through,
such as a flare. In these cases, a percent reduction alternative
provides a design and performance metric for the required type of
control device. This is not the case with CISWI since the rule does not
specify a control device for all sources.
Due to the reasons discussed above, we have not proposed any
percent reduction alternative standards.
14. Providing Parametric Monitoring Provisions for Additional Control
Device Types
The final rules added monitoring parameters for sources that use
wet scrubbers, ESPs, activated carbon sorbent injection, or SCR.
However, one petitioner has claimed that we did not adequately address
comments on this issue in the final rule preamble or supporting
documents. Therefore, we are responding that we have included such
provisions that commenters requested. The control devices with
monitoring provisions expressly identified in the rules should
encompass most types of control devices that we would anticipate the
various types of CISWI units to use to meet the emission limits. In the
case that there is another type of control that is not addressed, we
have provided provisions for sources to petition for specific operating
limits for the control device to be established during a performance
test. These provisions also allow specific operating limits to be
established for CISWI units without any air pollution control devices,
such as material balance operating limits to demonstrate continuous
compliance. However, we recognize that dry sorbent injection for acid
gas control may be one additional type of control that affected sources
may use, and are requesting comment on whether we should specify
monitoring provisions for this type of control and recommendations on
which parameters should be specified. Lastly, we also request comment
on whether there are any additional types of control devices that we
should identify monitoring parameters for in the rule.
15. Revisions to the Continuous Monitoring Provisions for Large ERUs
In today's rule, we are proposing some revisions to the monitoring
requirements for ERUs with a design heat input capacity greater than
250 MMBtu/hr. In the final rules, these units were required to monitor
continuously for PM using a PM CEMS; however, recent EPA experience
with the utility boiler source category has led the EPA to allow PM
CEMS as an alternative, rather than a requirement. The PM CEMS
technology may not be sufficient to certify accurate monitor
performance in the PM concentration range of the CISWI ERU limits.
Therefore, we are requiring continuous parameter
[[Page 80465]]
monitoring systems for these units similar to those being required for
major industrial boilers and utility boilers. Likewise, to be
consistent with these other rules, we have revised all operating
parameter averaging for ERU units to be on a 30-day rolling average.
Due to the relatively long operational campaigns of ERUs, the longer
averaging time will allow operators sufficient flexibility for
operational and control device adjustments should they be needed for
short term fuel or waste characteristics variability. The EPA has
determined the 30-day rolling average reporting basis is appropriate
for this rule. The operating limits established through performance
testing in this rule represent short term process and control operating
conditions representative of compliance. Concerns of variability
outside the operators control such as fuel content, seasonal factors,
load cycling, and infrequent hours of needed operation prompted us to
look at longer averaging periods on which to base operating compliance
determination. We are aware from studies of emissions over long
averaging periods (See memorandums ``Changing Averaging Time as an
Incentive'' and ``Assessment of Using Single Point Stack Test Data to
Derive 30-Day Rolling Average Emissions Limits'' in the CISWI docket)
that long term (e.g., 30-day) average emissions for a operating in
compliance will have a variability of about half of that represented by
the results of short term testing. Given that short term tests are
representative of distinct points along a continuum of that inherent
operational variability, we believe it appropriate to provide a means
for the source operator to account for that variability by applying a
long term average for establishing compliance. We expect more
problematic control system variability (e.g., ESP transformer failure
or scrubber Venturi fan failure) to result in deviations from a 30-day
average relative to compliance almost as much as for a shorter term
average.
16. Extending Compliance Dates
On May 18, 2011, the EPA issued a stay of the effective date of the
final rule. The EPA plans to reset the compliance dates of the rule
when the final reconsideration is published. The EPA is proposing to
set the compliance date for existing sources in the incinerator, ERU,
and waste-burning kiln subcategories 5 years after the date of
publication of the final reconsideration rule or 3 years after the
state plan is approved, whichever happens earlier. This date is being
proposed in order to provide facilities sufficient time to install
controls or to make other compliance-related decisions. For new sources
in the incinerator, ERU, and waste-burning kiln subcategories, the EPA
is proposing to change the compliance date to 6 months after the date
of publication of the final reconsideration rule. Since there were no
major changes to the emission standards from final rule for the small
remote incinerator subcategory, the EPA is soliciting comment on the
need to extend the compliance date for this subcategory. Particularly,
the EPA is requesting additional data that supports the need to revise
the emission standards for the small remote incinerator subcategory.
The EPA determined that it is appropriate to extend the compliance
dates for the incinerator, ERU, and waste-burning kiln subcategories
for several reasons. First, proposed changes to the emission limits for
these subcategories will have a significant impact on the compliance
strategies that are selected by the affected sources. For instance, the
proposed changes in emission limits for existing ERU, and waste-burning
kiln subcategories may require different control strategies selections
than the emission limits finalized in March 2011. Second, when the EPA
announced the reconsideration and issued the stay of the effective
date, a signal was sent to industry and to the states responsible for
implementing the EG that requirements may change significantly. The
resulting uncertainty has limited the ability of affected sources to
begin making appropriate selections of control technologies and other
compliance decisions. Even if significant changes were not being
proposed, an extended compliance date would likely be necessary to
provide enough time for facilities to achieve compliance. Additionally,
not extending the compliance date may be problematic for states and
implementing agencies since the increments of progress for rule
compliance are keyed off of the approval date of the revised state
plan. Without a final rule in place, states and implementing agencies
will be unable to adequately update and implement a state plan. For all
of the reasons discussed above, the EPA has determined that it is
necessary to extend the compliance date for existing sources in the ERU
and waste-burning kiln subcategories based on the date that the
reconsideration of the final rule is completed. Finally, the EPA has
received comments that the availability of control equipment and
vendors to install control equipment for CISWI units is in question due
to the large number of units requiring controls in conjunction with the
parallel rulemaking for industrial boilers and electric generating
units that will require controls from many of the same vendors. While
the EPA believes that the maximum time allotted under section 129
provides enough time for CISWI units to achieve compliance, the EPA
recognizes that maintaining the compliance dates from the final rule
would essentially provide less than 2 years for states to implement a
revised state plan and for increments of progress to be scheduled.
Because the stringency of the final standards will not be determined
until the reconsideration is final, sources will not be able to begin
planning a compliance strategy and states will be uncertain on an
appropriate schedule for increments of progress, which includes
submittal of a final control plan. The EPA is requesting comment on the
proposed changes to the compliance dates.
D. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
In today's rule, we are also proposing some changes to the final
rule to correct minor typographical errors and clarify portions. This
section of the preamble summarizes these corrections and
clarifications.
1. Providing a Definition of Municipal Solid Waste
We are including the definition of ``municipal solid waste'' in the
CISWI rule definitions. This definition is the same definition used in
the CAA section 129 standards for MWC units. We believe that including
this definition will further clarify applicability for MWC owners who
question whether CISWI or MWC rules are applicable to their solid waste
combustion unit.
2. Energy Recovery Units Designed to Burn Non-Coal Solid Materials
We are amending the definition of ``Energy recovery unit designed
to burn biomass (Biomass)'' to clarify that this definition applies to
all ERUs designed to burn non-coal solid materials. While we believe
biomass to be the majority of such materials, we wanted to more broadly
define this source category to clarify applicability for ERUs that are
burning less than 10 percent coal on a heat input basis. We are also
amending recordkeeping requirements for ERU units to require records of
fuel inputs to ensure that the units are meeting the applicability for
coal or non-coal ERUs.
3. Typographical Errors and Corrections
The following items are typographical errors in the final rule that
we are correcting in today's proposal:
[[Page 80466]]
Final rule Sec. 60.2165, a new paragraph break is needed
for (n)(4);
Final rule Sec. 60.2265, a new paragraph break is needed
for the definition of ``Solid waste incineration unit;''
Amendatory instruction 50, paragraph (b) was not
added but was amended; and
Footnote ``a'' for Table 9 to Subpart DDDD does not have
the sentence allowing facilities to meet either the Total or TEQ for
the D/F standard. It is included in all other tables (for new and
existing sources).
E. Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
1. What are the primary air impacts?
We have estimated the potential emissions reductions from existing
sources that may be achieved through implementation of the emission
limits. However, we realize that some CISWI owners and operators are
likely to determine that alternatives to waste incineration are viable,
such as further waste segregation or sending the waste to a landfill or
MWC, if available. In fact, sources operating incinerators, where
energy recovery is not a goal, may find it cost-effective to
discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether. Therefore, we have
estimated emissions reductions attributable to existing sources
complying with the limits, as well as those reductions that would occur
if the facilities with incinerators and small, remote incinerators
decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and use alternative
waste disposal options.
For units combusting wastes for energy production, such as ERUs and
waste-burning kilns, the decision to combust or not to combust waste
will depend on several factors. One factor is the cost to replace the
energy provided by the waste material with a traditional fuel, such as
natural gas. Another factor would be whether the owner or operator is
purchasing the waste or obtaining it at no cost from other generators,
or if they are generating the waste on-site and will have to dispose of
the materials in another fashion, such as landfills. Lastly, these
units would have to compare the control requirements needed to meet the
CISWI emission limits with those needed if they stop burning solid
waste and are then subject to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned before, we
have attempted to align the monitoring requirements for similar non-
waste-burning sources as closely as possible in an effort to make them
consistent and to help sources make the cross-walk between waste and
non-waste regulatory requirements as simple as possible.
The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this proposed
rule using the definition of solid waste under RCRA and the proposed
CISWI emission limits are presented in Table 4 of this preamble.
Table 4--Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and Alternative
Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
achieved
assuming
Reductions incinerators
achieved and small,
Pollutant through remote
meeting incinerators
MACT (ton/ use
yr) alternative
disposal
(ton/yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.......................................... 578.0 590.1
CO........................................... 22,104 22,069
Pb........................................... 3.09 3.09
Cd........................................... 1.620 1.622
Hg........................................... 0.143 0.147
PM (filterable).............................. 1,439 1,442
Dioxin, furans............................... 0.000101 0.000104
NOX.......................................... 5,299 5,405
SO2.......................................... 4,983 5,033
--------------------------
Total.................................... 34,406 34,544
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary
impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted ERU fuel.
The EPA expects that many existing CISWI owners and operators may
find that alternate disposal options are preferable to complying with
the standards for the incinerator and small, remote incinerator
subcategories. Our experience with regulations for MWC, HMIWI and, in
fact, CISWI, has shown that negative growth in the source category
historically occurs upon implementation of CAA section 129 standards.
Since CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and have been in effect for
existing sources since 2005, many existing units have closed. At
promulgation in 2000, the EPA estimated 122 units in the CISWI
population. In comparison, the incinerator subcategory in this rule,
which contains any such units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, has 28
units. The EPA is not aware of any construction of new units since
2000, so we do not believe there are any units that are currently
subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. The revised CISWI rule is more
stringent, so we expect this trend to continue. However, the EPA does
recognize that some facilities may opt to replace aging incinerator
units with new units where it is cost-effective or alternative disposal
options are not feasible, as may be the case with some incinerators, or
in very remote locations. We estimate that there could be one new
incineration unit within the next 5 years following this proposal, and
possibly five new small remote incinerators within that time. In these
cases, we have developed model CISWI unit emissions reduction estimates
for these subcategories using the current existing unit baseline, based
on average emission concentration values and sizes from our current
inventory and the new source proposed emission limits. Table 5 of this
preamble presents the model plant emissions reductions that would be
expected for new sources.
Table 5--Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reduction for
CISWI subcategory model
units (tpy unless
otherwise noted)
Pollutant -------------------------
Small,
Incinerator remote
incinerator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl........................................... 3.67 0.0
CO............................................ 1.23 0.25
Pb............................................ 0.83 0.0037
Cd............................................ 0.022 0.0007
Hg............................................ 0.004 0.000012
PM (filterable)............................... 148 0.5
D/F (total mass) \a\.......................... 0.0018 0.0
NOX........................................... 16.3 0.15
SO2........................................... 7.6 0.15
-------------------------
Total..................................... 178 1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ D/F estimates are given in lb/yr.
We do not anticipate that any new energy recovery or waste-burning
kiln units will be constructed and will instead use alternative waste
disposal methods or alternative fuels that will not subject them to the
CISWI rule. For example, whole tires obtained from approved tire
management programs and tire-derived fuel from which the metal has been
removed is not considered solid waste under the definition of solid
waste. Consequently, new cement kiln owners will assess their
regulatory requirements under CISWI for burning whole tires or tire-
derived fuel that does not have metals removed against the costs
associated with removing the metal or obtaining tires from an approved
source and complying with the applicable NESHAP instead of the CISWI
rule. Our research suggests that metal removal is routinely practiced
and that several state waste tire management programs are already in
place, and would most likely be a
[[Page 80467]]
viable option for new kiln owners so that they would not be subject to
the CISWI regulations. Indeed, we expect that all existing cement kilns
that are classified as being waste-burning solely due to whole tires
will, by the compliance date for the CISWI standards, find a way to
obtain their tires through an approved tire management plan. Likewise,
new sources could engineer their process to minimize waste generation
in the first place, or to separate wastes so that the materials sent to
a combustion unit would not meet the definition of solid waste to begin
with. For waste that is generated, our cost analyses have found that
alternative waste disposal is generally available and less expensive.
2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative
(i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. We
anticipate affected sources will need to apply additional controls to
meet the emission limits. These controls may use water, such as wet
scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual
requirement of 90 billion gallons per year of additional water would be
required as a result of operating additional controls or increased
sorbent use.
Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls
already in place will increase the amount of particulate collected that
will require disposal. Furthermore, ACI may be used by some sources,
which will result in additional solid waste needing disposal. The
annual amounts of solid waste that would require disposal are
anticipated to be approximately 22,549 tpy from PM capture and 9,820
tpy from ACI.
Perhaps the largest impact on solid waste would come from owners
and operators who decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and
instead send waste to the landfill or MWC for disposal. Based on
tipping fees and availability, we would expect most, if not all, of
this diverted waste to be sent to a local landfill. As we discuss
above, it may be that a good portion of the incinerators would
determine that alternative disposal is a better choice than compliance
with the standards. We estimate that approximately 110,417 tpy of waste
would be diverted to a landfill.
For new CISWI units, we estimate an annual requirement of 9,102
million gallons per year of additional water would be required as a
result of operating additional controls. The annual amounts of solid
waste that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately
7,275 tpy from PM capture and 8,173 tpy from ACI.
3. What are the energy impacts?
The energy impacts associated with meeting the emission limits
would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or
improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased scrubber
pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity consumption
and sorbent injection controls would likewise require electricity to
power pumps and motors. In our analysis, we have selected the lowest
cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each
facility. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 242,283 MW-
hours per year would be required for the additional and improved
control devices.
As discussed earlier, there could be instances where owners and
operators of ERUs and waste-burning kilns decide to cease burning waste
materials. In these cases, the energy provided by the burning of waste
would need to be replaced with a traditional fuel, such as natural gas.
Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of the energy input to ERUs and
kilns are from waste materials, an estimate of the energy that would be
replaced with a traditional fuel if all existing units stopped burning
waste materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr.
For new CISWI units, we anticipate that 511 MW-hours per year would
be required for additional and improved control devices. Since we do
not anticipate any new energy recovery or waste-burning kiln units to
be constructed, there would be no additional estimate for energy that
would be replaced with a traditional fuel.
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
For CISWI units adding controls to meet the emission limits, we
anticipate minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel needed
to generate additional electricity and to operate RTO controls would
yield slight increases in emissions, including NOX, CO, PM
and SO2 and an increase in CO2 emissions. Since
NOX and SO2 are covered by capped emissions
trading programs, and methodological limitations prevent us from
quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an increase in
secondary air impacts for this rule from additional electricity demand.
We believe it likely that the incinerators may elect to discontinue
the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to the landfill or other
disposal means. As we discussed in the solid waste impacts above, this
could result in approximately 110,417 tpy of waste going to landfills.
By using the EPA's Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we estimate that,
over the 20-year expected life of a CISWI unit, the resulting methane
generated by a landfill receiving the waste would be about 96,300 tons.
If this landfill gas were combusted in a flare, assuming typical flare
emission factors and landfill gas chlorine, Hg, and sulfur
concentrations, the following emissions would be expected: 20 tons of
PM; 8 tons of HCl; 16 tons of SO2; 890 tons of CO; 46 tons
of NOX; and 1.4 lbs of Hg.
Similar to existing units, we anticipate minor secondary air
impacts for new CISWI units adding controls as discussed above.
5. What are the cost and economic impacts?
We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls and monitoring equipment, and to implement the
inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with
the proposed CISWI standards. We have also analyzed the costs of
alternative disposal for the subcategories that may have alternative
options to burning waste, specifically for the incinerators and the
small, remote incinerators that may have an alternative to
incineration. In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost
alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each
facility. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total
capital investment of $859 million with an associated total annual cost
of $270 million ($2008).
Under the rule, the EPA's economic model suggests the average
national market-level variables (prices, production-levels,
consumption, international trade) will not change significantly (e.g.,
are less than 0.02 percent).
The EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small
entities by comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., sales
and revenue tests). The EPA's analysis found the tests were below 3
percent for five of the nine small entities included in the screening
analysis.
In addition to estimating this rule's social costs and benefits,
the EPA has estimated the employment impacts of the final rule. We
expect that the rule's direct impact on employment will be small. We
have not quantified the rule's indirect or induced impacts. For further
explanation and discussion of our analysis, see Chapter 4 of the RIA.
For new CISWI units, we have estimated compliance costs for units
[[Page 80468]]
coming online in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on the
assumption that one new incinerator will come online over 5 years and
one new small, remote incinerator will come online each year over the
next 5 years. Additionally, it was assumed that each model unit will
add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with NSPS limits.
Based on our analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $8.4 million over 5 years with an associated total annual
cost (for 2015) of $2.6 million.
6. What are the benefits?
We estimate the monetized benefits of this regulatory action to be
$330 million to $800 million (2008$), 3 percent discount rate) in the
implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the regulatory
action at a 7 percent discount rate are $300 million to $720 million
(2008$). These estimates reflect energy disbenefits valued at $3.8
million. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.\1\ A summary of the monetized benefits
estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 6 of
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268--2274.
Table 6--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015
[Millions of 2008$] \a, b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Emission Total Monetized Benefits Total Monetized Benefits
Pollutant Reductions (3% Discount Rate) (7% Discount Rate)
(tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5................................... 670 $150 to $370.............. $140 to $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 Precursors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2..................................... 5,033 $150 to $360.............. $130 to $330.
NOX..................................... 5,405 $26 to $64................ $24 to $58.
Total............................... .............. $330 to $800.............. $300 to $720.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers
may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-
ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These estimates do not include the energy disbenefits
valued at $3.8 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits were calculated using
the social cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA.
\b\ The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes to the March 2011
final CISWI rule, we were unable to incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into the
RIA, which would decrease the costs by approximately 22 percent and increase the monetized benefits by
approximately 4 percent from those shown here.
These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 2015 from
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these
standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the monetized
value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with
reducing a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. To estimate human health benefits derived from reducing
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we used the
general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell
(2009).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos
Health (2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another
model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that
change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were
divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of
their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would
support the development of differential effects estimates by particle
type. Directly emitted PM2.5, SO2 and
NOX are the primary precursors affected by this rule. Even
though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. For example, SO2 has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not directly
transform into PM2.5, and because sulfate particles formed
from SO2 emissions can transport many miles, including over
areas with low populations. Direct PM2.5 emissions convert
directly into ambient PM2.5, thus, to the extent that
emissions occur in population areas, exposures to direct
PM2.5 will tend to be higher, and monetized health benefits
will be higher than for SO2 emissions.
For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. Experts have advised the EPA to consider a variety
of assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this rule,
we cite two key empirical studies, the American Cancer Society cohort
study \3\ and the extended Six Cities cohort study.\4\ In the RIA for
this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pope, et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association. 287:1132-
1141.
\4\ Laden, et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and
[[Page 80469]]
evolving. After reviewing the scientific literature and recent
scientific advice, we have determined that the no-threshold model is
the most appropriate model for assessing the mortality benefits
associated with reducing PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with
this recent advice, we are replacing the previous threshold sensitivity
analysis with a new ``LML'' assessment. While a LML assessment provides
some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM
mortality benefits, the EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and
continues to quantify PM-related mortality impacts using a full range
of modeled air quality concentrations.
Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule would accrue
to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed at
or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006)
study, 40 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10
[mu]g/m\3\. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence
in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major
cohort studies. This fact is important, because as we estimate PM-
related mortality among populations exposed to levels of
PM2.5 that are successively lower, our confidence in the
results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that the great majority
of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits
model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for
this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis \5\
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office of Air
and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects,
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing HAP have not been
monetized in this analysis, including reducing 25,000 tons of CO, 470
tons of HCl, 4.1 tons of Pb, 0.95 tons of Cd, 260 pounds of Hg and 92
grams of total D/F each year. Although we do not have sufficient
information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for
this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health
effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, which is
available in the docket.
In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 12
of this preamble do not reflect the disbenefits associated with
increased electricity and fuel consumption to operate the control
devices. We estimate that the increases in emissions of CO2
would have disbenefits valued at $3.8M at a 3 percent discount rate.
Carbon Dioxide-related disbenefits were calculated using the social
cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA. However, these
disbenefits do not change the rounded total monetized benefits. In the
RIA, we also provide the monetized CO2 disbenefits using
discount rates of 5 percent (average), 2.5 percent (average), and 3
percent (95th percentile).
II. NHSM Proposed Revisions
A. Statutory Authority
The EPA is proposing amendments to the NHSM regulations under the
authority of sections 2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the RCRA, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1) and 6903(27). Section 129(a)(1)(D) of the CAA
directs the EPA to establish standards for CISWI, which burn solid
waste. Section 129(g)(6) provides that the term ``solid waste'' is to
be established by the EPA under RCRA (42 U.S.C. 7429). Section
2002(a)(1) of RCRA authorizes the Agency to promulgate regulations as
are necessary to carry out its functions under the Act. The statutory
definition of ``solid waste'' is provided in RCRA section 1004(27).
B. What is the intent of this proposal?
Today's proposal would clarify several provisions in 40 CFR part
241, which provides the standards and procedures for identifying
whether NHSM are solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units. The part 241 regulations were promulgated on March
21, 2011, in the ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
That Are Solid Waste'' final rule (the 2011 NHSM final rule).\6\ On the
same day, the EPA promulgated final emissions standards for both area
and major source boilers and process heaters under section 112 of the
CAA and for CISWI under section 129 of the CAA, as well as for new and
existing sewage sludge incinerators.\7\ These rules are interrelated
because facilities that burn solid waste, as that term is defined under
section 129(g)(6) of the CAA, are regulated as CISWI units pursuant to
section 129 and facilities that do not burn solid waste are regulated
as boilers and process heaters, under section 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 76 FR 15456.
\7\ See National Emissions Standards for Area Source Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (76 FR 15554), National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources:
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters (76 FR 15608), Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (76 FR 15704), and
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
(76 FR 15372). We also note that on the same day, EPA announced it
was initiating a reconsideration process with respect to certain
aspects of the CAA section 112 and 129 rules so as to take
additional comment and provide opportunity for submission of
information relevant to those standards. 76 FR 15266.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the regulated
community has raised a number of issues and concerns regarding the part
241 requirements, including the implementation of those requirements.
For example, the regulated community raised concerns and questions as
to certainty about whether particular materials are solid wastes and
how they could demonstrate compliance with the legitimacy criteria--
with most focusing on the contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM
used as fuels (codified in Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(iii)). Further, the
regulated community asserts that under the current NHSM rule, waste
streams that the Agency itself found to be non-waste fuels when
combusted may not meet the legitimacy criteria as established (e.g.,
resinated wood). It was also brought to the Agency's attention that the
provision identifying tires recovered from an established tire
collection program as a non-waste fuel when combusted is limited to
tires ``from the point of removal from the vehicle through arrival at
the combustion facility.'' The regulated community asserts that this
language precludes burning as a non-waste fuel off-specification tires
(including factory scrap tires) that have never been placed on an
automobile, even though they are not discarded.
The Agency has re-examined the 2011 NHSM final rule and is
proposing amendments and clarifications on certain issues on which we
have received new information, as well as specific targeted revisions
that are appropriate in order to allow implementation of the rule as
the EPA originally intended. The Agency is not reopening the entire
rule for reconsideration and will not respond to comments directed
toward rule provisions that are not specifically identified in this
proposal.
[[Page 80470]]
C. What is the scope of this proposal?
The regulatory changes being proposed today are summarized below.
The intent of this summary is to give a brief overview of the proposed
changes. More detailed discussions, including the Agency's rationale
for these proposed changes, are discussed in section II.D of today's
action. In addition, to aid commenters in their review, the EPA has
also included in the docket for today's proposal an informational
redline/strikeout version of the proposed revised regulations as
compared to the current CFR.
The EPA is soliciting comment only on these targeted changes and is
not reopening any other issues in the final NHSM rule. Comments that go
beyond the scope of this narrow RCRA rulemaking will not be addressed
by the Agency when it finalizes today's proposed rule.
1. Revised Definitions
In today's action, the EPA is proposing to revise certain
definitions codified in Sec. 241.2. Specifically, the EPA is proposing
to revise, for the purposes of clarifying the regulations, the
following definitions: (1) ``clean cellulosic biomass,'' (2)
``contaminants,'' and (3) ``established tire collection programs.''
a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass
The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``clean cellulosic
biomass'' to list additional examples of biomass materials that are
appropriately included within this definition. The 2011 NHSM final rule
defined ``clean cellulosic biomass'' as meaning ``those residuals that
are akin to traditional cellulosic biomass, such as forest-derived
biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated
bark, sawdust, trim, and tree harvesting residuals from logging and
sawmill materials), corn stover and other biomass crops used
specifically for energy production (e.g., energy cane, other fast
growing grasses), bagasse and other crop residues (e.g., peanut
shells), wood collected from forest fire clearance activities, trees
and clean wood found in disaster debris, clean biomass from land
clearing operations, and clean construction and demolition wood. These
fuels are not secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded.
Clean biomass is biomass that does not contain contaminants at
concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass materials''
(codified in 40 CFR 241.2).
In today's proposal, the EPA is adding more examples of biomass
materials that should be included within this definition. This
regulatory revision would not change the Agency's intent under the
March 2011 final rule, but would identify additional materials that are
``clean cellulosic biomass,'' and, thus, would be a traditional fuel
under these regulations. While the list of clean biomass materials is
not exhaustive, it is more comprehensive than the list that appeared in
the definition included in the 2011 NHSM final rule.
Thus, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``clean
cellulosic biomass'' as follows: ``Clean cellulosic biomass means those
residuals that are akin to traditional cellulosic biomass, including,
but not limited to: agricultural and forest-derived biomass (e.g.,
green wood, forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust,
trim, tree harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill materials,
hogged fuel, wood pellets, untreated wood pallets); urban wood (e.g.,
tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived biomass from urban
settings); corn stover and other biomass crops used specifically for
the production of cellulosic biofuels (e.g., energy cane, other fast
growing grasses, byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation processes);
bagasse and other crop residues (e.g., peanut shells, vines, orchard
trees, hulls, seeds, spent grains, cotton byproducts, corn and peanut
production residues, rice milling and grain elevator operation
residues); wood collected from forest fire clearance activities, trees
and clean wood found in disaster debris, clean biomass from land
clearing operations, and clean construction and demolition wood. These
fuels are not secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded.
Clean biomass is biomass that does not contain contaminants at
concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass materials.''
In accordance with the above traditional fuels definition, clean
construction and demolition wood could be combusted as a traditional
fuel if it does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally
associated with virgin wood. However, the final NHSM rule also
addressed construction and demolition wood that may contain
contaminated material (76 FR 15485). Additionally, construction and
demolition wood that has been processed (e.g., sorted) to remove
contaminants (such as lead-painted wood, treated wood containing
contaminants such as arsenic and chromium, metals and other non-wood
materials), and is size-reduced prior to burning likely meets the
processing and legitimacy criteria for contaminants, and thus can be
combusted as a non-waste fuel. Such construction and demolition wood
may contain de minimis amounts of contaminants and other materials
provided it meets the legitimacy criteria for contaminant levels (76 FR
154586).
See section II.D.1 for more information regarding the revised
definition of ``clean cellulosic biomass.''
b. Contaminants
The 2011 NHSM final rule defined ``contaminants'' as meaning ``any
constituent in non-hazardous secondary materials that will result in
emissions of the air pollutants identified in Clean Air Act section
112(b) or the nine pollutants listed under Clean Air Act section
129(a)(4) when such non-hazardous secondary materials are burned as a
fuel or used as an ingredient, including those constituents that could
generate products of incomplete combustion'' (codified in 40 CFR
241.2).
The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``contaminants''
to clarify what will be considered contaminants for the purposes of the
legitimacy criteria. Specifically, several pollutants listed in CAA
sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4) form during combustion, so elemental
precursors to those pollutants that are found in the NHSM prior to
combustion are being added to the revised contaminant definition in
place of the pollutants themselves. In addition, those pollutants from
CAA section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) lists that we do not expect to find in
any NHSM are also specifically excluded from the definition of
contaminants (see discussion in section II.D.1.b). We do not expect
this change to affect any of the decisions previously made on whether
NHSMs are solid wastes when burned as fuels.
We are also proposing to revise this definition to clarify that,
for the purpose of meeting the contaminant legitimacy criterion,
contaminant levels found in the NHSM prior to being fed into combustion
units, should be evaluated rather than emissions from those units.
Specifically, there appears to be confusion within the regulated
community that in determining whether or not a NHSM meets the
``contaminant legitimacy criterion,'' emissions from the combustion
unit are to be considered in making such an evaluation. Both in today's
proposal and in the 2011 NHSM final rule preamble and regulatory text,
it was clear that the NHSM itself was to be evaluated and not the
emissions from the combustion unit. This approach is more appropriate,
since the question is whether or not a NHSM is being burned for
discard, and elevated contaminant levels in the
[[Page 80471]]
NHSM could be indicative of burning for discard. Thus, the EPA is
clearing up any inadvertent ambiguity in the regulation itself. The
rationale for this approach can be found in the rulemaking record for
the final rule.\8\ EPA is not proposing any revisions to that approach,
but is simply clarifying the regulatory text to better reflect the
Agency's intention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, see 76 FR 15524-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Agency is proposing to revise the definition of
``contaminants'' as follows: ``Contaminants means all pollutants listed
in Clean Air Act sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4), with modifications
outlined in this definition to reflect constituents found in non-
hazardous secondary materials prior to combustion. The definition
includes the following elemental contaminants that commonly form Clean
Air Act section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) pollutants: Antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, fluorine, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrogen, selenium, and sulfur. The
definition does not include the following Clean Air Act section 112(b)
and 129(a)(4) pollutants that are either unlikely to be found in non-
hazardous secondary materials prior to combustion or are adequately
measured by other parts of this definition: Hydrogen chloride (HCl),
chlorine gas (Cl2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine mineral fibers,
particulate matter, coke oven emissions, diazomethane, white
phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, m-
xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene.'' For more information and the
rationale regarding the proposed revision to the definition of
``contaminants,'' see section II.D.1 of today's proposed rule.
c. Established Tire Collection Programs
The EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``established tire
collection programs'' to clarify that off-specification tires
(including factory scrap tires) are not discarded when combusted, in
the same way as tires that are removed from vehicles.
The 2011 NHSM final rule defined ``established tire collection
program'' as meaning ``a comprehensive collection system that ensures
scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities
in accordance with section 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of removal
from the vehicle through arrival at the combustion facility'' (codified
in 40 CFR 241.2). However, that definition did not account for
``factory scrap'' or ``off-specification'' tires that are contractually
arranged to be collected, managed, and transported between a tire
manufacturer (including retailers or other parties involved in the
distribution and sale of new tires) and a combustor, which is analogous
to how scrap tires removed from vehicles are managed.
Thus, the Agency is proposing to revise the definition of
``established tire collection program'' to mean ``a comprehensive
collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures scrap tires
are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through
arrival at the combustion facility.'' For more information regarding
the proposed revision to the definition of ``established tire
collection program,'' see section II.D.1 of today's proposed rule.
2. Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as Fuels
The 2011 NHSM final rule codified three self-implementing
legitimacy criteria that NHSM must meet in order to be considered a
non-waste fuel when burned in a combustion unit (40 CFR 241.3(d)(1)(i)-
(iii)). One of these criteria focused on comparing levels of
contaminants contained in the NHSM to levels of those constituents
found in traditional fuels. Specifically, the contaminant legitimacy
criterion for fuels was finalized as follows: ``The non-hazardous
secondary material must contain contaminants at levels comparable in
concentration to or lower than those in traditional fuels which the
combustion unit is designed to burn. Such comparison is to be based on
a direct comparison of the contaminant levels in the non-hazardous
secondary material to the traditional fuel itself.'' 40 CFR
241.3(d)(1)(iii). The existing language provides flexibility for
persons to make comparisons on a contaminant-by-contaminant basis or on
a group of contaminants-by-group of contaminants basis in determining
what constituents to compare. The phrase ``traditional fuels which the
combustion unit is designed to burn'' also provides the flexibility to
choose among multiple fuel options.
Industry groups have expressed concern that the regulatory language
does not clearly reflect the EPA's intent.\9\ The EPA agrees that the
regulatory language can be revised to better reflect the EPA's intent
in implementing the contaminant legitimacy criterion. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing to revise this criterion to read, ``The non-
hazardous secondary material must contain contaminants or groups of
contaminants at levels comparable in concentration to or lower than
those in traditional fuel(s) which the combustion unit is designed to
burn. In determining which traditional fuel(s) a unit is designed to
burn, persons can choose a traditional fuel that can be or is burned in
the particular type of boiler, whether or not the combustion unit is
permitted to burn that traditional fuel. In comparing contaminants
between traditional fuel(s) and a non-hazardous secondary material,
persons can use ranges of traditional fuel contaminant levels compiled
from national surveys, as well as contaminant level data from the
specific traditional fuel being replaced. Such comparisons are to be
based on a direct comparison of the contaminant levels in both the non-
hazardous secondary material and traditional fuel(s) prior to
combustion.'' We are taking comment on how this revised contaminant
legitimacy criterion would apply to specific fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, for example, June 24, 2011 letter from Tracey Norberg
of the Rubber Manufacturers Association and Paul Noe of the American
Forest & Paper Association to OSWER Assistant Administrator Mathy
Stanislaus. A copy of this letter can be found in the docket for
today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information regarding the proposed revisions to the
contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM used as fuels, see section
II.D.2 of today's proposed rule.
3. Categorical Non-Waste Determinations for Specific NHSM Used as Fuels
The EPA is proposing to identify several NHSMs as not being solid
waste when burned as a fuel in a combustion unit where the Agency has
sufficient information to determine that discard is not occurring when
these materials are being used as fuels. Specifically, the Agency
recognizes that certain NHSMs may not meet the legitimacy criteria,
especially the ``contaminant legitimacy criterion,'' in all instances,
but the material would still generally be considered a non-waste fuel.
While we do not agree it is appropriate for the regulated community to
make these judgments as part of the self-implementing aspects of the
NHSM final rule, it is appropriate that the Agency do so, by balancing
the legitimacy criteria and such other relevant factors that the
Administrator may identify, in determining that a NHSM is not a solid
waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. Thus, in today's
proposed rule, we are identifying the following specific materials as
non-waste fuels: (1) scrap tires that have not been discarded and are
managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs,
including tires removed from vehicles
[[Page 80472]]
and off-specification tires, and (2) resinated wood. Thus, persons who
burn these NHSMs as a fuel would not need to evaluate them using the
self-implementing legitimacy criteria when burned.
In addition, the Agency recognizes that there may be other NHSMs
that should also be considered non-waste fuels, based on a balancing of
the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors. Therefore, we are
proposing to create a petition process that would provide the regulated
community an opportunity to submit a rulemaking petition to the EPA for
a determination that a particular NHSM should not be considered solid
waste when burned as a fuel in a combustion unit. This process could be
used when a facility does not believe that the self-implementing
legitimacy criteria yields a clear result or does not accurately
reflect whether the material is being discarded. A brief discussion of
the specific NHSMs being proposed to be listed as not solid waste is
provided below, as well as an overview of the petition process for
identifying additional NHSMs as not being solid wastes when burned as a
fuel in a combustion unit for energy recovery. See section II.D.3 and 4
of today's proposed rule for a detailed discussion of these topics.
a. Scrap Tires
In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA determined that scrap tires
removed from vehicles and managed pursuant to established tire
collection programs would not be considered a solid waste. This
determination was codified in Sec. 241.3(b)(2)(i). This determination
was made after the EPA analyzed scrap tires removed from vehicles and
managed pursuant to established tire collection programs and concluded
that (1) these materials would meet the legitimacy criteria for fuels,
and (2) these materials were not discarded when transferred off-site
from the generating facility.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 76 FR 15490-15499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA has
received information that tire manufacturers, including downstream
distribution channels, may produce tires that are not suitable for use
on vehicles, but like the tires removed from vehicles, are usable as
legitimate fuels. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same as
the vehicle tires managed under the oversight of established tire
collection programs. As a result, the revised definition of
``established tire collection program,'' would encompass off-
specification tires (including factory scrap tires) that are
contractually arranged to be collected, managed, and transported
between a tire manufacturer, which would include retailers and other
parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires and a
combustor. We note that tires coming from vehicles that are part of an
established tire collection program would be a non-waste fuel under the
2011 NHSM final rule. The EPA is not reopening this determination in
today's proposed rule.
For clarity, the Agency is proposing to add scrap tires that are
not discarded and are managed under the oversight of established tire
collection programs, including tires removed from vehicles and off-
specification tires, to the categorical list of non-waste fuels (see 40
CFR 241.4(a)). For more on this determination and the off-specification
tires from tire manufacturers or downstream distribution channels, see
section II.D.3 of today's proposed rule.
b. Resinated Wood
The 2011 NHSM final rule determined that resinated wood is not a
solid waste when used as a fuel regardless of whether it remained
within the control of the generator (see 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(ii)). This
determination was made after the EPA analyzed resinated wood and
concluded that (1) resinated wood generally would meet the legitimacy
criteria for fuels, and (2) resinated wood was not discarded when
transferred off-site from the generating facility.\11\ Today's action
proposes to revise part 241 to state affirmatively that resinated wood,
when used as a fuel, is not being burned for discard and is not a solid
waste. We are proposing to codify this determination based on our
belief that the use of resinated wood as fuel represents an integral
component to the wood manufacturing process and, as such, resinated
wood is not being discarded, and therefore not solid waste, when burned
as fuel. For more on this proposed revision, see section II.D.3 of
today's proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For a full discussion and rationale for why EPA reached
this conclusion, see 76 FR 15499-15502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Non-Waste Determinations
Under today's rule, the Agency is proposing to create a rulemaking
petition process that would provide persons an opportunity to submit a
rulemaking petition to the Administrator, seeking a categorical
determination for additional NHSMs to be listed in section 241.4(a) as
non-waste fuels. The process for submitting a rulemaking petition to
the Agency, as well as the factors a successful application must
include, is proposed in 241.4(b). For more information regarding the
rulemaking petition process, see section II.D.4 of today's proposal.
Parties have identified the potential of manure not being solid waste.
Parties can present information including data demonstrating that
manure is not discarded either through the existing non-waste petition
process or the proposed categorical determination process.
4. Additional Request for Comment
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the Agency requests
additional information regarding pulp and paper sludge in order for the
Agency to determine whether a categorical determination that pulp and
paper sludge is a non-waste, when used as fuel, is appropriate.
Information that would be particularly helpful includes: (1)
Documentation of how the use of pulp and paper sludges that are used as
a fuel are integrated into the industrial production process and the
steps taken industry-wide to ensure that this NHSM is consistently used
as a legitimate fuel and is not discarded, including when transferred
to a different person for use as a fuel; (2) documentation on the
amount of pulp and paper sludges burned as a fuel (whether within the
control of the generator or outside the control of the generator), and
what determines which pulp and paper sludges are burned as a fuel, as
opposed to being land applied or disposed; (3) additional data
regarding the contaminant levels of the various HAP, such as chlorine
and metals, and what steps the industry has taken to ensure the quality
of these sludges when used as a fuel are consistent with that of fuel
product; (4) information on standard practices used to ensure that
these sludges have a meaningful heating value, including the types of
dewatering and other processing steps that these sludges are subject
to, as well as information on whether any pulp and paper sludges that
are burned as a fuel are done so without any processing, including
dewatering; and (5) when shipped to a different person for use as a
fuel, how these sludges are managed, including how they are shipped,
any processing that may occur, and how long these sludges are typically
stored prior to being burned as a fuel.
5. Clarification Letters Issued After Promulgation of the NHSM Final
Rule
After promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, a number of
questions were raised regarding certain issues,
[[Page 80473]]
including whether the EPA was changing its position regarding
``contained gaseous materials'' and whether they are solid wastes when
burned in combustion units. While there was no regulatory text or
discussion in the preamble to the final NHSM rule, the Agency did
respond to several comments that were submitted to the EPA during the
comment period. Specifically, its response to the fourth comment in
part 3b.I3 of the document entitled, ``Responses to Comments Document
for the Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are
Solid Waste (February 2011),'' \12\ created concerns among the
regulated community that the Agency had changed a long-standing
interpretation of what constitutes a ``contained gaseous material'' for
purposes of defining the term solid waste under RCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ``Responses to Comments Document for the Identification
of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (February
2011). A copy of this document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter sent to the American Forest and Paper Association, the
EPA clarified that it was not changing its previous interpretations and
that such interpretations still were the Agency's position.\13\
Specifically, as we state in the letter, ``EPA was responding to a
comment requesting that we include in the NHSM final rule a definition
of `contained gaseous material.' The Agency does not believe that
including such a definition in the rule is necessary. However, our
response seems to have caused confusion about whether the Agency was
changing its prior interpretations regarding the burning of gaseous
materials, for example in fume incinerators, and whether or not such
burning is considered to be treatment of a solid waste by burning. The
response does not change any previous EPA positions. We clarify here
that the Agency's previous statements and interpretations remain
effective. Thus, burning of gaseous material, such as in fume
incinerators (as well as other combustion units, including air
pollution control devices that may combust gaseous material) does not
involve treatment or other management of a solid waste (as defined in
RCRA section 1004(27).'' Thus, we are stating again in the preamble to
today's proposed rule that we are not changing any of our previous
interpretations as it relates to whether ``contained gaseous material''
is a solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ May 13, 2011 Letter to Tim Hunt, American Forest and Paper
Association. A copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for
today's proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this letter, the Agency has also issued a number of
other letters in which we clarify how the 2011 NHSM final rule
addresses certain materials or activities. For example, the EPA has
issued clarification letters covering the following materials and
issues: (1) July 21, 2011, letter to Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion
Resources Services, regarding materials that are used in recirculation/
reinjection processes and CBO units; (2) August 5, 2011, letter to Sue
Briggum, Waste Management, regarding landfill gas; (3) August 5, 2011,
letter to Tracey Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association, regarding
off-specification tires (including factory scrap tires); and (4) August
15, 2011, letter to Jeff A. McNelly, ARIPPA, regarding coal refuse in
legacy piles. We are not taking comment on these letters, since they
reflect the Agency's interpretation of its existing March 21, 2011,
NHSM rule.
6. Clarification of the Process for Submittal of Non-Waste Petitions
The 2011 NHSM final rule established a non-waste determination
process that provides persons with an administrative petition process
for receiving a formal determination from the EPA Regional
Administrator that a NHSM that is used as a fuel, and which is not
managed within the control of the generator, can be considered a non-
waste fuel provided they are able to demonstrate that such material has
not been discarded and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects
from a fuel product. (40 CFR 241.3(c)).
As discussed in the March 21, 2011 final rule (76 FR 15471), EPA
has not arbitrarily determined that secondary materials transferred
between companies are wastes. Instead, EPA examined a number of
specific recycled materials, both within the control of the generator
and transferred to a third party for recycling and decided that
materials are to be considered solid wastes except in certain instances
described in 40 CFR 241.3(b). These determinations were based on the
record available to EPA. In order to better reflect the evidentiary
record, EPA is proposing to amend the language of 40 CFR 241.3(a) to
state that except for materials described in 241.3(b), and newly
proposed section 241.4, combusted non-hazardous secondary materials are
``presumed'' to be solid wastes.
This petition process provides an opportunity under 40 CFR 241.3(c)
for companies to show that their materials are not wastes. The petition
process is essential because NHSMs are recycled and managed in many
different ways and the Agency may lack the specific details in certain
cases to know whether or not such NHSMs are or are not waste (76 FR
15472). We believe that the petition process provides an important
assurance to the community on waste status and relevant standards and
also provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the particular NHSM
was not discarded. The Agency solicits comment on the petition process
as it relates this approach, and on whether or not the regulatory text
should also be changed to address this situation as it relates to the
petition process where such NHSM has not in fact been discarded.
In evaluating whether to grant or deny the petition, the ultimate
question that EPA will need to answer is whether or not the NHSM has
been discarded. If the applicant is able to demonstrate that such NHSM
has not been discarded, including meeting the legitimacy criteria, it
is likely that the Agency will grant the petition. Under the existing
regulations, until EPA acts on such petition, the NHSM is considered to
be a solid waste. However, we would note that if the NHSM has not been
discarded, EPA's grant of the petition would apply as of the date that
the petition was submitted to the Agency. The Agency solicits comment
on whether or not the regulatory text should also be changed to address
this situation where such NHSM has not in fact been discarded.
Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, concerns have been
raised that the information required for a non-waste determination
petition would be extensive and the timeframe for issuance of the
decision lengthy. The Agency wishes to clarify that we do not intend
that the application required or the petition process itself to be
burdensome or time and resource intensive for the applicant.
As noted in the March 2011 final rule, the applicant must
demonstrate that the NHSM that is to be burned as a fuel has not been
discarded, is a legitimate product fuel (per Sec. 241.3(d)(1)),
considering the five criteria identified in Sec. 241.3(c)(1)(i)-(v):
(1) Whether market participants treat the non-hazardous secondary
material as a product rather than as a solid waste;
(2) Whether the chemical and physical identity of the non-hazardous
secondary material is comparable to commercial fuels; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As discussed elsewhere in today's proposal, EPA is
clarifying that in making comparisons between the NHSM and the
traditional fuel, the owner or operator can consider individual
constituents or grouping of constituents. See section II.D.2 of this
preamble for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80474]]
(3) Whether the non-hazardous secondary material will be used in a
reasonable time frame given the state of the market;
(4) Whether the constituents in the non-hazardous secondary
material are released to the air, water or land from the point of
generation to the point just prior to combustion of the secondary
material at levels comparable to what would otherwise be released from
traditional fuels; and
(5) Other relevant factors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Agency included this criterion to allow the applicant
to make additional arguments that such NHSMs are a non-waste fuel.
For example, if there is a contractual or other written agreement
between the generator of the NHSM and the facility that combusts the
NHSM that lays out how this material is to be handled or used as a
fuel that may indicate how the material would meet the legitimacy
criteria, this would be a relevant factor that EPA would consider in
determining whether such NHSM is a non-waste fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, applicants, in many cases can utilize existing information
already in hand (e.g., laboratory analysis data or process knowledge)
rather than develop additional information specifically for the non-
waste determination petition. In addition, as noted in the previous
footnote, there may already be a contractual or other written agreement
between the generator of the NHSM and the combustion facility that
burns such NHSM that lays out how this material is to be handled or
used as a fuel that may indicate how the material would meet the
legitimacy criteria that would be a relevant factor that EPA would
consider in determining whether such NHSM is a non-waste fuel. As noted
elsewhere in this preamble, EPA has collected contaminant data for
various traditional fuels, which are available for use in meeting the
contaminant legitimacy criterion as needed, to the extent that the
applicant wants to utilize these data.\16\ Potential applicants can
include the generator of the NHSM, the facility that combusts the NHSM,
an interested third party or a state agency (see FR 15530).
Applications can also be submitted for a single combustor or a class of
combustors, provided such combustion units are within the jurisdiction
of the Regional Administrator. Useful information could also include a
description of the nature of the relationship between the generator and
the combustor, as well as a description of how the NHSM will be managed
as it is transported off-site and after it arrives at the combustor. We
believe this type of information should be readily available to
potential applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ EPA's contaminant data are provided at the Web site for the
NHSM rule at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm.
However, as we have noted elsewhere, the applicant can rely on other
data that they may have or become aware of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA does not intend that the application review
process itself be either time consuming or extensive. Rather, the
Regional Administrator will evaluate the petition and issue a draft
notice tentatively granting or denying the petition. Notification of
the decision will be provided by local newspaper or radio. Public
comment will be accepted for thirty days and a public hearing held upon
request. A final decision will be issued after consideration of the
comments as expeditiously as possible.
In summary, we do not envision that the information submitted in a
petition for a non-waste determination would be more than is required
for making a self-determination that a NHSM is a non-waste when burned
within the control of the generator. However, because there are nearly
200,000 boilers and incinerators that can be used to burn such NHSMs,
the EPA believes it is important that the Agency have the information
necessary to ensure that the legitimacy criteria are met and that
materials are not being discarded. The Agency requests comment on
whether any other changes could be made to the non-waste determination
petition process to streamline the process, while at the same time
provide EPA with the opportunity to ensure that such NHSMs are not
being discarded. For example, because the public has had the
opportunity to comment on the basic criteria in determining whether the
NHSM should be considered a non-waste fuel, we are seeking comment on
whether the Agency should further streamline the process by not seeking
public comment on each individual petition.
D. Rationale for the Proposed Revisions to the Part 241 Requirements
As noted above, the intent of this proposal is to identify certain
specific aspects of the rule which EPA is reconsidering and on which it
is soliciting public comment. The Agency is not reopening the entire
rule for reconsideration and will not respond to comments directed
toward rule provisions that are not specifically identified in this
proposal. Thus, the Agency is not providing additional discussion of
the background or rationale for the NHSM rule in general. For a
detailed discussion of the NHSM final rule, see 76 FR 15532-15545. The
EPA is proposing the revisions and clarifications discussed below.
1. Revised Definitions
In today's action, the EPA is proposing to revise several
definitions codified in Sec. 241.2, including the definitions of
``clean cellulosic biomass,'' ``contaminants,'' and ``established tire
collection programs.''
a. Clean Cellulosic Biomass
In today's action, we are proposing to revise the definition of
``clean cellulosic biomass.'' In particular, following promulgation of
the 2011 NHSM final rule, the Agency received additional information
regarding other types of biomass not explicitly listed in the
definition of clean cellulosic biomass codified in Sec. 241.2, which
persons believe also are clean cellulosic biomass. However, there was
some confusion as to whether the definition included these materials.
For example, questions arose whether the EPA would consider orchard
trees, vines and hulls, to be within the definition of clean cellulosic
biomass (and, therefore, a traditional fuel) if the biomass material
was not specifically listed within the regulatory definition.
Consequently, we are proposing to revise the definition of ``clean
cellulosic biomass'' in two ways: (1) to clarify that the list of
biomass materials are examples within the definition and is not
intended to be an exhaustive list, and (2) to provide a more
comprehensive list of clean cellulosic biomass to guide the regulated
community.
Specifically, we are proposing to make the following revisions and
additions to the definition: (1) Explicitly acknowledge that the list
of biomass materials is not exclusive by adding the phrase,
``including, but not limited to''; (2) revise the category ``forest-
derived biomass'' to include ``agricultural biomass''; (3) add hogged
fuel, wood pellets, and untreated wood pallets as examples of forest-
derived biomass; (4) add the category of ``urban wood'' and provide
examples, including tree trimmings, stumps, and related forest-derived
biomass from urban settings (note that ``urban wood'' is limited to
forest-derived biomass from urban settings and does not include
construction and demolition materials. Certain construction and
demolition materials are included as a separate type of biomass within
the definition of ``clean cellulosic biomass''); (5) add more examples
of types of crop residues (vines, orchard trees, hulls, seeds spent
grains, cotton byproducts, corn and peanut production residues, rice
milling and grain elevator operation residues); and (6) revise the
category of ``other biomass crops used specifically for
[[Page 80475]]
energy production'' to read as ``other biomass crops used specifically
for the production of cellulosic biofuels'' and include ``byproducts of
ethanol natural fermentation processes'' as an example of this type of
biomass.
These proposed revisions and additional examples more clearly
recognize and describe the various categories of biomass materials that
we consider to be within the definition of ``clean cellulosic biomass''
and, therefore, within the definition of traditional fuels. We believe
that these additional examples clearly meet the definition of clean
cellulosic biomass, in that they will not contain contaminants at
concentrations not normally associated with virgin biomass materials.
In fact, many of the examples being added in today's proposal are
themselves virgin materials (e.g., tree trimmings, stumps, orchard
trees, etc.). We believe that providing these additional examples
within the definition of clean cellulosic biomass is consistent with
the intent of the 2011 NHSM final rule. Further, we believe that such
revisions make it more clear that the types of biomass materials the
Agency would consider to be within the definition of clean cellulosic
biomass (and a traditional fuel) are not limited to those explicitly
listed in the definition, as we believe that it would be impractical if
not impossible to capture all types of biomass materials that can be
used as fuels within this single definition.
Thus, in today's proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to revise the
definition of ``clean cellulosic biomass'' as follows: ``Clean
cellulosic biomass means those residuals that are akin to traditional
cellulosic biomass, including, but not limited to: agricultural and
forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, clean and
unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, tree harvesting residuals from
logging and sawmill materials, hogged fuel, wood pellets, untreated
wood pallets); urban wood (e.g., tree trimmings, stumps, and related
forest-derived biomass from urban settings); corn stover and other
biomass crops used specifically for the production of cellulosic
biofuels (e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses, byproducts of
ethanol natural fermentation processes); bagasse and other crop
residues (e.g., peanut shells, vines, orchard trees, hulls, seeds,
spent grains, cotton byproducts, corn and peanut production residues,
rice milling and grain elevator operation residues); wood collected
from forest fire clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in
disaster debris, clean biomass from land clearing operations, and clean
construction and demolition wood. These fuels are not secondary
materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean biomass is biomass
that does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally
associated with virgin biomass materials.''
b. Contaminants
In today's action, we are proposing a number of changes to the
definition of ``contaminants'' in an effort to clarify what
constituents are subject to the contaminant legitimacy criterion. The
proposed definition is as follows: ``Contaminants means all pollutants
listed in Clean Air Act sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4), with
modifications outlined in this definition to reflect constituents found
in non-hazardous secondary materials prior to combustion. The
definition includes the following elemental contaminants that commonly
form Clean Air Act section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) pollutants: antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, cobalt, fluorine,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrogen, selenium, and sulfur. The
definition does not include the following Clean Air Act section 112(b)
and 129(a)(4) pollutants that are either unlikely to be found in non-
hazardous secondary materials prior to combustion or are adequately
measured by other parts of this definition: hydrogen chloride (HCl),
chlorine gas (Cl2), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine mineral fibers,
particulate matter, coke oven emissions, diazomethane, white
phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, m-
xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene.''
Before discussing these changes, we first want to note that the
2011 NHSM final rule and today's proposed rule identify the same three
ways a chemical can be labeled a contaminant. First, it may be one of
the 187 HAP currently listed in CAA section 112(b); second, it may be
one of the nine pollutants listed under CAA section 129(a)(4); and
third, it may be one of a handful of chemicals whose combustion will
result in the formation of listed CAA section 112(b) and section
129(a)(4) pollutants (e.g., sulfur that will result in SO2).
Today's proposed definition provides clarification by listing the
constituents that belong to the third group.\17\ Specifically, several
pollutants listed in CAA section 112(b) and section 129(a)(4) form
during combustion, so elemental precursors to those pollutants that are
found in the NHSM prior to combustion are being added to the
contaminant definition in place of the pollutants themselves. For
example, when present in a NHSM undergoing combustion, chlorine readily
forms HCl, fluorine readily forms HF, nitrogen readily forms
NOX, and sulfur readily forms SO2. Because forms
of these four elements found in materials prior to combustion are not
directly identified as CAA air pollutants, yet the forms they take due
to combustion are directly identified as CAA air pollutants, we believe
it would be less confusing to include these elements in the
``contaminants'' definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Eleven metal elements directly identified in CAA section
112(b) are listed in the definition to provide the regulated
community with a complete list of elements that are considered
``contaminants'' under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, we are proposing to exclude from the definition of
contaminants those pollutants in the CAA sections 112(b) and 129(a)(4)
lists that we do not expect to find in any NHSM. Specifically:
Hydrogen chloride, Cl2, HF, NOX, and
SO2 are identified as CAA list pollutants that are excluded
from the definition since they are unlikely to be found in NHSM prior
to combustion and have been replaced by the elements chlorine,
fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur as discussed above; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Carbon monoxide (CO) is unlikely to be found in solid or
liquid NHSMs, and EPA expects that combustors can use process
knowledge to justify not testing for CO in these cases. CO remains
in the contaminants definition, however, because no clear surrogate
exists to replace it--neither the 2011 NHSM final rule nor today's
proposed rule considers the elements carbon and oxygen to be
contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine mineral fibers are excluded because they are releases
from the manufacturing and processing (not combustion) of non-
combustible rock, glass, or slag into mineral fibers;
Particulate matter and coke oven emissions are excluded
because they are products of combustion unlikely to exist in NHSM prior
to combustion;
Cresol isomers m-cresol, o-cresol and p-cresol are
excluded because the listed pollutant cresols/cresylic acid includes
these three isomers;
Xylene isomers m-xylene, o-xylene and p-xylene are
excluded because the listed pollutant xylenes includes these three
isomers; and
Diazomethane, white phosphorus and titanium tetrachloride
are excluded because their high reactivity makes their presence in
NHSMs very unlikely.
In addition, two phrases present in the 2011 NHSM final rule
``contaminants'' definition are not present in today's proposed
definition. First, the phrase concerning constituents ``that will
result in emissions of air pollutants'' has been
[[Page 80476]]
removed since the regulated community appears to be confused that in
determining whether or not a NHSM meets the ``contaminant legitimacy
criterion,'' emissions from the combustion unit were to be considered
in making the evaluation. The EPA disagrees and directs readers to the
language in sections 241.3(d)(1)(iii) and 241.3(d)(2)(iv), which
clearly states that the contaminant comparisons are based on the
presence of contaminants in the NHSM that enters the combustion unit.
Second, the phrase ``including those constituents that could
generate products of incomplete combustion,'' also referred to as PICs,
has been removed because it is duplicative and potentially misleading.
Specifically, this phrase has been removed because all PICs that the
Agency considers air pollutants--including dioxins, dibenzofurans,
PCBs, and PAHs--are already listed in CAA sections 112(b) or 129(a)(4)
and are thus included in the ``contaminants'' definition. More
importantly, it is potentially misleading because PIC formation depends
heavily on combustion conditions, such as air/fuel ratio and mixing.
These conditions are controlled to limit emissions, and neither these
conditions nor emissions are the subject of this rule. The NHSM itself,
and what it contains prior to combustion, is the subject of this rule.
Thus, both changes clarify--but do not alter--the constituents subject
to the contaminant legitimacy criterion.
c. Established Tire Collection Programs
Under the 2011 NHSM final rule, whole scrap tires (that are removed
from vehicles) had to be managed under an ``established tire collection
program'' in addition to meeting other criteria in order to be
considered a non-waste fuel. The 2011 NHSM final rule defined
``established tire collection program'' as meaning ``a comprehensive
collection system that ensures scrap tires are not discarded and are
handled as valuable commodities in accordance with section
241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of removal from the vehicle through
arrival at the combustion facility'' (codified in 40 CFR 241.2).
However, this definition does not directly account for ``factory
scrap'' tires or ``off-specification'' tires that are contractually
arranged to be collected, managed and transported between a tire
manufacturer (including retailers and other parties involved in the
distribution and sale of new tires) and a combustor--a fact pattern the
Agency views as being within the intent of the regulatory definition of
``established tire collection program'' because the tires are not
discarded. Thus, the Agency is proposing to define ``established tire
collection program'' to mean ``a comprehensive collection system or
contractual arrangement that ensures scrap tires are not discarded and
are handled as valuable commodities from the point of removal from the
vehicle or the point at which they are generated at a tire manufacturer
(including retailers or other parties involved in the distribution and
sale of new tires) through arrival at the combustion facility.'' The
Agency did not include the provisions for the ``factory scrap'' or
``off-specification'' tires in the 2011 NHSM final rule since
information or comments were not provided to the EPA during the
rulemaking process and thus, the Agency was not aware of the issue. The
Agency did not receive comments about factory scrap or off-
specification tires on the ANPRM or the proposed rule. Following
promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA learned that off-
specification tires (including factory scrap tires), which include
whole tires and tire components that do not meet manufacturer
specifications, are collected at tire manufacturing facilities or
manufacturer's downstream distribution channels--retailers and other
parties involved in the distribution and sale of new tires. As noted in
the revised definition, we interpret the term ``tire manufacturers''
broadly to include retailers and other parties that are involved in the
distribution and sale of new tires, as we believe that these parties
also manage tires as valuable commodities, such that discard is not
occurring when these tires are transferred to a combustor.
If at any point in the process, a tire component or whole tire is
not suitable for use as a vehicle tire, it is separated from the other
tire components (or whole tires) and is stored in a protected
environment in order to accumulate a sufficient quantity for shipment.
The management of these tires is tightly controlled. Proprietary
information could be collected by competitors by analyzing the factory
scrap tire components, particularly from the uncured components (not
yet vulcanized through heat and pressure), so the tires are stored in a
safe manner, in part, to prevent theft.\19\ Thus, we believe that
factory scrap and off-specification tires are handled in the same
protective manner as those that qualified to be managed under the
oversight of established tire collection programs as described in the
2011 NHSM final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Personal communication from Tracey Norberg to EPA,
September 13, 2011. A copy of this communication has been placed in
the docket in today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tire manufacturers, as well as the manufacturers' downstream
distribution channels, that are included in the definition of
``established tire collection programs'' (1) have contractual
arrangements with combustors, typically cement kilns (due to the high
heating value and beneficial contribution to the cement production), to
take and use their tires as fuels; or (2) are covered under the
oversight of other collection programs that qualify under established
tire collection programs (i.e., oversight of state tire programs).
As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, the intent of the
requirement for ``removal from the vehicle'' was to distinguish these
tires from those that were previously abandoned, and thus discarded.
The changes to the definition in this proposed rule align the codified
definition of established tire collection programs with the intent of
the definition. We also note that we are proposing to delete the
reference to section 241.3(b)(2)(i) that was included in the previous
definition of established tire collection programs, since the citation
is no longer accurate based on other revisions being proposed today
(e.g., see the discussion regarding scrap tires managed pursuant to
established tire collection programs in section II.D.3). Refer to the
2011 NHSM final rule for more background and information regarding the
characterization of ``established tire collection programs.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 76 FR 15490-15499 and 15534-15535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Revisions to the Contaminant Legitimacy Criterion for NHSM Used as
Fuels
Several changes are being proposed in today's rule to the
contaminant legitimacy criterion for NHSM used as fuel. These proposed
changes to the wording in Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(iii) emphasize the
flexibility that is already embodied in the 2011 NHSM final rule.
First, today's proposal replaces ``contaminants'' with the phrase
``contaminants or groups of contaminants'' to clarify that the
regulatory definition allows groups of contaminants to be evaluated,
where appropriate, in determining whether a NHSM meets the contaminant
legitimacy criterion. Second, today's proposal codifies language from
the preamble of the 2011 NHSM final rule stating that the ``designed to
burn'' concept includes traditional fuels that can be burned or are
burned in a particular unit, whether or not the unit is permitted to
burn that traditional fuel.
[[Page 80477]]
In addition, the proposed regulations include text confirming that
contaminant comparisons may use ranges from national surveys of
traditional fuel data. Neither the 2011 NHSM final rule nor today's
proposed rule requires persons to compare contaminants in their NHSM to
contaminants in the specific traditional fuel source they burn (or
would otherwise burn). As an example, persons who would otherwise burn
coal may use any as-burned coal available in coal markets in making a
comparison between the contaminants in their NHSM and the contaminants
in coal--they are not limited to coal from a specific coal supplier
they have used in the past or currently use. Regulatory text confirming
this flexibility is only included in today's proposed regulations to
clarify what is inherent in the 2011 NHSM final rule.
Two other issues have arisen during implementation of the 2011 NHSM
final rule that, while not leading to specific regulatory changes in
today's proposal, still merit discussion. The first issue is that
contaminant legitimacy criterion determinations do not require testing
contaminant levels, in either the NHSM or an appropriate traditional
fuel. Persons can use expert or process knowledge to justify decisions
to rule out certain constituents. The second issue is that persons may
use data from a group of similar traditional fuels for contaminant
comparisons, provided the unit could burn each traditional fuel. This
idea grows from the ``designed to burn'' concept explained in the 2011
NHSM final rule and codified in today's proposal, as it allows a person
with a unit that can or does burn similar traditional fuels (e.g.,
anthracite, lignite, bituminous, and sub-bituminous coal) to group
those traditional fuels when making contaminant comparisons. See
section II.D.2.b for more discussion of this rationale.
a. What are the contaminants?
While persons may satisfy the contaminant legitimacy criterion on a
contaminant-by-contaminant basis, comparing groups of contaminants in
the NHSM to similar groups in traditional fuels could also be
appropriate, provided the grouped contaminants share physical and
chemical properties that influence behavior in the combustion unit
prior to the point where emissions occur. Volatility, the presence of
specific elements, and compound structure are three such properties.
One approach to grouping contaminants, as shown in Tables 7 and 8
below, could include TOX, nitrogenated compounds, VOC, SVOC, D/F, PCB,
PAH, and radionuclides. Persons may consider other groupings that they
can show are technically reasonable.
Grouping of contaminants is a standard practice often employed by
the Agency as it develops regulations. In fact, the monitoring
standards included in the CAA sections 112 and 129 regulations also
utilize the grouping concept and they apply to the same combustion
units impacted by the NHSM rule (i.e., industrial, commercial and
institutional boilers and process heaters and CISWI units). For
example,
Volatile hydrocarbons and semi-volatile hydrocarbons can
both be expected to result from incomplete combustion; therefore, the
emission standards promulgated under the CAA regulations are grouped
into one category: CO.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Area Source Boilers NESHAP, Major Source Boilers NESHAP,
and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halogenated organics are expected to contribute to
emissions of dioxin and acid gases (HCl and HF); therefore, the
emission standards promulgated under the CAA are grouped into two
categories: D/F and HCl.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Major Source Boilers NESHAP and Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogenated compounds are expected to contribute to
emissions of NOX; therefore, the emission standards
promulgated under the CAA are grouped into one category:
NOX.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A look at Tables 7 and 8 below also reveals that a number of the
seemingly ``individual'' pollutants listed in sections 112 and 129 of
the CAA are actually classes of structurally-related compounds (e.g.,
PCBs, POM, D/F, cyanide compounds, cresols, glycol ethers,
radionuclides, xylenes, antimony compounds, arsenic compounds,
beryllium compounds, Cd compounds, etc.).
If persons choose to group contaminants, analytical methods for the
NHSM and traditional fuel should account for the same list of compounds
to the extent possible. Persons may be able to exclude some members of
a particular contaminant group from testing based on process knowledge,
but methods for testing the group as a whole should generally account
for all other members of the contaminant group.
Some data sources may define contaminant groups more broadly than
this rule, thus resulting in a definition for a particular group that
includes compounds not considered contaminants under the rule. Such
data sources may be all that is available in the literature in some
cases, but they may still be appropriate. Total VOC and total SVOC
analyses offer an instructive example because, depending on the test
used and the material analyzed, such analyses may include
concentrations of methane, acetone, or other compounds not considered
contaminants under the NHSM final rule. Several solutions exist to make
the results meaningful, however. One approach would be to specifically
subtract compounds like methane that are not considered contaminants
under the rule and are expected to boost a total group count in
traditional fuels. Another approach would be to measure each applicable
compound individually and add the totals.
The tables presented below would separate the list of potential
contaminants into the 15 elements listed in today's proposed definition
of ``contaminants'' and the 163 compounds or groups of compounds
inferred from that definition by their inclusion on the CAA sections
112 or 129 lists. The elements listed in Table 7 are considered
contaminants because they commonly form air pollutants listed on either
the CAA section 112 HAP list, the CAA section 129 list, or both lists.
The compounds or groups of compounds listed in Table 8 are considered
contaminants because they are directly on either the CAA section 112
HAP list, the CAA section 129 list, or both lists.24 25 The
Agency wants to make clear that persons can use other approaches that
they can show are technically reasonable, whether it is on a
contaminant-by-contaminant basis or involves grouping contaminants. The
Agency is only offering these tables to provide the regulated community
with one reasonable approach for how a grouping of contaminants could
be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Clean Air Act section 112(b). See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/atwsmod.html for modifications to the original list
of Hazardous Air Pollutants.
\25\ Clean Air Act section 129(a)(4). See http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/129/sec129.pdf.
[[Page 80478]]
Table 7--Elements Considered Contaminants--With Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Antimony (Sb)................................ Antimony compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
2. Arsenic (As)................................. Arsenic compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
3. Beryllium (Be)............................... Beryllium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
4. Cadmium (Cd)................................. Cadmium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
5. Chlorine (Cl)................................ Hydrogen chloride/hydrochloric acid is on the CAA HAP & 129 lists.
6. Chromium (Cr)................................ Chromium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
7. Cobalt (Co).................................. Cobalt compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
8. Fluorine (F)................................. Hydrogen fluoride/hydrofluoric acid is a CAA section 112 HAP.
9. Lead (Pb).................................... Lead compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
10. Manganese (Mn).............................. Manganese compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
11. Mercury (Hg)................................ Mercury compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
12. Nickel (Ni)................................. Nickel compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
13. Nitrogen (N)................................ Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are a CAA section 129 pollutant.
14. Selenium (Se)............................... Selenium compounds are a CAA section 112 HAP.
15. Sulfur (S).................................. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a CAA section 129 pollutant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Compounds Considered Contaminants--With Group Information 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Acetaldehyde................. VOC \27\.
2 Acetamide.................... ................... SVOC \28\......... .................. Nitrogenated.
3 Acetonitrile (methyl cyanide) VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
4 Acetophenone................. VOC.
5 2-Acetylaminofluorene........ ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
6 Acrolein..................... VOC.
7 Acrylamide................... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
8 Acrylic acid................. VOC.
9 Acrylonitrile................ VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
10 Allyl chloride.............. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen \29\. ..................
11 4-Aminobiphenyl............. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
12 Aniline..................... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
13 o-Anisidine................. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
14 Asbestos
15 Benzene..................... VOC
16 Benzidine................... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
17 Benzotrichloride............ ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
18 Benzyl chloride............. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
19 Biphenyl.................... ................... SVOC.
20 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ................... SVOC. .................. ..................
(DEHP).
21 Bis (chloromethyl) ether.... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
22 Bromoform................... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
23 1,3-Butadiene............... VOC
24 Calcium cyanamide........... ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
25 Captan...................... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
26 Carbaryl.................... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
27 Carbon disulfide............ VOC.
28 Carbon monoxide............. ................... .................. .................. ..................
29 Carbon tetrachloride........ VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
30 Carbonyl sulfide............ VOC.
31 Catechol.................... VOC.
32 Chloramben.................. ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
33 Chlordane................... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen...... ..................
34 Chloroacetic acid........... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
35 2-Chloroacetophenone........ ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
36 Chlorobenzene............... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
37 Chlorobenzilate............. ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
38 Chloroform.................. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
39 Chloromethyl methyl ether... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
40 Chloroprene................. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
41 * Cresols/Cresylic acid \30\ VOC.
42 Cumene...................... VOC.
43 * Cyanide compounds \31\.... ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
44 2, 4-D, salts and esters.... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
45 DDE......................... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 * Dibenzofurans \32\........ Consider Dioxins & Furans as a Distinct Group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47 1, 2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
48 Dibutylphthalate............ ................... SVOC.
49 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene(p)..... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
50 3, 3-Dichlorobenzidene...... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
51 Dichloroethyl ether (bis (2- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
chloroethyl) ether).
52 1, 3-Dichloropropene........ VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
[[Page 80479]]
53 Dichlorvos.................. ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
54 Diethanolamine.............. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
55 Diethyl sulfate............. VOC.
56 3, 3-Dimethoxybenzidine..... ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
57 Dimethyl aminoazobenzene.... ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
58 N, N-Dimethylaniline........ VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
59 3, 3'-Dimethyl benzidine.... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
60 Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
61 Dimethyl formamide.......... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
62 1, 1-Dimethyl hydrazine..... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
63 Dimethyl phthalate.......... ................... SVOC.
64 Dimethyl sulfate............ VOC.
65 4, 6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
salts.
66 2, 4-Dinitrophenol.......... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
67 2, 4-Dinitrotoluene......... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
68 1, 4-Dioxane (1, 4- VOC.
diethyleneoxide).
69 1, 2-Diphenylhydrazine...... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
70 Epichlorohydrin (1-chloro- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen.
2,3-epoxypropane).
71 1, 2-Epoxybutane............ VOC.
72 Ethyl acrylate.............. VOC.
73 Ethyl benzene............... VOC.
74 Ethyl carbamate (urethane).. VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
75 Ethyl chloride VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen.
(chloroethane).
76 Ethylene dibromide VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
(dibromoethane).
77 Ethylene dichloride (1, 2- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
Dichloroethane).
78 Ethylene glycol............. ................... SVOC.
79 Ethylene imine (aziridine).. VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
80 Ethylene oxide.............. VOC.
81 Ethylene thiourea........... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
82 Ethylidene dichloride (1, 1- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
Dichloroethane).
83 Formaldehyde................ VOC.
84 * Glycol ethers \33\........ ................... SVOC.
85 Heptachlor.................. ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen......
86 Hexachlorobenzene........... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen......
87 Hexachlorobutadiene......... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
88 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen......
(HCCPD).
89 Hexachloroethane............ VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
90 Hexamethylene-1, 6- ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
diisocyanate.
91 Hexamethylphosphoramide..... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
92 Hexane...................... VOC................
93 Hydrazine................... ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
94 Hydroquinone................ ................... SVOC.
95 Isophorone.................. VOC................
96 Lindane (all isomers)....... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen......
97 Maleic anhydride............ ................... SVOC.
98 Methanol.................... VOC.
99 Methoxychlor................ ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen......
100 Methyl bromide VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
(bromomethane).
101 Methyl chloride VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
(chloromethane).
102 Methyl chloroform (1, 1, 1- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
trichloroethane).
103 Methyl hydrazine........... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
104 Methyl iodide (Iodomethane) VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
105 Methyl isobutyl ketone..... VOC.
106 Methyl isocyanate.......... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
107 Methyl methacrylate........ VOC.
108 Methyl tert butyl ether VOC.
(MTBE).
109 4, 4-Methylene bis (2- ................... .................. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
chloroaniline).
110 Methylene chloride VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
(dichloromethane).
111 4, 4'-Methylenedianiline... ................... .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
112 Methylene diphenyl ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
diisocyanate (MDI).
113 Naphthalene................ ................... SVOC.
114 Nitrobenzene............... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
115 4-Nitrobiphenyl............ ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
116 4-Nitrophenol.............. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
117 2-Nitropropane............. VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
118 N-Nitrosodimethylamine VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
(NDMA).
119 N-Nitroso-N-methylurea..... VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
120 N-Nitrosomorpholine........ VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
121 Parathion.................. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
122 Pentachloronitrobenzene ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
(Quintobenzene).
123 Pentachlorophenol.......... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen......
124 Phenol..................... VOC.
125 p-Phenylenediamine......... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
126 Phosgene................... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen......
[[Page 80480]]
127 Phosphine
128 Phthalic anhydride......... ................... SVOC.............. .................. ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129 * Polychlorinated biphenyls Consider PCBs as a Distinct Group.
(PCBs) \34\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 * Polycyclic Organic Matter Consider Total PAH as a Distinct Group
(or Total PAH) \35\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
131 1, 3-Propane sultone....... VOC.
132 [beta]-Propiolactone....... VOC................
133 Propionaldehyde............ VOC................
134 Propoxur (Baygon).......... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
135 Propylene dichloride (1, 2- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen...... ..................
dichloropropane).
136 Propylene oxide............ VOC................
137 1, 2-Propylenimine (2- VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
methyl aziridine).
138 Quinoline.................. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
139 Quinone.................... ................... SVOC..............
140 * Radionuclides (including
radon).\36\
141 Styrene.................... VOC................
142 Styrene oxide.............. VOC................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143 * 2, 3, 7, 8- Consider Dioxins/Furans as a Distinct Group.
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin &
other dioxins \37\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
144 1, 2, 2, 2- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen...... ..................
Tetrachloroethane.
145 Tetrachloroethylene VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen...... ..................
(perchloroethylene).
146 Toluene.................... VOC................
147 2, 4-Toluene diamine....... ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
148 2, 4-Toluene diisocyanate.. ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
149 o-Toluidine................ ................... SVOC.............. .................. Nitrogenated.
150 Toxaphene (chlorinated ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
camphenes).
151 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
152 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
153 Trichloroethylene (TCE).... VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
154 2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenol.... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
155 2, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol.... ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen. ..................
156 Triethylamine.............. VOC................ .................. .................. Nitrogenated.
157 Trifluralin................ ................... SVOC.............. Org. Halogen...... Nitrogenated.
158 2, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane... VOC.
159 Vinyl acetate.............. VOC.
160 Vinyl bromide.............. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
161 Vinyl chloride............. VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
162 Vinylidene chloride (1, 1- VOC................ .................. Org. Halogen. ..................
dichloroethylene).
163 * Xylenes \38\............. VOC................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Spicer, Chester W. et al., Hazardous Air Pollutant
Handbook, Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, 2002, pg. 23-53.
\27\ Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are identified here as
organic compounds with a vapor pressure greater than 0.1 mm Hg at 25
[deg]C.
\28\ Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) are identified here
as organic compounds with a vapor pressure between 10-7
and 0.1 mm Hg at 25 [deg]C.
\29\ Organic halogens are identified here as any compound that
contains both carbon and a halogen (chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or
iodine).
\30\ Cresols are a group that includes three compounds.
\31\ Cyanide compounds are a group that includes hydrogen
cyanide, propionitrile, cyanogens, and a number of possible particle
phase compounds.
\32\ Dibenzofurans are a group that includes 135 polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs).
\33\ Glycol ethers are a group that includes roughly 30
compounds.
\34\ PCBs are a group that includes 209 congeners.
\35\ Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) is a group that
theoretically may include millions of compounds. Only 100 or so,
however, have been identified and studied.
\36\ Radionuclides are a group that includes uranium, radon, and
radium isotopes.
\37\ Dioxins are a group that includes 75 polychlorinated
dibenzo dioxins (PCDDs).
\38\ Xylenes are a group that includes three compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables 7 and 8 do not include the 17 compounds specifically removed
from the proposed regulatory definition of contaminants in Sec. 241.2.
As discussed in section II.D.1., HCl, Cl2, HF),
NOX, and SO2 are excluded from Table 8 and
replaced by the elements chlorine, fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur in
Table 7. This is necessary because of differences between NHSMs prior
to combustion and the emissions that will result from that combustion.
NHSMs prior to combustion are not expected to contain the CAA 112/129
pollutants HCl, Cl2, HF, NOX or SO2,
and measuring forms of their precursors (the elements chlorine,
fluorine, nitrogen and sulfur) is the only way to account for these
pollutants prior to combustion.
In addition, fine mineral fibers, PM, and coke oven emissions are
excluded because they are unlikely to exist in NHSMs prior to
combustion. Diazomethane, white phosphorus and titanium tetrachloride
are also excluded because their reactivity makes their presence in
NHSMs very unlikely.\39\ Finally, the three cresol isomers are included
in Table 8 under cresols/cresylic acid, itself a listed HAP; and
similarly, the three xylene isomers are included in Table 8 under
xylenes, also a listed HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Spicer, Chester W. et al., Hazardous Air Pollutant
Handbook, Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, 2002, pp 11-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What does ``designed to burn'' mean?
To meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion, persons must compare
contaminants in the NHSM they wish to burn to contaminants in the
traditional fuel the unit is ``designed to burn.'' \40\ Today's
proposal codifies that data for any traditional fuel the unit can burn
or does burn may be used for these comparisons, whether or not the
unit's
[[Page 80481]]
air permit lists the traditional fuel. The reason such comparisons to
traditional fuel(s) are conducted is to assist in making a
determination of whether or not the NHSM is being discarded, which
makes differentiating between ``can burn'' and ``does burn''
irrelevant. Please note that for a unit to be able to burn a
traditional fuel, it needs an appropriate feed mechanism (e.g., a way
to load solid fuel of a particular size into the unit). The unit would
also need the ability to adjust physical parameters to ensure spatial
mixing and flame stability per unit specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ As explained in Section II.D.2.a, today's proposed rule
makes it clear that ``contaminants'' may be an individual
contaminant or group of contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional fuels are defined in Sec. 241.2 as follows:
``Traditional fuels means materials that are produced as fuels and are
unused products that have not been discarded and therefore, are not
solid wastes, including: (1) fuels that have been historically managed
as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials,
including fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil and natural gas), their
derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil,
refinery gas, synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace
gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke oven gas) and cellulosic
biomass (virgin wood); and (2) alternative fuels developed from virgin
materials that can now be used as fuel products, including used oil
which meets the specifications outlined in 40 CFR 279.11, currently
mined coal refuse that previously had not been usable as coal, and
clean cellulosic biomass. These fuels are not secondary materials or
solid wastes unless discarded.''
Because most combustion units can burn different--but related--
traditional fuels, broad groups of similar traditional fuels may be
used when comparing contaminants. The most common traditional fuel
categories burned at major source boilers are coal, wood, oil and
natural gas, as evidenced by data submitted to the EPA's
OAQPS.41 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
Emissions Database for Boilers and Process Heaters Containing Stack
Test, CEM & Fuel Analysis Data Reported Under ICR No. 2286.01 and
ICR No. 2286.03 (Version 6). February 2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html#TECH.
\42\ The fuel analysis information in this OAQPS database is one
example of a ``national survey'' of traditional fuel information, as
referenced in the proposed contaminant legitimacy criterion at Sec.
241.3(d)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further clarify the impact of the new proposed ``designed to
burn'' language on contaminant comparisons, potential categories for
coal, wood and oil are described below. A coal group could include data
on anthracite, lignite, bituminous and sub-bituminous coal. A wood or
biomass group could include data on unadulterated lumber, timber, bark,
biomass and hogged fuel. An oil group could include data on fuel oils
1-6, diesel fuel, kerosene and other petroleum based
oils.43 44 In cases where a unit can burn traditional fuels
from several categories, such as a boiler that can burn either coal or
biomass, contaminant comparisons could be made using data from either
fuel category at the combustor's discretion. In other words, if a
facility burns biomass in its combustion unit, but that same combustion
unit could also burn coal, the facility could compare its secondary
material to either traditional fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ We do not believe that the oil group should include
unrefined crude oil or gasoline, as neither is typically burned in
combustion units subject to the CAA sections 112 or 129 standards.
\44\ Used oil is a special case and does not need to undergo the
contaminant comparison. If it meets the specifications in 40 CFR
Part 279.11, it is a traditional fuel. If it does not meet the
specifications (i.e., it is ``off-spec'' oil), it is a solid waste
under the 2011 NHSM final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some fossil fuel derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, coal tar oil)
and alternative fuels (e.g., clean cellulosic biomass) are defined as
traditional fuels and, therefore, do not need to meet the legitimacy
criteria to be burned. The EPA lacks sufficient contaminant data,
however, to assist those wishing to compare NHSM to these traditional
fuels. In addition, other units currently exist that burn only NHSMs.
Both situations raise the question of what traditional fuel(s) to use
for contaminant comparisons. In addition to being able to burn
derivative fuels, alternative fuels, or NHSM, most combustion units can
also burn other traditional fuel(s). In such cases, it is appropriate
to make the comparison to one of the traditional fuel categories
discussed above: either coal or wood for solids or oil for liquids. For
example, if a combustion unit only burns a solid form of NHSM, the
combustor could compare contaminants in the NHSM against either coal or
wood in order to demonstrate compliance with the contaminant legitimacy
criterion, provided the combustion unit is designed to burn such solid
forms of fuel.
c. What contaminant comparisons are allowed?
Regardless of the specific methodology chosen, a comparison will
have to be made for each contaminant or group of contaminants between a
traditional fuel or group of traditional fuels and the NHSM. Generators
or combustors can use either traditional fuel data collected by the EPA
or their own data for traditional fuel comparison values.\45\
Generators or combustors are responsible, however, for either providing
NHSM comparison values in cases where testing is required or
documenting why testing is unnecessary. Examples of acceptable NHSM
data could include both laboratory test results from a specific
generator or combustor and industry-recognized values provided by a
national trade organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The EPA has collected current information on levels of
contaminants in traditional fuels, which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index and used by the regulated
community as they so choose. The EPA will update this information as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given data for a particular traditional fuel, it makes intuitive
sense to base the traditional fuel comparison value on the upper end of
its statistical range. Anything less could result in ``traditional
fuel'' samples being considered solid waste if burned in the very
combustion units designed to burn them--not the Agency's intent in
either the 2011 NHSM final rule or today's proposed rule.\46\ Given
that selection, acceptable NHSM comparison values would include the
upper end of a statistical range, a calculation involving the mean and
standard deviation, or perhaps a single data point in situations where
data are limited. It would not be appropriate to compare an average
NHSM contaminant value to the high end of a traditional fuel range, as
the existence of an average implies multiple data points from which a
more suitable statistic (e.g., range or standard deviation) could have
been calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Traditional fuels, as defined in Sec. 241.2, are not
required to meet the legitimacy criteria, and this scenario is only
used to explain the logic behind basing a traditional fuel
comparison value on the upper end of a statistical range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If each NHSM comparison value is comparable to or lower than its
corresponding traditional fuel value, the material would be considered
to meet the contaminant legitimacy criterion. An initial assessment
would not generally need to be repeated, provided the facility
continues to operate in the same manner and use the same type of NHSMs
as when the original assessment was made.
We would finally note that despite presenting several approaches
for calculating NHSM comparison values, such as the upper end of a
statistical range or a calculation involving the mean and standard
deviation, today's preamble discussion does not preclude other
reasonable methodologies. In the context of an inspection or
enforcement action, the Agency will evaluate the appropriateness of
alternative methodologies and data sources on a case-by-case basis when
determining
[[Page 80482]]
whether the legitimacy criteria have been met.
Even when analytical testing is not necessary, combustors burning
NHSM under CAA section 112 must document the basis of their
determinations pertaining to the part 241 criteria (including the
contaminant legitimacy criteria) in accordance with applicable air
regulations. These regulations can be found in Sec. 63.11225(c)(2)(ii)
for area source boilers, in Sec. 63.7555(d)(2) for major source
boilers, and in Sec. 60.2175(v) and Sec. 60.2740(u) for incinerators.
3. Categorical Determinations That Specific NHSM Are Not Solid Waste
When Used as a Fuel
Issues were raised after promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule
concerning application of the legitimacy criteria, and the extent of
the information required to make demonstrations that a NHSM was not a
solid waste. To provide additional clarity and assist in implementation
of the rule, the Agency is proposing to codify in Sec. 241.4
determinations that certain NHSMs are not solid wastes when used as a
fuel, where the Agency has sufficient information and knowledge that
these NHSMs are not wastes. The practical effect of these categorical
listings is that persons that generate or burn these materials will not
need to make individual determinations, as required under the existing
rules, that these materials meet the legitimacy criteria. Except where
noted, combustors of these materials will not be required to provide
further information demonstrating their non-waste status.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In the 2011 NHSM final rule, scrap tires managed under
established tire collection programs and resinated wood were
designated as non-wastes when used both within and outside generator
control (see Sec. 241.3(b)(2). The final rule indicated that the
Agency would solicit comment in the future on additional non-
hazardous secondary materials that can be used as a non-waste fuel
both by the generator and outside the control of the generator (76
FR 15472).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Agency is proposing a list of secondary materials that
are non-wastes when used as a fuel in a combustion unit, based on a
balancing of the legitimacy criteria and other such relevant factors
that the Administrator may identify. Such additional factors may
include, but are not limited to, whether the NHSM's use as a fuel has
been integrally tied to the industrial production process and the
extent to which the NHSM is functionally the same as the comparable
traditional fuel.
We note that a balancing approach to considering the legitimacy
criteria along with other relevant factors is not included in the
standards and procedures for making individual non-waste determinations
under Sec. 241.3. The Agency is not considering any change to the
self-implementing, mandatory nature of the Sec. 241.3 standards for
individual facilities and will not respond to any comments on this
topic.
Regarding the proposed categorical determinations in Sec. 241.4,
where a particular NHSM may not meet all the legitimacy criteria
outlined in Sec. 241.3(d)(1), it is necessary to require a formal
determination in order to prevent sham recycling (i.e., materials being
discarded under the guise of recycling). The EPA has long acknowledged
that, ``[w]ith respect to the issue of whether [an] activity is sham
recycling, this question involves assessing the intent of the owner or
operator by evaluating circumstantial evidence, always a difficult
task.'' \48\ In cases where the difference between recycling and
treatment is difficult to distinguish, ``[t]he potential for abuse is
such that great care must be used when making a determination that a
particular activity is to go unregulated (i.e., it is one of those
activities which is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction).'' \49\
However, the Agency also believes that there are cases where a
secondary material may not fully meet the self-implementing legitimacy
criteria, but upon consideration of other relevant factors, it can be
determined that the material is a legitimate fuel and is not merely
being discarded by being burned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See April 26, 1989 Memorandum from Sylvia K. Lowrance,
Director, Office of Solid Waste to Hazardous Waste Management
Division Directors, Regions I-X. A copy of this document has been
placed in the docket for today's rulemaking.
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the proposed categorical determination that certain
secondary materials are not wastes when combusted as a fuel, the Agency
is proposing a rulemaking petition process for individuals to request
categorical determinations for additional NHSM as not being a solid
waste when burned as a fuel in combustion units. This process is
outlined in section II.D.4.
The information and rationale that the Agency is relying upon to
propose the section 241.4 categorical determinations for certain
secondary materials is discussed below.
a. Scrap Tires
In the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA determined that scrap tires
removed from vehicles and managed pursuant to established tire
collection programs would not be considered a solid waste, provided
they meet the legitimacy criteria in Sec. 241.3(d)(1). The 2011 NHSM
final rule preamble also concluded that, as a category, scrap tires
managed pursuant to established tire collection programs would meet the
legitimacy criteria for NHSMs used as fuels. Questions have arisen,
however, as to whether persons must still demonstrate for each facility
that this material meets the legitimacy criteria. To clarify this
point, we are proposing to codify a categorical determination in
today's rule to designate scrap tires that have not been discarded and
are managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs
(as defined in 241.2), including tires removed from vehicles and off-
specification tires, are not solid wastes when used as fuels in
combustion units. Thus, persons who generate and/or burn such scrap
tires would not need to make an individual legitimacy determination
that such scrap tires are non-waste fuels.
As discussed in section II.D.1 of today's action, the term
``established tire collection program'' is proposed to encompass off-
specification tires (including factory scrap tires) that are
contractually arranged to be collected, managed and transported between
a tire manufacturer, including retailers or other parties involved in
the distribution and sale of new tires, and a combustor. Thus, under
the proposal, ``established tire collection program'' means ``a
comprehensive collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures
scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities
through arrival at the combustion facility.'' The established tire
collection programs ensure the tires are not discarded. The rationale
for the related edits to the definition of established tire collection
programs are described in the section II.D.1.
As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, scrap tires from vehicles
meet the legitimacy criteria (Sec. 241.3(d)(1)) for being handled as a
valuable commodity, for having meaningful heating value, and for
comparable contaminants.\50\ Specifically, scrap tires are considered
to be handled as a valuable commodity when they are collected under
established tire collection programs. Because scrap tires have an
exceptionally high heating value (12,000 Btu/lb to 16,000 Btu/lb), they
are considered to meet the legitimacy criteria for meaningful heating
value. In fact, the heating value of scrap tires is higher than typical
coal values and other solid fuels.\51\ In developing the
[[Page 80483]]
2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA analyzed contaminant concentrations in
scrap tires and determined that contaminant levels were comparable to
or lower than levels in traditional fuels; therefore, scrap tires are
considered to meet the legitimacy criterion for comparable
contaminants.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 76 FR at 15535.
\51\ ASTM Standard D6700-01, 2006, ``Standard Practice for Use
of Scrap Tire-Derived Fuel,'' ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/C0033-03, http://www.astm.org.
\52\ 76 FR at 15492. Data cited submitted as comments on the
2010 NHSM Proposed Rule and can be found in the docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2008-0329. See also Materials Characterization Papers in Support of
the Final Rulemakings--Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary
Materials that are Solid Wastes: Scrap Tires (February 3, 2011);
Traditional Fuels and Key Derivatives (February 7, 2011) in docket
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329. We also note that we have developed, in
support of today's proposed rulemaking, a new background document
that includes updated information regarding scrap tires, as well as
the other NHSM discussed in today's proposal. This document is
entitled ``Resinated Wood, Scrap Tire, and Pulp/Paper Sludge Support
Document'' and can also be found in docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``scrap tire'' is a general term for tires and can
include, for example, whole tires, chipped tires, off-specification
tires, or off-specification tire components (i.e., tread, sidewall or
base) that are removed from vehicles or are generated by tire
manufacturers, including retailers or other parties involved in the
distribution and sale of new tires; it does not include whole tires
that have been discarded and burned directly without processing as a
fuel. The provision in Sec. 241.4 specifically references only those
scrap tires that have not been discarded and are managed under the
oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires
removed from vehicles and off-specification tires. Thus, the regulatory
text has been revised to make this point clear.
b. Resinated Wood 53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 40 CFR 241.2 defines resinated wood as wood products
(containing resin adhesives) derived from primary and secondary wood
products manufacturing and comprised of such items as board trim,
sander dust and panel trim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to designate resinated wood as not being a
solid waste when used as a fuel. This determination was previously
codified under Sec. 241.3 (b)(2)(ii) of the NHSM final rule, provided
the resinated wood met the legitimacy criteria in Sec. 241.3(d)(1).
However, based on the available information, as well as how this
material is handled and used in the process, resinated wood is not
being discarded when used as a fuel, and thus, should not be considered
a solid waste when burned as a fuel.
As discussed in the 2011 NHSM final rule, wood product plants have
been designed to specifically utilize these residuals that the wood
manufacturing process creates and would not be able to operate as
designed without this material. For example, sander dust injector
systems have been specifically developed to accommodate the unique
combustion requirements of this material and these injector systems
have been installed on many boiler and wood drying systems within the
industry.\54\ Burners designed to combust sander dust or trim may not
be suitable for combusting other fuels--thus, the cost of these
residual materials relative to the cost of using other fuels would be a
major consideration.\55\ Overall, in composite panel manufacturing,
plants typically reuse 58 percent of these residual materials in the
process and 35 percent is burned for energy recovery.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ American Forest and Paper Association, August 3, 2010. EPA
Docket ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329.
\55\ For example, Composite Panel Association, in comments on
the NHSM Proposed Rule, stated, ``Estimates for the cost of a
composite panel plant to switch boiler fuel from a trim/sander dust
mix to natural gas ranged from $1 million to $3.5 million a year
depending on boiler size and the price of natural gas. For direct
fired dryers alone, the cost to switch from sander dust to natural
gas ranged from $350,000 to $1.4 million a year, again depending on
dryer size and gas prices. These costs do not include the re-
engineering costs that would be necessitated nor do they include the
cost of transportation or off-site disposal of this valuable fuel.
Moreover, these costs do not take into account the severe costs
implications on all wood product facilities that currently utilize
resinated fuels in process heaters or dryers.'' EPA Docket ID: EPA-
HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1358.
\56\ The Generation and Utilization of Residuals from Composite
Panel Products; Forest Products Journal 54:2, 2004; David C. Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resinated wood is highly valued within the wood products industry
for its high fuel value relative to other wood fuels generated and
burned at these facilities for energy recovery. Many facilities rely on
mixing of these low moisture content wood materials with higher
moisture materials. Resinated wood residuals are routinely transferred
between either intra- or inter- company facilities and used as either
``furnish'' (i.e., raw materials) or fuel at the receiving facilities.
The material being transferred off-site is used and handled in the same
manner that resinated wood residuals are used when generated on-site.
In general, the motivation to use the resinated wood as a fuel, even
with the slightly higher formaldehyde levels, predominates over the
motivation to dispose of the formaldehyde. See American Petroleum
Institute v. EPA, 216 F.3d 50, 58 (DC Cir. 2000) (in declaring
reclaimed oily wastewater to be a waste, the EPA failed to explain why
the discard motivation predominated the recycling motivation). Indeed,
discard of the formaldehyde is a very distant second to the fuel
product use of the resinated wood.
The heating value range presented (8,500-9,000 Btu/lb) indicates
that resinated wood residuals have heating values significantly greater
than the 5,000 Btu/lb level described in the preamble to the 2011 NHSM
final rule for presuming compliance with the meaningful heating value
legitimacy criterion (codified at Sec. 241.3(d)(1)(ii)). Resinated
wood residuals also are managed as a valuable commodity since these
residuals are managed as a primary fuel for wood products
manufacturers.
While we received limited contaminant information prior to the
promulgation of the final rule, the data we have suggest that resins
and adhesives containing formaldehyde react within the resin curing
process, leaving ``free'' formaldehyde at levels less than 0.02 percent
(or 200 ppm). In addition, new national rules, as mandated by the CARB
Composite Wood ATCM, per new Public Law 111-199, will reduce the
formaldehyde levels even further.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Information received from the wood manufacturing industry
indicates that formaldehyde levels will be reduced to less than 100
ppm in resinated wood based on the new CARB rules. These data are
provided in the docket for today's proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we acknowledge that these levels may not always meet the
contaminant legitimacy criterion in every situation, in today's action,
we are proposing a categorical non-waste determination for resinated
wood that is used as fuel. We are proposing to codify this
determination, balancing the legitimacy criteria and other relevant
factors based on the fact that resinated wood residuals that are used
as fuels represents an integral component to the wood manufacturing
process and, as such, resinated wood residuals are not being discarded
when burned as fuels. That is, the purpose of burning these wood
residuals (including the resins that they contain, which themselves
contribute to the heating value of the material) is not to destroy or
discard them, as they are clearly considered and managed as a valuable
commodity to the manufacturing process.
In making this determination, we note the extent to which resinated
wood is used as fuels throughout the wood manufacturing industry and
that often the use of resinated wood as fuel is essential to the wood
manufacturing process. We also note the prevalence of wood product
plants that have been designed specifically to utilize these residuals
for their fuel value; in fact, many (if not most) wood products plants
would not be able to operate as designed without the use of these
[[Page 80484]]
materials as fuel. Thus, resinated wood residuals are not being
discarded when used as fuel and, therefore, we are proposing to
specifically identify them as a non-waste fuel in Sec. 241.4. By
specifically listing them as a non-waste fuel, generators or combustors
of this material will not need to make legitimacy determinations on a
site-by-site basis.
4. Rulemaking Petition Process for Other Non-Waste Determinations
The Agency recognizes that there may be other NHSMs that can also
be considered non-wastes when burned as fuels in combustion units when
balancing the legitimacy criteria and other relevant factors. Thus,
under today's proposed rule, we are proposing a process whereby persons
may submit a rulemaking petition to the Administrator where they can
identify and request that additional NHSMs be listed in section
241.4.\58\ The petition process would be similar to 40 CFR 260.20,
where any person may petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any
provisions of the hazardous waste rules, and where procedures governing
the EPA's action on those petitions are established. The section 260.20
standards reflect normal, informal rulemaking procedures under the APA
and thus serve as an appropriate model for the NHSM petitions under
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ This approach is consistent with the approach EPA recently
proposed in the July 2011 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) proposed
rule (76 FR 44094), whereby the Agency is proposing to require that
persons who claim that they are legitimately reclaiming a hazardous
secondary material meet all four legitimacy criteria, but is
providing a petition process whereby they can petition EPA that such
materials, when looking at the hazardous secondary material and
recycling activity as a whole, would still be considered legitimate
recycling. The primary difference between the two is that in the DSW
proposed rule, the demonstration is made on a site-specific basis,
whereas in today's proposed rule, the demonstration would be made on
a material-by-material basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of a rulemaking petition under section 241.4(b), any
person would be able to petition the Administrator for a regulatory
amendment to identify and request that additional NHSMs be included on
the list of materials in section 241.4(a) that are not solid wastes
when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. To be successful, the
petitioner would need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the proposed regulatory amendment involves a NHSM
that has not been previously discarded (i.e., was not initially
abandoned or thrown away). The petitioner must also demonstrate that
the material is used as a non-waste fuel in a combustion unit because
it either meets the legitimacy criteria, or, after balancing the
legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors, such NHSM(s) is not a
solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit.
If the applicant believes that the NHSM is a legitimate product and
not discarded despite not meeting legitimacy criteria, additional
information must be submitted to explain or describe why such NHSM
should be considered a non-waste fuel. Possible factors to address
include, but are not limited to:
The extent that use of the NHSM has been integrally tied
to the industrial production process. Information can include combustor
design specifications, the extent that use of the material is
integrated across the industry, and the extent that use of the NHSM is
essential to the industrial process, and/or
The extent that the NHSM is functionally the same as the
comparable traditional fuel, and
Other relevant factors.
The application would be required to include (1) The petitioner's
name and address; (2) a statement of the petitioner's interest in the
proposed action; (3) a description of the proposed action, including
the specific NHSM, the industry (i.e., NAICS code) and functional use
(i.e., industrial functional code listed in 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4)(i)(C));
and (4) a statement of the need and justification for the proposed
action, including any supporting tests, studies, or other information.
Where such NHSM(s) do not meet the legitimacy criteria, the applicant
must explain why such NHSM should be considered a non-waste fuel,
balancing the legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors.
Under this petition process, the Administrator would make a
tentative decision to grant or deny a petition and then publish notice
of such tentative decision, either in the form of an ANPRM, a proposed
rule, or a tentative determination to deny the petition, in the Federal
Register for written public comment. The Administrator could, at its
discretion, hold an informal public hearing to consider oral comments
on the tentative decision. After evaluating all public comments, the
Administrator would make a final decision by publishing in the Federal
Register a regulatory amendment or a denial of the petition.
E. Additional Request for Comment
1. Pulp and Paper Sludges
As we discuss elsewhere in this preamble, the Agency is proposing
to identify and categorically list NHSMs as being a non-waste fuel,
whether burned within the control of the generator or outside the
control of the generator (see 241.4(a)). By listing these NHSMs
categorically, persons would not have to make individual determinations
as to whether or not these NHSMs are solid wastes. In addition, the
Agency is also proposing that in considering whether or not to list a
NHSM as a non-waste fuel, that the Agency can balance the legitimacy
criteria, and such other relevant factors that the Administrator may
identify. Such additional factors may include, but are not limited to,
whether the NHSM's use as a fuel has been integrally tied to the
industrial production process and the extent to which the NHSM when
used as a fuel is consistent with that of fuel product.
With regard to pulp and paper sludges, the 2011 NHSM final rule
specifically concluded the following ``The final rule will retain the
proposed approach--pulp and paper sludges managed within control of the
generator are a non-waste fuel as they would seem to meet all of the
legitimacy criteria * * * '', (See 76 FR 15488, March 21, 2011). We
received several questions about these materials following issuance of
the final rule. As discussed below, based on the current record, the
EPA continues to believe that these pulp and paper sludges meet the
legitimacy criteria and can be burned as a non-waste fuel in accordance
with existing section 241.3(b)(1) provided such combustion units are
within the control of the generator. In this section, we discuss the
information we currently have on these sludges, and the additional
information that the Agency needs before we could categorically list
these materials in section 241.4(a) as a non-waste fuel. If such
information is provided to the EPA, and after balancing the legitimacy
criteria with other relevant factors that the EPA believes that these
sludges are not solid wastes when combusted, the EPA is prepared to add
pulp and paper sludges to the list of non-waste fuels in section
241.4(a).
Pulp and paper mill sludges, both primary and secondary, are
produced from the wastewater treatment of process effluents. In the
pulping and papermaking process, maximizing wood fiber recovery is
essential in making the process efficient and cost-effective. However,
there are fibers that end up being too short (fines) that can be
detrimental to paper quality and that inhibit the papermaking capacity
of the paper machine. Mills thoroughly clean and screen the wood fibers
to retain the suitable fibers and remove the excess fines. These fines
end up in the
[[Page 80485]]
wastewater stream and, eventually, in the sludge. Therefore, these
sludges, which are approximately 90-95 percent biomass on a dry weight
basis, are essentially no different than the biomass-based wood fibers
that enter the pulping or papermaking process, except that the fibers
are too short to be suitable for papermaking; these sludges also
contain microorganisms that feed on organic material in the wastewater
stream.
The EPA compared the contaminant concentrations in pulp and paper
sludges to levels found in coal and untreated wood, since both these
traditional fuels can be burned in pulp and paper mills. As we
discussed in the preamble to the final NHSM rule, chlorine levels from
one set of pulp and paper sludge samples submitted in the public
comments had an arithmetic mean of 465 ppm, a median of 318 ppm, a
maximum level among mill means of 2,399 ppm, and a maximum among
individual analyses of 4,800 ppm (all on a dry weight basis). Other
samples had chlorine concentrations of between 1,050-4,800 ppm (dry
basis). When comparing information on pulp and paper sludge to the
information that we have compiled on coal, we found that chlorine
levels in coal are reported to be as high as 7,400 ppm, and that
average chlorine values for bituminous and sub-bituminous coal are
1,200 ppm and 140 ppm, respectively. Thus, the average chlorine levels
reported in most pulp and paper sludge are likely to be comparable with
average chlorine levels found in bituminous coal. We also determined
that the chlorine levels in pulp and paper sludge would be comparable
to untreated wood, given that untreated wood had chlorine levels as
high as 11,890 ppm.\59\ We note that there is one sample in the
submitted data set for a pulp and paper sludge that has a chlorine
concentration of 16,550 ppm. However, since this was the only sample
with such a high concentration of chlorine, we did not think that it
was representative of pulp and paper sludges generally. Since
promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, EPA has received additional
contaminant data regarding these pulp and paper sludges from the forest
products industry, which demonstrate even more clearly that this one
sample is anomalous. Regarding chlorine levels in particular, the
forest products industry provided data for 93 samples of pulp and paper
sludges. This data set shows the mean value for chlorine to be 361 ppm,
with a standard deviation of 661 ppm, and a 90 percent confidence
interval at 1,217 ppm. We also determined that the levels of metals
were lower in pulp and paper sludges than in both untreated wood and
coal. Such data further support the conclusions outlined in the final
NHSM rule that, based on information received by the Agency, pulp and
paper sludge meets the contaminant legitimacy criterion (76 FR 15488).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Since promulgation of the 2011 NHSM final rule, the EPA has
updated and reorganized its traditional fuel data to reflect data
supporting the 2011 Major Source Boiler final rule and the 2011
CISWI final rule, whereas the previous version of the paper relied
on data supporting the 2010 Major Source Boiler proposed rule and
the 2010 CISWI proposed rule. Contaminant data have also been
reorganized to better reflect revisions to the definition of
``contaminants'' and the contaminant legitimacy criterion in today's
proposed NHSM rule. The updated data can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index. The Agency will update
this information as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pulp and paper sludges can have a heating value below 5,000
Btu/lb, pulp and paper mills typically improve the heating value
through dewatering. Data from the Boiler/CISWI database established for
those rules indicate that Btu/lb values exceeded 5,000 Btu/lb for pulp
and paper sludge measured on a dry weight basis. Thus, we believe that
pulp and paper sludges meet the meaningful heating value legitimacy
criterion when dewatered. Also, since pulp and paper sludges are
handled promptly (i.e., not stored for long periods of time and are
contained in storage units along with traditional fuels (such as wood
and bark) with minimal loss (similar to a valuable commodity), the EPA
believes that pulp and paper sludges are managed as a valuable
commodity (see 76 FR 15488-89, March 21, 2011).
Thus, based on the current record, the EPA believes that these pulp
and paper sludges meet the legitimacy criteria and can be burned as a
non-waste fuel provided such combustion units are within the control of
the generator in accordance with section 241.3(b)(1).\60\ As noted in
section II. D., facilities are not required to test contaminant levels
to demonstrate such legitimacy, but rather, persons can use expert or
process knowledge, as well as data generated from similar facilities,
to make those determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ We also note that pulp and paper sludges almost entirely
remain on-site and within the control of the generator when burned
as fuels. To the extent that pulp and paper sludges do not remain
within the control of the generator and are used as fuels, the
petition process established in 40 CFR 241.3(c) could apply to these
materials, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent industry and other commenters believe that these pulp
and paper sludges should be categorically listed in section 241.4(a),
they will need to provide the Agency with appropriate information, as
discussed later in this section. In such instances, the Agency can list
a NHSM as a non-waste fuel by balancing the legitimacy criteria and
such other relevant factors that the Administrator may identify.
For example, the Agency is proposing to list categorically
resinated wood residuals as a non-waste fuel balancing the legitimacy
criteria with other relevant factors. These other additional factors
include, but are not limited to, whether the NHSM's use as a fuel has
been integrally tied to the industrial production process and the
extent to which the NHSM is consistent with that of a fuel product.
Specifically, as discussed in section II.D.3.b, we are relying on
information about the high Btu values, the fact that wood product
plants have been designed to specifically utilize these residuals that
the wood manufacturing process creates and without which they would not
be able to operate as designed, and information about how the materials
are managed off-site as an indication that these materials are not
being discarded.
For pulp and paper sludges, we would need similar information to
support adding these materials to section 241.4(a). Specifically, the
types of information that would be particularly helpful include: (1)
Documentation of how the use of pulp and paper sludges that are used as
a fuel are integrated into the industrial production process and the
steps taken industry-wide to ensure that this NHSM is consistently used
as a legitimate fuel and is not discarded, including when transferred
to a different person for use as a fuel, (2) documentation on the
amount of pulp and paper sludges burned as a fuel (whether within the
control of the generator or outside the control of the generator), and
what determines which pulp and paper sludges are burned as a fuel, as
opposed to being land applied or disposed,\61\ (3) additional data
regarding the contaminant levels of the various HAP, such as chlorine
and metals, and what steps the industry has taken to ensure the quality
of these sludges when used as a fuel are consistent with that of fuel
product, (4) information on standard practices used to ensure that
these sludges have a meaningful heating value, including the types of
dewatering and other processing steps that these sludges are subject
to, as well as information on whether any pulp and paper sludges that
are burned as a fuel are done so without any processing,
[[Page 80486]]
including dewatering, and (5) when shipped to a different person for
use as a fuel, how these sludges are managed, including how they are
shipped, any processing that may occur, and how long these sludges are
typically stored prior to being burned as a fuel. If the information
that the EPA receives suggests that after a balancing of the legitimacy
criteria and any other relevant factors, such that when the facts are
viewed, as a whole, the sludges are non-waste fuels, the EPA will
consider adding pulp and paper sludge to the list of non-waste fuels in
40 CFR 241.4(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The Agency's latest data indicate that between 20 and 25
percent of these pulp and paper sludge are burned as a fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Coal Refuse
Coal refuse is generated when coal is mined, and is comprised of
non-combustible rock with some attached carbon material that is not
easily separated due to its small size. The EPA`s Coal Refuse Materials
Characterization Paper indicates that there are 18 coal refuse plants
(Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation-NAICS 221112), and 13 more that
use it as a secondary fuel, with bituminous coal as their primary fuel.
This paper did not provide an official estimate of the annual volume of
coal refuse that is generated, nor the amount that is stored in legacy
piles.
In an August 15, 2011 letter to the Anthracite Region Independent
Power Producers Association (ARIPPA), EPA addressed industry concerns
about whether coal refuse from legacy piles, when used as a fuel in
combustion units, would be considered a solid waste under the non-
hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) rule. After reaffirming that EPA
has determined that currently-generated coal refuse is an alternative
fuel, EPA addressed coal refuse from legacy piles. While noting that
coal refuse from legacy piles ``* * * has clearly been discarded and is
a solid waste unless sufficiently processed into a new legitimate fuel
product,'' EPA also states that it has determined that such refuse is
processed no differently than currently generated coal refuse, and
therefore meets EPA`s requirements for processing under 40 CFR 241.2.
The EPA goes on to declare that post-processed coal refuse from legacy
piles meets the first two criteria for treatment as a non-waste fuel
when combusted: materials are managed in the same manner, and would
have similar heating values, as currently generated coal refuse, which
is a traditional fuel.
The EPA then addresses the third criterion--whether the material
contains contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than traditional
fuels. The EPA affirms that because currently-generated coal refuse is
a traditional fuel, such fuel is the traditional fuel benchmark when
comparing contaminant levels with coal refuse found in legacy piles.
The EPA also notes that since legacy coal refuse is processed in the
same manner as currently-generated coal refuse, EPA expects that post-
processed coal refuse from legacy piles satisfies EPA`s contaminant
legitimacy criterion. Thus, post-processed coal refuse from legacy
piles are not being discarded when used as fuel and, therefore, we are
taking comment on specifically identifying them as a non-waste fuel in
Sec. 241.4.
F. Effect of This Proposed Rule on Other Programs
1. Clean Air Act
During the 2011 NHSM final rulemaking, the EPA assessed the effects
of that final rule on other programs. See 76 FR 15545-15546. The
reconsideration proposals for the CISWI and boiler rules are consistent
with the proposed revisions. These proposed NHSM revisions resulted in
only minimal changes to the inventories for CISWI and boilers.
2. Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program/Definition of Solid Waste Rule
The result of this rule will have no effect on the RCRA subtitle C
hazardous waste program because it does not address hazardous waste.
The RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste federal program has a long
regulatory history in defining ``solid waste'' for purposes of the
hazardous waste regulations. However, the 40 CFR 261.2 definition of
solid waste explicitly applies only to wastes that also are hazardous
for purposes of the subtitle C regulations (see 40 CFR 261.1(b)(1)).
Section 129 of the CAA also specifically excludes subtitle C combustion
units from coverage under that section.
Section 7003 of the RCRA gives the EPA the authority to compel
actions to abate conditions that may present an ``imminent and
substantial endangerment'' involving both solid and hazardous wastes.
The EPA uses this authority on a case-by-case basis. The Agency can
determine in a specific factual context whether a NHSM causes an
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
environment. Also, RCRA sections 3007 and 3008 establish the EPA's
inspection and federal enforcement authority to address violations of
the subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. Nothing in this rule shall
impact the EPA's ability to act pursuant to RCRA sections 3007, 3008
and 7003. The rule also does not limit or otherwise affect the EPA's
ability to pursue potentially responsible persons under section 107 of
CERCLA for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances.
G. State Authority
1. Relationship to State Programs
This proposal does not change the relationship to state programs as
described in the 2011 NHSM final rule. Refer to section IX of the 2011
NHSM final rule (76 FR 15546) for the discussion on state authority
including: ``Applicability of State Solid Waste Definitions and
Beneficial Use Determinations'' and ``Clarifications on the
Relationship to State Programs.'' The Agency, however, would like to
reiterate a few points.
Section 129 of the CAA states that the term ``solid waste'' shall
have the meaning ``established by the Administrator pursuant to
[RCRA].'' Consequently, the EPA issued the final NHSM rule to provide a
definition of ``solid waste'' under RCRA in order to determine which
NHSMs would be subject to the emissions standards under sections 112
and 129 of the CAA. In short, if a NHSM is not a ``solid waste'' under
RCRA, and is burned in a combustion unit, then the combustion unit that
burns the material would be subject to the applicable CAA section 112
requirements. On the other hand, if the NHSM is considered a ``solid
waste,'' then the combustion unit that burns the material would be
subject to the applicable CAA 129 requirements, even if energy or
material recovery also occurs. The part 241 waste determination only
applies to those NHSMs that are combusted and does not address other
uses.
This proposed rule (like the March 2011 final rule) is not intended
to interfere with a state's program authority over the general
management of waste. For a further discussion on the relationship to
state authority, see the discussion in the preamble to the 2011 NHSM
final rule at 76 FR 15546.
2. State Adoption of the Rulemaking
No federal approval procedures for state adoption of today's
proposed rule are included in this rulemaking action under RCRA
subtitle D. Although the EPA does promulgate criteria for solid waste
landfills and approves state MSW landfill permitting programs, RCRA
does not provide the EPA with authority to approve state programs
beyond MSW landfill permitting programs. While states are not required
to adopt regulations promulgated under RCRA
[[Page 80487]]
subtitle D, some states incorporate federal regulations by reference or
have specific state statutory requirements that their state program can
be no more stringent than the federal regulations. In those cases, the
EPA anticipates that, if required by state law, the changes being
proposed today, if finalized, will be incorporated (or possibly adopted
by authorized state air programs) consistent with the state's laws and
administrative procedures.
H. Cost and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The RCRA aspects of this proposed rule do not directly invoke any
costs (excluding minor administrative burden/cost), or benefits. Any
RCRA related costs to the regulated community, and corresponding
benefits to human health and the environment, have been considered as
part of the current CISWI action, and the corresponding CISWI and
Boiler MACT (area source and major source) final rules. As such, the
Agency has not prepared a separate cost-benefit assessment in support
of this part of the proposal. Consequently, any potential costs or
benefits, including impacts to small entities, indirectly associated
with the RCRA aspects of this proposal are addressed in the
corresponding impacts assessment prepared in support of the CISWI part
of this action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this
action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose any new information collection
burden. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing CISWI and NHSM \62\ regulations
(40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, and 40 CFR part 241) under the
provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and has been assigned
EPA ICR number 2384.03 for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60, EPA ICR number
2385.03 for subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60, and EPA ICR number 2382.03
for 40 CFR part 241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That
Are Solid Waste, Final Rule. March 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is believed to result in no changes to the information
collection requirements of the final NHSM rule and will have no impact
on the information collection estimate of project cost and hour burden
made and approved by OMB. Due to changes in the CISWI inventory and
monitoring requirements of the CISWI rule, the information collection
estimate of project cost and hour burden have been revised. Therefore,
only the CISWI ICR has been revised. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any new requirements on any entities
because it does not impose any additional regulatory requirements
relative to those specified in the March 2011 final CISWI and NHSM
rules. The March 2011 final CISWI and NHSM rules were both certified as
not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. In this proposed action, there are three fewer small
entities in the CISWI than in the March 2011 final CISWI rule, as
discussed in the ``Economic Impact Analysis: Reconsideration Proposal
Inputs Comparison'' memorandum in the CISWI docket. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private sector in any one
year. This rule proposes amendments to the final CISWI rule provisions
and technical clarifications to the final NHSM rule. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
However, the final CISWI rule contains a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1
year. Accordingly, we have prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a
written statement, which is summarized in the preamble to the final
CISWI rule (76 FR 15747).
This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule will not impose
direct compliance costs on state or local governments and will not
preempt state law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed
CISWI and NHSM regulations from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). The EPA is not
aware of any CISWI in Indian country or owned or operated by Indian
tribal governments. The CISWI aspects of this rule may, however, invoke
minor indirect tribal implications to the extent that entities
generating solid wastes on tribal lands could be affected. However, any
indirect
[[Page 80488]]
NHSM impacts that may occur as a result of the CISWI action are
expected to be negligible due to the very limited focus of the CISWI
part or this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
based solely on technology performance and technical corrections.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to result in a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA estimates that the requirements
in this rule would cause most CISWI in the ERU and waste-burning kiln
subcategories to modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g.,
increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and operate
new control devices, resulting in approximately 242,283 MW-hours per
year of additional electricity being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption expected to
result from this rule, the EPA does not expect any significant price
increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should
not be affected by this rule at all since the rule would not affect
energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the
import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes that
may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be significant.
We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any adverse energy
effects associated with this rule, they would be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use VCS in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides not use available and applicable
VCS.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve any revisions to the
technical standards or test methods required in the final CISWI rule.
Therefore, the EPA did not reconsider the use of any VCS for this
proposal.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The amendments do not relax the control measures on
sources regulated by the CISWI rule, and, therefore, will not cause
emissions increases from these sources. The March 2011 final CISWI rule
will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this source.
Furthermore, the targeted revisions proposed in the NHSM section of
this rule are designed to improve the management of these materials,
thereby helping to further ensure against any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances.
40 CFR Part 241
Environmental protection, air pollution control, waste treatment
and disposal.
Dated: December 2, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraph (a)(93).
b. Revising paragraph (h)(4).
c. Adding paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),
approved April 1, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 60.2165(j),
60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 to subpart CCCC, and tables 2, 6, 7,
and 9 to subpart DDDD, Sec. Sec. 60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v),
tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec. 60.56c(b)(4),
Sec. 60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), Sec. 60.106(e)(2), Sec. Sec.
60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4),
(i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), Sec. 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4),
(g)(2), and (g)(4), Sec. 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v),
(a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and Sec. 60.107a(a)(1)(ii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of
subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ,
Sec. Sec. 60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii),
60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and (ii),
60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 60.2730(q)(3),
60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and
(viii), 60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2
and 3 to subpart MMMM.
* * * * *
[[Page 80489]]
(o) The following material is available from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202) 272-0167, http://www.epa.gov.
(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2),
60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B).
(2) [Reserved]
3. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCCC--Standards of Performance for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
* * * * *
4. Section 60.2005 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2005 When does this subpart become effective?
This subpart takes effect on [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Some of the requirements in
this subpart apply to planning the CISWI unit (i.e., the
preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec. 60.2045 and 60.2050). Other
requirements such as the emission limitations and operating limits
apply after the CISWI unit begins operation.
5. Section 60.2015 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2015 What is a new incineration unit?
(a) A new incineration unit is an incineration unit that meets any
of the criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this
section.
(1) A CISWI unit that commenced construction after [DATE OF 60 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) A CISWI unit that commenced reconstruction or modification
after [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(b) This subpart does not affect your CISWI unit if you make
physical or operational changes to your incineration unit to comply
with subpart DDDD of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance
Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units).
Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or modification under
this subpart.
6. Section 60.2020 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
c. Revising paragraph (c).
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(3), (g), (m), and (n).
e. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k), and (l).
f. Removing paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.2020 What combustion units are exempt from this subpart?
This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i), and (n) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260.
* * * * *
(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
subject to subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2265. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a small power production facility and
that the waste material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2265. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a cogeneration facility and that the
waste material the unit is combusting is homogeneous.
(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter that are subject to subpart LLLL
of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) or subpart MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines for Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units).
Sec. 60.2025 [Removed]
7. Section 60.2025 is removed.
8. Section 60.2030 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5).
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(10).
Sec. 60.2030 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and
(c)(6) through (10) of this section.
* * * * *
(8) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Sec.
60.2105 under Sec. 60.11(e)(6) through (8).
(9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.2125(j), 60.8(b)(4) and (5).
(10) Determination of whether a qualifying small power production
facility or cogeneration facility under Sec. 60.2020(e) or (f) is
combusting homogenous waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2265.
9. Section 60.2045 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2030 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of an incinerator after December 1, 2000.
(b) You must prepare a siting analysis for CISWI units that
commenced construction after June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification after [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to
submit an initial application for a construction permit under 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit.
10. Section 60.2070 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
[[Page 80490]]
Sec. 60.2070 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or to prevent
conditions that may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *
11. Section 60.2085 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2085 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
* * * * *
(d) Prevention and correction of malfunctions or conditions that
may lead to malfunction.
* * * * *
12. Section 60.2105 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2105 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each CISWI unit,
including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 1 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 8 of this subpart by the applicable date in Sec.
60.2140. You must be in compliance with the emission limitations of
this subpart that apply to you at all times.
(b) An incinerator unit that commenced construction after November
30, 1999, but no later than June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification on or after June 1, 2001, but no later
than [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] must meet the more stringent emission limit for the
respective pollutant in table 1 of this subpart or table 6 of subpart
DDDD.
13. Section 60.2110 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4).
c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (g).
Sec. 60.2110 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to comply with the emission
limitations, you must establish operating limits for up to four
operating parameters (as specified in table 2 of this subpart) as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section during the
initial performance test.
* * * * *
(2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate matter
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average pressure
drop across the wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
emission limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average amperage to
the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at the inlet to the wet acid gas
or particulate matter scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission
limitations.
(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated as the lowest
1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet acid gas scrubber
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the hydrogen chloride emission limitation.
* * * * *
(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the (secondary) voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the
particulate matter performance test. Calculate the average electric
power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = secondary electric
power) for each test run. The operating limit for the electrostatic
precipitator is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to comply with
the emission limitations, you must measure the sorbent flow rate during
the performance testing. The operating limit for the carbon sorbent
injection is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average sorbent flow rate
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limitations.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the charge rate, the secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit), and the reagent
flow rate during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The operating
limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction are calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average charge rate, secondary chamber temperature, and
reagent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limitations.
(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
or fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, and if you do
not determine compliance with your particulate matter emission
limitation with a particulate matter CEMS, you must maintain opacity to
less than or equal to 10 percent opacity (1-hour block average).
14. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2115 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter,
activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?
If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
fabric filter, or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in
some other manner, including material balances, to comply with the
emission limitations under Sec. 60.2105, you must petition the EPA
Administrator for specific operating limits to be established during
the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(b) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(c) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
(d) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(e) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
15. Section 60.2120 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 80491]]
Sec. 60.2120 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission Limit
During Malfunction.
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec. 60.2105, you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 60.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving
all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative
defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
(1) The excess emissions:
(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
(6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and systems, as well
as control systems, were kept in operation if at all possible,
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and
(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
Sec. 60.2105 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of
this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance.
16. Section 60.2125 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c).
b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2).
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?
* * * * *
(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of
this subpart.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octa-chlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in table 3 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this part must be
used to determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in
table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart.
(i) If you have an applicable opacity operating limit, you must
determine compliance with the opacity limit using Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 of this part, based on three 1-hour blocks
consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values, unless you are
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent
with Sec. Sec. 60.2145 and 60.2165.
17. Section 60.2130 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2130 How are the performance test data used?
You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through
8 of this subpart.
18. Section 60.2135 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?
You must conduct a performance test, as required under Sec. Sec.
60.2125 and 60.2105 to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this
subpart, to establish compliance with any opacity operating limit in
Sec. 60.2110, and to establish operating limits using the procedures
in Sec. Sec. 60.2110 or 60.2115. The performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2125.
The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate
the performance test. You must conduct a performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the
monitoring system.
19. Section 60.2140 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2140 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
test?
(a) The initial performance test must be conducted within 60 days
after your CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will operate,
but no later than 180 days after its initial startup.
(b) If you commence or recommence combusting a solid waste at an
existing
[[Page 80492]]
combustion unit at any commercial or industrial facility, and you
conducted a test consistent with the provisions of this subpart while
combusting the solid waste within the 6 months preceding the
reintroduction of that solid waste in the combustion chamber, you do
not need to retest until 6 months from the date you reintroduce that
solid waste.
(c) If you commence combusting or recommence combusting a solid
waste at an existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial
facility and you have not conducted a performance test consistent with
the provisions of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste
within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that solid waste in
the combustion chamber, you must conduct a performance test within 60
days commencing or recommencing solid waste combustion.
20. Section 60.2141 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2141 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the device's initial startup.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the state agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
21. Section 60.2145 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2145 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and the operating limits?
(a) Compliance with standards.
(1) The emission standards and operating requirements set forth in
this subpart apply at all times.
(2) If you cease combusting solid waste, you may opt to remain
subject to the provisions of this subpart. Consistent with the
definition of CISWI unit, you are subject to the requirements of this
subpart at least 6 months following the last date of solid waste
combustion. Solid waste combustion is ceased when solid waste is not in
the combustion chamber (i.e., the solid waste feed to the combustor has
been cut off for a period of time not less than the solid waste
residence time).
(3) If you cease combusting solid waste, you must be in compliance
with any newly applicable standards on the effective date of the waste-
to-fuel switch. The effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch is a
date selected by you, that must be at least 6 months from the date that
you ceased combusting solid waste, consistent with Sec. 60.2145(a)(2).
Your source must remain in compliance with this subpart until the
effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch.
(4) If you own or operate an existing commercial or industrial
combustion unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste material, and you
commence or recommence combustion of solid waste, you are subject to
the provisions of this subpart as of the first day you introduce or
reintroduce solid waste to the combustion chamber, and this date
constitutes the effective date of the fuel-to-waste switch. You must
complete all initial compliance demonstrations for any section 112
standards that are applicable to your facility before you commence or
recommence combustion of solid waste. You must provide 30 days prior
notice of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The
notification must identify:
(i) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(ii) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the
CISWI unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6
months, and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(iv) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(v) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with (2) and (3)) above.
(5) All air pollution control equipment necessary for compliance
with any newly applicable emissions limits which apply as a result of
the cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid
waste must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch.
(6) All monitoring systems necessary for compliance with any newly
applicable monitoring requirements which apply as a result of the
cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid waste
must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and drift
checks must be performed as of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel,
or fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy tests must be performed as
of the performance test deadline for PM CEMS. Relative accuracy testing
for other CEMS need not be repeated if that testing was previously
performed consistent with Clean Air Act section 112 monitoring
requirements or monitoring requirements under this subpart.
(b) You must conduct an annual performance test for the pollutants
listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart
and opacity for each CISWI unit as required under Sec. 60.2125. The
annual performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed
in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and
the procedures in Sec. 60.2125. Annual performance tests are not
required if you use CEMS or continuous opacity monitoring systems to
determine compliance.
(c) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec. 60.2110 or established under Sec. 60.2115 and as
specified in Sec. 60.2170. Use 3-hour block average values to
determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is established under Sec. 60.2115.
Operation above the established maximum, below the established minimum,
or outside the allowable range of the operating limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from your
operating limits established under this subpart, except during
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. Operating
limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance tests.
(d) You must burn only the same types of waste and fuels used to
establish subcategory applicability (for energy recovery units) and
operating limits during the performance test.
(e) For energy recovery units, incinerators, and small remote
units, you must perform an annual visual emissions test for ash
handling.
(f) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for opacity using EPA Reference Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60 (except where particulate matter CEMS or continuous parameter
monitoring system are used) and the pollutants listed in table 6 of
this subpart.
[[Page 80493]]
(g) You may elect to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
carbon monoxide emission limit using a carbon monoxide CEMS according
to the following requirements:
(1) You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
CEMS data during startup and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are
not corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen
content. You must demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon
monoxide emissions limit using a 30-day rolling average of these 1-hour
arithmetic average emission concentrations, including CEMS data during
startup and shutdown as defined in this subpart, calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7 of this part.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of performance specification 4A of appendix B of this part
and quality assurance procedure 1 of appendix F of this part.
(h) For waste-burning kilns, demonstrate continuous compliance with
the particulate matter emissions limit using a particulate matter CEMS
according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2165(n). Energy recovery units
with design heat input capacities greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr
may elect to demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit using a particulate matter CEMS according to the
procedures in Sec. 60.2165(n) instead of the particulate matter
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) specified in Sec.
60.2145.
(i) For energy recovery units with design heat input capacities
greater than or equal to 10 MMBtu/hour and less than 250 MMBtu/hr, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2165.
(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and hydrogen chloride as listed
in table 7 of this subpart. You must determine compliance with hydrogen
chloride using a hydrogen chloride CEMS if you do not use an acid gas
wet scrubber. You must determine compliance with nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter using CEMS. You
must determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit using a
mercury CEMS according to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a CEMS system in accordance with performance
specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a sorbent trap based
integrated monitor in accordance with performance specification 12B of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the performance test must
be a calendar month. For each calendar month in which the waste-burning
kiln operates, hourly mercury concentration data, and stack gas
volumetric flow rate data must be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a mercury CEMS must install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and
recording the mercury mass emissions rate to the atmosphere according
to the requirements of performance specifications 6 and 12A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B, and quality assurance procedure 6 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix F.
(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury CEMS while the raw mill of
the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating under normal conditions and
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not operating.
(k) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air pollution control device. The inspection must
include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(l) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section,
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this
paragraph (l) that addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c) introductory text,
(c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and
(m)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of no greater
than 2 percent of the expected process flow rate.
(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal velocity
distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance evaluation in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than annually.
(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM scrubber pressure
drop).
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
(4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system in
[[Page 80494]]
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than annually.
(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system
continues to meet the performance requirements in your monitoring plan.
Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new pressure
sensor.
(o) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH monitoring
system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and (o)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at least once each process
operating day.
(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a two-point
calibration with one of the two buffer solutions having a pH within 1
of the pH of the operating limit) of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than quarterly.
(p) If you have an operating limit that requires a secondary
electric power monitoring system for an electrostatic precipitator, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and (p)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the precipitator collection plates.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric power
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(q) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
monitoring system to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt,
weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (l) and (q)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent injection rate
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(r) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system
to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system as specified in paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Install a bag leak detection sensor(s) in a position(s) that
will be representative of the relative or absolute particulate matter
loadings for each exhaust stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a
positive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.
(2) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak detection
system in accordance with your monitoring plan and consistent with the
guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17).
(4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a system that
will sound an alarm when an increase in relative particulate matter
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is observed readily by plant operating personnel.
(s) For facilities using a CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the
sulfur dioxide emission limit, compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emission limit may be demonstrated by using the CEMS specified in Sec.
60.2165 to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 30-day rolling
average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1
of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7 of this
part. The sulfur dioxide CEMS must be operated according to performance
specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in this paragraph (s). For sources
that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million dry
volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide CEMS
should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the reference
method test data in terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5
parts per million dry volume absolute value of the mean difference
between the reference method and the CEMS, whichever is greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, collect sulfur
dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data concurrently (or within a
30- to 60-minute period) with both the continuous emissions monitors
and the test methods specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), must be used.
(2) The span value of the CEMS at the inlet to the sulfur dioxide
control device must be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly
potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit subject to this rule.
The span value of the CEMS at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide control
device must be 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential
sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit subject to this rule.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(t) For facilities using a CEMS to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit, compliance with the
nitrogen oxides emission limit may be demonstrated by using the CEMS
specified in Sec. 60.2165 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a
30-day rolling average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7 of this part. The nitrogen oxides CEMS must be operated according
to performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must
follow the procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (t)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, collect
nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) with both the CEMS and the test
methods specified in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19-
10.1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable,
must be used.
[[Page 80495]]
(2) The span value of the CEMS must be 125 percent of the maximum
estimated hourly potential nitrogen oxide emissions of the unit.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections,
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be
established during the initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through
(t)(4)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be re-established
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be used to determine
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a sampling
location. Method 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must
be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as
the carbon dioxide monitor.
(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.
(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed.
(u) For facilities using a CEMS to demonstrate continuous
compliance with any of the emission limits of this subpart, you must
complete the following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s)
using a 30-day rolling average, calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7 of this part.
(2) Operate all CEMS in accordance with the applicable procedures
under appendices B and F of this part.
(v) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an emissions standards
deviation for particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, NOX,
SO2, and dioxin/furans.
(w) For energy recovery units with a design heat input capacity of
100 MMBtu per hour or greater that do not use a carbon monoxide CEMS,
you must install, operate, and maintain an oxygen analyzer system as
defined in Sec. 60.2265 according to the procedures in paragraphs
(w)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by the initial
performance test date specified in Sec. 60.2675.
(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the oxygen level
set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume that is established as the
operating limit for oxygen according to paragraph (w)(3) of this
section.
(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it is not below
the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration measured during the most
recent CO performance test.
(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling average oxygen
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 of Appendix A-7 of this part.
(x) For energy recovery units with design heat input capacities
greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you must install, certify,
maintain, and operate a PM CPMS monitoring emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the system as specified in
paragraphs (x)(1) through (5) of this section. For other energy
recovery units, you may elect to use PM CPMS operated in accordance
with this section in lieu of using other CMS for monitoring PM
compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP secondary power, PM scrubber
pressure).
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM CPMS according
to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan
developed in accordance with Sec. 60.2145(l) and (x)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be based on in-
stack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation, or beta
attenuation of the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas sample.
The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as
milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal.
(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period required to
complete sampling, measurement, and reporting for each measurement) no
longer than 60 minutes.
(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and responding to
particulate matter concentrations of no greater than 0.5 mg/actual
cubic meter.
(3) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all energy
recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS output as millamps,
PM concentration, or other raw data signal value.
(4) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of all of the
hourly average PM CPMS output collected during all energy recovery unit
operating hours data (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data
signal).
22. Section 60.2150 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2150 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
You must conduct annual performance tests between 11 and 13 months
of the previous performance test.
23. Section 60.2151 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2151 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution
control device inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous
annual air pollution control device inspection), you must complete the
air pollution control device inspection as described in Sec. 60.2141.
24. Section 60.2155 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2155 May I conduct performance testing less often?
(a) You must conduct annual performance tests according to the
schedule specified in Sec. 60.2150, with the following exceptions:
(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward, as specified in Sec. 60.2160. The Administrator may request a
repeat performance test at any time.
(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 days of a
process change, as defined in Sec. 60.2265.
(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test for any
pollutant in table 1 or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart, as
applicable, demonstrates that the emission level for the pollutant is
no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or
(ii) of this section, as applicable, and you are not required to
conduct a performance test for the pollutant in response to a request
by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process
change in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you may elect to skip
conducting a performance test for the pollutant for the next 2 years.
You must conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the third
year and no more than 37 months following the previous performance test
for the pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be
emitted at emission levels no greater than their respective emission
levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to
qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph.
(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead and
[[Page 80496]]
dioxins/furans, the emission level equal to 75 percent of the
applicable emission limit in table 1 or tables 5 through 8 of this
subpart, as applicable, to this subpart.
(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of combustion ash
from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent of the time during each of
the three 1-hour observation periods.
(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a pollutant as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and a subsequent
performance test for the pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit does
not meet the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of
this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual performance tests
for the pollutant according to the schedule specified in paragraph (a)
of this section until you qualify for less frequent testing for the
pollutant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
25. Section 60.2165 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(6).
b. Revising paragraph (c).
c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (r).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.2165 What monitoring equipment must I install and what
parameters must I monitor?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alert automatically an operator when an increase in
relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected.
The alarm must be located where it is observed easily by plant
operating personnel.
* * * * *
(c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber, activated
carbon, selective non-catalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations under Sec.
60.2105, you must install, calibrate (to the manufacturers'
specifications), maintain, and operate the equipment necessary to
monitor compliance with the site-specific operating limits established
using the procedures in Sec. 60.2115.
(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, you must measure the minimum
mercury sorbent flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must complete the following:
(1) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.2125, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or the minimum reagent
flow rate measured as 3-hour block averages at all times.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge
rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature and below the
minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously constitute a violation of the
nitrogen oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you must monitor the secondary power
to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-
hour block averages at or above the operating limits established during
the mercury or particulate matter performance test.
(g) For waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, in
place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA Method 321 at 40 CFR part
63, appendix A, an owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a CEMS for monitoring hydrogen chloride emissions
discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the system. To
demonstrate continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride emissions
limit for units other than waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet
scrubber, a facility may substitute use of a hydrogen chloride CEMS for
conducting the hydrogen chloride annual performance test, monitoring
the minimum hydrogen chloride sorbent flow rate, and monitoring the
minimum scrubber liquor pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a particulate
matter CEMS for conducting the PM annual performance test and
monitoring the minimum pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if
applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the dioxin/furan annual performance test.
You must record the output of the system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this
part. This option to use a continuous automated sampling system takes
effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to
dioxin/furan from continuous monitors is published in the Federal
Register. The owner or operator who elects to continuously sample
dioxin/furan emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method
23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a continuous automated sampling system and must comply with
the requirements specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the mercury annual performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet performance
specification 12B. The owner or operator who elects to continuously
sample mercury emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA
Reference Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 of this
part, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17), or an approved alternative method for measuring mercury
emissions, must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and must comply with performance
specification 12A and quality assurance procedure 5, as well as the
requirements specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a CEMS for the
nitrogen oxides annual performance test to demonstrate compliance with
the nitrogen oxides emissions limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. The requirements under performance specification
2 of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance procedure one of
appendix F of this part and the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be
followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the CEMS.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2125, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
required under Sec. 60.52b(d) must be determined based on the 30-day
rolling average of the hourly emission concentrations using CEMS outlet
data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per
million by volume (dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-day rolling
average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
calculated using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
[[Page 80497]]
(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the sulfur dioxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for measuring
sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. The requirements under performance specification
2 of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance requirements of
procedure one of appendix F of this part and procedures under Sec.
60.13 must be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of
the CEMS.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2125, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using CEMS outlet data. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-day rolling
average emission concentrations and daily geometric average emission
percent reductions. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated
using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units over 10 MMBtu/hr but less than 250
MMBtu/hr design heat input that do not use a wet scrubber, fabric
filter with bag leak detection system, or particulate matter CEMS, you
must install, operate, certify, and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (5) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec.
60.2105. Energy recovery units that use a CEMS to demonstrate initial
and continuing compliance according to the procedures in Sec.
60.2165(n) are not required to install a continuous opacity monitoring
system and must perform the annual performance tests for the opacity
consistent with Sec. 60.2145(f).
(1) Install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to performance specification 1 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13 and
according to PS-1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.13(e)(1), each continuous opacity
monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system data as
specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and 1-hour
block averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr, in place of particulate matter testing with EPA Method 5
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, an owner or operator may install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for monitoring particulate
matter emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of
the system. For waste-burning kilns, a CEMS for monitoring particulate
matter emissions is required. The owner or operator of an affected
facility who continuously monitors particulate matter emissions instead
of conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-3 must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a CEMS and
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1)
through (n)(14) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use of the
system.
(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use of the
system.
(3) The monitor must be installed, evaluated, and operated in
accordance with the requirements of performance specification 11 of
appendix B of this part and quality assurance requirements of procedure
two of appendix F of this part and Sec. 60.13. Use Method 5 or Method
5I of Appendix A of this part for the PM CEMS correlation testing.
(4) The initial performance evaluation must be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected
facility, as specified under Sec. 60.2125 or within 180 days of
notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous monitoring
system if the owner or operator was previously determining compliance
by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility must be established according to the
procedures and methods specified in Sec. 60.2145(s)(5)(i) through
(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility must conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.2125. Compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit must be determined by using the CEMS specified in paragraph (n)
of this section to measure particulate matter and calculating a 30-day
rolling average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section
12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7 from the 1-hour arithmetic average CEMS outlet
data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified in Sec. 60.2170(e).
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7)
of this section must be expressed in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and must be used to
calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations. The 1-
hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points
required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid CEMS data must be used in calculating average
emission concentrations even if the minimum CEMS data requirements of
paragraph (n)(8) of this section are not met.
(11) The CEMS must be operated according to performance
specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part, particulate
matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be collected
concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emissions monitors and the following test methods.
(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
as applicable, must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F of
this part.
(14) When particulate matter emissions data are not obtained
because of CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments, emissions data must be obtained by using other
monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference
Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day,
90 percent of the hours
[[Page 80498]]
per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year
that the affected facility is operated and combusting waste.
(o) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit, you may elect to use a continuous automated sampling
system.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for measuring
carbon monoxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. The requirements under performance specification
4B of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part and the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be
followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the CEMS.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for carbon
monoxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2140, compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations, including CEMS data during startup and
shutdown as defined in this subpart, using CEMS outlet data. Except for
CEMS data during startup and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, the
1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-
day rolling average emission concentrations. CEMS data during startup
and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen content. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points required
under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(p) The owner/operator of an affected source with a bypass stack
shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain,
and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time and duration.
(q) For energy recovery units with a design heat input capacity of
100 MMBtu per hour or greater that do not use a carbon monoxide CEMS,
you must install, operate, and maintain a oxygen analyzer system as
defined in Sec. 60.2265 according to the procedures in paragraphs
(q)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by the initial
performance test date specified in Sec. 60.2675.
(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the oxygen level
set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume that is established as the
operating limit for oxygen according to paragraph (q)(3) of this
section.
(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it is not below
the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration measured during the most
recent CO performance test.
(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling average oxygen
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 of Appendix A-7 of this part.
(r) For energy recovery units with design heat input capacities
greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you must install, certify,
maintain, and operate a PM CPMS monitoring emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the system as specified in
paragraphs (r)(1) through (5) of this section. If you elect to use a
particulate matter CEMS as specified in paragraph (n) of this section,
you are not required to use a PM CPMS to monitor particulate matter
emissions. For other energy recovery units, you may elect to use PM
CPMS operated in accordance with this section in lieu of using other
CMS for monitoring PM compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP
secondary power, PM scrubber pressure)
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM CPMS according
to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan
developed in accordance with Sec. 60.2145(l) and (r)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be based on in-
stack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation, or beta
attenuation of the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas sample.
The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as
milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal.
(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period required to
complete sampling, measurement, and reporting for each measurement) no
longer than 60 minutes.
(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and responding to
particulate matter concentrations of no greater than 0.5 mg/actual
cubic meter.
(3) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all energy
recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS output as millamps,
PM concentration, or other raw data signal value.
(4) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of all of the
hourly average PM CPMS output collected during all energy recovery unit
operating hours data (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data
signal).
26. Section 60.2170 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must
obtain?
For each continuous monitoring system required or optionally
allowed under Sec. 60.2165, you must collect data according to this
section:
(a) You must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all
required intervals at all times compliance is required except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods (as specified in 60.2210(o) of this part), and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and
span adjustments). A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system
to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in
part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
You are required to effect monitoring system repairs in response to
monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods and to return
the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as practicable.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions or out-of-control periods, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, or required
monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in
calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must use
all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system.
(c) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions
or out-of-control periods, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments, failure to
collect required data is a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
27. Section 60.2175 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
d. Adding paragraphs (o) through (v).
Sec. 60.2175 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (u) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years:
* * * * *
[[Page 80499]]
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for
controls other than wet scrubbers under Sec. 60.2110(d) through (f) or
Sec. 60.2115, you must maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits.
* * * * *
(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show
a deviation from the operating limits in table 2 of this subpart or a
deviation from other operating limits established under Sec.
60.2110(d) through (f) or Sec. 60.2115 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(o) Maintain records of the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each CISWI unit subject to the
emissions limits in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of
this subpart, any required maintenance, and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
state regulatory agency.
(p) For continuously monitored pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
You must indicate which data are CEMS data during startup and shutdown.
(5) All 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All 1-hour average concentrations of mercury emissions.
(7) All 1-hour average concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(8) All 1-hour average percent oxygen concentrations.
(9) All 1-hour average PM CPMS readings or particulate matter
continuous emissions monitor outputs.
(q) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates,
times, and durations.
(r) If you choose to stack test less frequently than annually,
consistent with Sec. 60.2155(a) through (c), you must keep annual
records that document that your emissions in the previous stack test(s)
were less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source operations including fuel
composition and operation of air pollution control equipment that would
cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past
year.
(s) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(t) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(u) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(v) For operating units that combust non-hazardous secondary
materials that have been determined not to be solid waste pursuant to
Sec. 241.3(b)(1) of this chapter, you must keep a record which
documents how the secondary material meets each of the legitimacy
criteria. If you combust a fuel that has been processed from a
discarded non-hazardous secondary material pursuant to Sec.
241.3(b)(4) of this chapter, you must keep records as to how the
operations that produced the fuel satisfies the definition of
processing in Sec. 241.2 of this chapter. If the fuel received a non-
waste determination pursuant to the petition process submitted under
Sec. 241.3(c) of this chapter, you must keep a record that documents
how the fuel satisfies the requirements of the petition process.
28. Section 60.2210 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2210 What information must I include in my annual report?
* * * * *
(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit
that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no
deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the
reporting period and that caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are not using a continuous
monitoring system to comply with the emission or operating limitations
in this subpart, the annual report must contain the following
information.
(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the CEMS, was out of control as specified in
paragraph (o) of this section, the annual report must contain the
following information for each deviation from an emission or operating
limitation occurring for a CISWI unit for which you are using a
continuous monitoring system to comply with the emission and operating
limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the CISWI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
[[Page 80500]]
(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.
(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the CEMS, was not out of control as specified in
paragraph (o) of this section, a statement that there were not periods
during which the continuous monitoring system was out of control during
the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control in accordance
with the procedure in 40 CFR part 60, appendix F of this part, as if
any of the following occur.
(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
(p) For energy recovery units, include the annual heat input and
average annual heat input rate of all fuels being burned in the unit to
verify which subcategory of energy recovery unit applies.
29. Section 60.2220 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and
removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 60.2220 What must I include in the deviation report?
* * * * *
(c) Durations and causes of the following:
(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or operating limits
and your corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
* * * * *
30. Section 60.2230 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2230 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must
submit?
(a) Yes. You must submit notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7.
(b) If you cease combusting solid waste but continue to operate,
you must provide 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel switch, consistent with Sec. 60.2145(a). The
notification must identify:
(1) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(2) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(3) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the CISWI
unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6 months,
and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(4) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(5) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with paragraphs (2) and (3)) of this section.
31. Section 60.2235 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2235 In what form can I submit my reports?
(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(b) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec. 63.2, conducted
to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit relative
accuracy test audit (i.e., reference method) data and performance test
(i.e., compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically to
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/erttool.html/) or
other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into EPA's WebFIRE database.
32. Section 60.2242 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2242 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain incinerator subject to
standards under this subpart must operate pursuant to a permit issued
under section 129(e) and Title V of the Clean Air Act.
33. Section 60.2250 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2250 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
Within 60 days after your air curtain incinerator reaches the
charge rate at which it will operate, but no later than 180 days after
its initial startup, you must meet the two limitations specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values), except as described in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 35 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values) during the startup period that is
within the first 30 minutes of operation.
34. Section 60.2260 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air curtain incinerators?
* * * * *
(d) You must submit the results (as determined by the average of
three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values)
of the initial opacity tests no later than 60 days following the
initial test. Submit annual opacity test results within 12 months
following the previous report.
* * * * *
35. Section 60.2265 is amended by:
a. Adding definitions for ``Affirmative defense'', ``Annual heat
input'', ``Average annual heat input rate'', ``Burn-off oven'',
``Bypass stack'', ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown'', ``Chemical
recovery unit'', ``Continuous monitoring system'', ``Energy recovery
unit'', ``Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass)'',
``Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal)'', ``Energy
recovery unit designed to burn solid materials (Solids)'', ``Foundry
sand thermal reclamation unit'', ``Homogeneous wastes''
``Incinerator'', ``Kiln'', ``Laboratory analysis unit'', ``Minimum
voltage or amperage'', ``Opacity'', ``Operating day'', ``Oxygen
analyzer system'', ``Oxygen trim system'', ``Performance evaluation'',
``Performance test'', ``Process change'', ``Raw mill'', ``Small remote
incinerator'', ``Soil treatment unit'', ``Solid waste incineration
unit'', ``Space heater'' and ``Waste-burning kiln'', in alphabetical
order.
b. Revising the definition for ``Commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration (CISWI) unit'', ``Cyclonic
[[Page 80501]]
burn barrel'', ``dioxin/furans'', ``Modification or modified CISWI
unit'', and ``Wet scrubber''.
c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for ``Deviation.''
d. Removing the definition for ``Agricultural waste'', ``Commercial
or industrial waste'', and ``Solid waste''. The additions and revisions
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2265 What definitions must I know?
* * * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Annual heat input means the heat input for the 12 months preceding
the compliance demonstration.
Average annual heat input rate means annual heat input divided by
the hours of operation for the 12 months preceding the compliance
demonstration.
* * * * *
Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation
unit, or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off oven is not an incinerator,
waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote
incinerator under this subpart.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
* * * * *
CEMS data during startup and shutdown means carbon monoxide CEMS
data collected during the first 4 hours of operation of energy recovery
unit startup from a cold start and the hour of operation following the
cessation of waste material being fed to the energy recovery unit
during a unit shutdown.
Chemical recovery unit means combustion units burning materials to
recover chemical constituents or to produce chemical compounds where
there is an existing commercial market for such recovered chemical
constituents or compounds. A chemical recovery unit is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small,
remote incinerator under this subpart. The following seven types of
units are considered chemical recovery units:
(1) Units burning only pulping liquors (i.e., black liquor) that
are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery process and reused in the
pulping process.
(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin
sulfuric acid.
(3) Units burning only wood or coal feedstock for the production of
charcoal.
(4) Units burning only manufacturing byproduct streams/residue
containing catalyst metals which are reclaimed and reused as catalysts
or used to produce commercial grade catalysts.
(5) Units burning only coke to produce purified carbon monoxide
that is used as an intermediate in the production of other chemical
compounds.
(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to produce
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or other gases for use in
other manufacturing processes.
(7) Units burning only photographic film to recover silver.
* * * * *
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit
means any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any
solid waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. If the
operating unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as defined
in Sec. 241.2 that have been discarded, and you do not keep and
produce records as required by Sec. 60.2175(v), the material is a
solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI
units will include all of the following components, a CISWI unit
includes, but is not limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate
system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and
bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air pollution
control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at the
solid waste hopper (if applicable) and extends through two areas: The
combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately after the last
combustion chamber or after the waste heat recovery equipment, if any;
and the combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at the truck
loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final
disposal. The CISWI unit includes all ash handling systems connected to
the bottom ash handling system.
* * * * *
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means the total equipment,
required under the emission monitoring sections in applicable subparts,
used to sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to
provide a permanent record of emissions or process parameters. A
particulate matter continuous parameter monitoring system (PM CPMS) is
a type of CMS.
* * * * *
Cyclonic burn barrel means a combustion device for waste materials
that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of
a lid, which fits onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces
combustion air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing
of waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small,
remote incinerator under this subpart.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation,
operating limit, or operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
* * * * *
Energy recovery unit means a combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the Administrator under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act in 40 CFR part 241) for energy recovery.
Energy recovery units include units that would be considered boilers
and process heaters if they did not combust solid waste.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass) means an
energy recovery unit that burns solid waste, biomass, and non-coal
solid materials but less than 10 percent coal, on a heat input basis on
an annual average, either alone or in combination with liquid waste,
liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal) means an energy
recovery unit that burns solid waste and at least 10 percent coal on a
heat input basis on an annual average, either alone or in combination
with liquid waste, liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn liquid waste materials and
gas (Liquid/gas) means an energy recovery unit that burns a liquid
waste with liquid or gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuel or
waste materials.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn solid materials (Solids)
includes energy
[[Page 80502]]
recovery units designed to burn coal and energy recovery units designed
to burn biomass.
* * * * *
Foundry sand thermal reclamation unit means a type of part
reclamation unit that removes coatings that are on foundry sand. A
foundry sand thermal reclamation unit is not an incinerator, waste-
burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator
under this subpart.
* * * * *
Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in formulation, have
known fuel properties, have a defined origin, have predictable chemical
and physical attributes, and result in consistent combustion
characteristics and have a consistent emissions profile.
Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of combusting
solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator under 40 CFR
part 241) for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by
removing combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single chamber
and two-chamber.
Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any associated preheater
or precalciner devices, used for processing a substance by burning,
firing or drying. Kilns include cement kilns that produce clinker by
heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of
Portland Cement.
Laboratory analysis unit means units that burn samples of materials
for the purpose of chemical or physical analysis. A laboratory analysis
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
* * * * *
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run
average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured
during the most recent particulate matter or mercury performance test
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit that has
been changed later than June 1, 2001, and that meets one of two
criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit
exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the
CISWI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the CISWI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of
CISWI unit.
(2) Any physical change in the CISWI unit or change in the method
of operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted
for which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has
established standards.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of solid waste is combusted
at any time in the CISWI unit.
Oxygen analyzer system means all equipment required to determine
the oxygen content of a gas stream and used to monitor oxygen in the
boiler flue gas or firebox. This definition includes oxygen trim
systems. The source owner or operator is responsible to install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate the oxygen analyzer system in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Oxygen trim system means a system of monitors that is used to
maintain excess air at the desired level in a combustion device. A
typical system consists of a flue gas oxygen and/or carbon monoxide
monitor that automatically provides a feedback signal to the combustion
air controller.
* * * * *
Performance evaluation means the conduct of relative accuracy
testing, calibration error testing, and other measurements used in
validating the continuous monitoring system data.
Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the
execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to
demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission standard as specified
in the performance test section of the relevant standard.
Process change means a significant permit revision, but only with
respect to those pollutant-specific emission units for which the
proposed permit revision is applicable, including but not limited to a
change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the
emission limits for the affected CISWI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
* * * * *
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, vertical roller mill or other
size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill,
used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or
removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is
used to remove moisture from feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also includes the air separator
associated with the raw mill.
* * * * *
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid
waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241)
and combusts 3 tons per day or less solid waste and is more than 25
miles driving distance to the nearest municipal solid waste landfill.
Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats petroleum
contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site remediation. A soil
treatment unit may be direct-fired or indirect fired. A soil treatment
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of
any facility which combusts any solid waste (as that term is defined by
the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241) material from commercial or
industrial establishments or the general public (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include
incinerators or other units required to have a permit under section
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ``solid waste
incineration unit'' does not include:
(1) Materials recovery facilities (including primary or secondary
smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering
metals;
(2) Qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or
qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous
waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil, but not including
refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy or in the
case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste
for the production of electric energy and steam or forms of useful
energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, commercial,
heating or cooling purposes; or
(3) Air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators only
burn wood wastes, yard wastes, and clean lumber and that such air
curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be established
by the Administrator by rule.
Space heater means a usually portable appliance for heating a
relatively small area. A space heater is not an incinerator, waste-
burning kiln, an
[[Page 80503]]
energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
* * * * *
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator in 40 CFR part 241). A waste-burning kiln does not
include a kiln that is feeding non-hazardous secondary ingredients
exclusively into the cold end of the kiln.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that uses
an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate matter
(including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb
and neutralize acid gases.
* * * * *
36. Table 1 of subpart CCCC is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for CISWI Units for Which Construction Is Commenced
After November 30, 1999, but no Later Than June 4, 2010, or for Which Modification or Reconstruction Is
Commenced on or After June 1, 2001, but no Later Than
[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.004 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 8).
Carbon Monoxide...................... 157 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
by dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4).
Dioxin/Furan (toxic equivalency 0.41 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 of appendix
dry standard cubic A-7 of this part).
meters per run).
Hydrogen Chloride.................... 62 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 120 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.04 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 8).
Mercury.............................. 0.47 milligrams per dry 3-run average (For Performance test
standard cubic meter. Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008),\b\ collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 1 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008).\b\
meter per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Opacity.............................. 10 percent............. Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 at 40 CFR
minute averages part 60, appendix A-
opacity values. 4).
Nitrogen Oxides...................... 388 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
by dry volume. Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E at 40
minimum sample time CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Particulate matter................... 70 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter per run). A-3 or A-8).
Sulfur Dioxide....................... 20 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6C at 40
minimum volume of 20 CFR part 60, appendix
liters per run. For A-4.
Method 6C, collect
sample for a minimum
duration of 1 hour per
run).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
37. Table 4 of subpart CCCC is amended by revising the entry for
``Annual Report'' and ``Emission limitation or operating limit
deviation report.''
[[Page 80504]]
Table 4 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Annual report..................... No later than 12 months Name and address Sec. Sec. 60.2205
following the submission Statement and and 60.2210.
of the initial test signature by responsible
report. Subsequent official.
reports are to be Date of report...
submitted no more than 12 Values for the
months following the operating limits.
previous report. Highest recorded
3-hour average and the
lowest 3-hour average, as
applicable, for each
operating parameter
recorded for the calendar
year being reported.
If a performance
test was conducted during
the reporting period, the
results of the test.
If a performance
test was not conducted
during the reporting
period, a statement that
the requirements of Sec.
60.2155(a) were met.
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified CISWI unit
operators were
unavailable for more than
8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
If you are
conducting performance
tests once every 3 years
consistent with Sec.
60.2155(a), the date of
the last 2 performance
tests, a comparison of
the emission level you
achieved in the last 2
performance tests to the
75 percent emission limit
threshold required in
Sec. 60.2155(a) and a
statement as to whether
there have been any
operational changes since
the last performance test
that could increase
emissions.
* * * * * * *
Emission limitation or operating By August 1 of that year Dates and times Sec. 60.2215 and
limit deviation report. for data collected during of deviation. 60.2220.
the first half of the Averaged and
calendar year. By recorded data for those
February 1 of the dates.
following year for data Duration and
collected during the causes of each deviation
second half of the and the corrective
calendar year. actions taken.
Copy of operating
limit monitoring data and
any test reports.
Dates, times and
causes for monitor
downtime incidents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
38. Table 5 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Incinerators That Commenced Construction After June
4, 2010, or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After
[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0023 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-8
meter per run). of this part).
Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon Monoxide...................... 12 parts per million by 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4).
Dioxin/furan (Total Mass Basis)...... 0.58 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
\c\. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Dioxin/furan (toxic equivalency 0.13 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
[[Page 80505]]
Hydrogen Chloride.................... 0.091 part per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 360 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 3
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.0019 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 of appendix
meter. dry standard cubic A-8 at 40 CFR part
meter per run). 60). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.00084 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic enough volume to meet (Method 29 or 30B at
meter \c\. a detection limit data 40 CFR part 60,
quality objective of appendix A-8) or ASTM
0.03 [mu]g/dry D6784-02 (Reapproved
standard cubic meter). 2008) \b\.
Nitrogen Oxides...................... 23 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E at 40
minimum sample time CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 18 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meters per run). A-3 or appendix A-8 at
40 CFR part 60).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 11 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6C at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5 percent observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
of the hourly part 60, appendix A-
observation period. 7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the Total Mass Limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
\c\ If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant
for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below this limit, you can skip testing
according to Sec. 60.2155 if all of the other provision of Sec. 60.2155 are met. For all other pollutants
that do not contain a footnote ``c'', your performance tests for this pollutant for at least 2 consecutive
years must show that your emissions are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for skip testing.
39. Table 6 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Energy Recovery Units That Commenced Construction
After June 4, 2010, or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After
[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this emission limitation
\a\ Using this And determining
For the air pollutant ---------------------------------------- averaging time compliance using
Liquid/Gas Solids this method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium......................... 0.023 milligrams Biomass--0.00014 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 29 at 40
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume of CFR part 60,
cubic meter. 4 dry standard appendix A-8).
Coal--0.058 cubic meters per Use ICPMS for the
milligrams per run). analytical
dry standard finish.
cubic meter..
Carbon monoxide................. 36 parts per Biomass--160 parts 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry per million dry hour minimum (Method 10 at 40
volume. volume. sample time per CFR part 60,
Coal--46 parts per run). appendix A-4).
million dry
volume..
Dioxins/furans (Total Mass No Total Mass Biomass--0.52 3-run average Performance test
Basis). Basis limit, must nanograms per dry (collect a (Method 23 at 40
meet the toxic standard cubic minimum volume of CFR part 60,
equivalency basis meter \c\. 4 dry standard appendix A-7).
limit below. Coal--0.51 cubic meters).
nanograms per dry
standard cubic
meter \c\..
[[Page 80506]]
Dioxins/furans (toxic 0.093 nanograms Biomass--0.076 3-run average Performance test
equivalency basis). per dry standard nanograms per dry (collect a (Method 23 of
cubic meter \c\. standard cubic minimum volume of appendix A-7 of
meter \c\. 4 dry standard this part).
Coal--0.075 cubic meters per
nanograms per dry run).
standard cubic
meter \c\..
Hydrogen chloride............... 14 parts per 0.50 parts per 3-run average (For Performance test
million dry million dry Method 26, (Method 26 or 26A
volume. volume. collect a minimum at 40 CFR part
volume of 360 60, appendix A-
liters per run. 8).
For Method 26A,
collect a minimum
volume of 3 dry
standard cubic
meters per run).
Lead............................ 0.096 milligrams Biomass--0.0019 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 29 at 40
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume of CFR part 60,
cubic meter. 4 dry standard appendix A-8).
Coal--0.0031 cubic meters per Use ICPMS for the
milligrams per run). analytical
dry standard finish.
cubic meter..
Mercury......................... 0.00091 milligrams 0.0020 milligrams 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard per dry standard (collect enough (Method 29 or 30B
cubic meter \c\. cubic meter. volume to meet an at 40 CFR part
in-stack 60, appendix A-8)
detection limit or ASTM D6784-02
data quality (Reapproved 2008)
objective of 0.03 \b\.
[mu]g/dscm).
Oxides of nitrogen.............. 76 parts per Biomass--290 parts 3-run average (for Performance test
million dry per million dry Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E
volume. volume. minimum sample at 40 CFR part
Coal--340 parts time per run). 60, appendix A-
per million dry 4).
volume.
Particulate matter (filterable). 110 milligrams per Biomass--5.1 3-run average Performance test
dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 5 or 29
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume of at 40 CFR part
cubic meter. 1 dry standard 60, appendix A-3
Coal--86 cubic meter per or appendix A-8)
milligrams per run). if the unit has a
dry standard design capacity
cubic meter.. less than 250
MMBtu/hr; or PM
CEMS (performance
specification 11
of appendix B and
procedure 2 of
appendix F of
this part) if the
unit has a design
capacity equal to
or greater than
250 MMBtu/hr. Use
Method 5 or 5I of
Appendix A of
this part and
collect a minimum
sample volume of
1 dscm per test
run for the PM
CEMS correlation
testing.
Sulfur dioxide.................. 720 parts per Biomass--7.3 parts 3-run average (for Performance test
million dry per million dry Method 6, collect (Method 6 or 6C
volume. volume. a minimum of 60 at 40 CFR part
Coal--650 parts liters, for 60, appendix A-4.
per million dry Method 6C, 1 hour
volume.. minimum sample
time per run).
Fugitive ash.................... Visible emissions Visible emissions Three 1-hour Visible emission
for no more than for no more than observation test (Method 22
5 percent of the 5 percent of the periods. at 40 CFR part
hourly hourly 60, appendix A-
observation observation 7).
period. period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the Total Mass Basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
\c\ If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant
for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below this limit, you can skip testing
according to Sec. 60.2155 if all of the other provision of Sec. 60.2155 are met. For all other pollutants
that do not contain a footnote ``c'', your performance tests for this pollutant for at least 2 consecutive
years must show that your emissions are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for skip testing.
[[Page 80507]]
40. Table 7 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Waste-burning Kilns That Commenced Construction
After June 4, 2010, or Reconstruction or Modification After
[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00082 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 90 (long kilns)/320 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
(preheater/ minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
precalciner) parts per per run). part 60, appendix A-
million dry volume. 4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 0.51 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
\b\. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters per run). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.075 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter a minimum volume of 4 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
\b\. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 3.0 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume \b\. minimum sample time (Method 321 at 40 CFR
per run) or 30-day part 63, appendix A)
rolling average if HCl or HCl CEMS if a wet
CEMS are used. scrubber is not used.
Lead................................. 0.0043 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 4 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0037 milligrams per 30-day rolling average. Mercury CEMS or sorbent
dry standard cubic trap monitoring system
meter. (performance
specification 12A or
12B, respectively, of
appendix B of this
part.)
Oxides of nitrogen................... 200 parts per million 30-day rolling average. NOX Continuous
dry volume. Emissions Monitoring
System (performance
specification 2 of
appendix B and
procedure 1 of
appendix F of this
part). Use a span
value of 400 ppm.
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 8.9 milligrams per dry 30-day rolling average. PM Continuous Emissions
standard cubic meter. Monitoring System
(performance
specification 11 of
appendix B and
procedure 2 of
appendix F of this
part).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 130 parts per million 30-day rolling average. Sulfur dioxide
dry volume. Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
(performance
specification 2 of
appendix B and
procedure 1 of
appendix F of this
part). Use a span
value of 260 ppm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\b\ If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant
for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below this limit, you can skip testing
according to Sec. 60.2155 if all of the other provision of Sec. 60.2155 are met. For all other pollutants
that do not contain a footnote ``b'', your performance tests for this pollutant for at least 2 consecutive
years must show that your emissions are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for skip testing.
41. Table 8 to Subpart CCCC is added to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Small, Remote Incinerators That Commenced
Construction After June 4, 2010, or That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After
[Date 6 months after publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this And determining
For the air pollutant emission limitation Using this averaging compliance using this
\a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.61 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 8).
[[Page 80508]]
Carbon monoxide...................... 12 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 1,200 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 31 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter per run). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 200 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
by dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.26 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0035 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008) \b\, collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 2 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008) \b\.
meters per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum volume as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 78 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E at 40
minimum sample time CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Particulate matter (filterable)...... 230 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter). A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 1.2 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5 percent observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
of the hourly part 60, appendix A-
observation period. 7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis
limit.
\b\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
42. Revise the heading for subpart DDDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDDD-Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
* * * * *
43. Section 60.2500 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes emission guidelines and compliance
schedules for the control of emissions from commercial and industrial
solid waste incineration (CISWI) units. The pollutants addressed by
these emission guidelines are listed in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 9 of this subpart. These emission guidelines are
developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act and subpart B of this part.
44. Section 60.2505 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2505 Am I affected by this subpart?
(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program in a
state or United States protectorate with one or more existing CISWI
units that meets the criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, you must submit a state plan to EPA that implements the
emission guidelines contained in this subpart.
(b) You must submit a state plan to EPA by December 3, 2001 for
incinerator units that commenced construction on or before November 30,
1999 and that were not modified or reconstructed after June 1, 2001.
(c) You must submit a state plan that meets the requirements of
this subpart and contains the more stringent emission limit for the
respective pollutant in table 6 of this subpart or table 1 of subpart
CCCC of this part to EPA by [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for incinerators that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999, but no later than June 4, 2010,
or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 1, 2001 but no
later than [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER
[[Page 80509]]
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(d) You must submit a state plan to EPA that meets the requirements
of this subpart and contains the emission limits in tables 7 through 9
of this subpart by [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units other than incinerator units that
commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010.
45. Section 60.2525 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2525 What if my state plan is not approvable?
(a) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a negative
declaration letter) by December 2, 2002, EPA will develop a federal
plan according to Sec. 60.27 to implement the emission guidelines
contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of CISWI units not
covered by an approved state plan must comply with the federal plan.
The federal plan is an interim action and will be automatically
withdrawn when your state plan is approved.
(b) If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a negative
declaration letter) to EPA that meets the requirements of this subpart
and contains the emission limits in tables 6 through 9 of this subpart
for CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010,
then EPA will develop a federal plan according to Sec. 60.27 to
implement the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. Owners and
operators of CISWI units not covered by an approved state plan must
comply with the federal plan. The federal plan is an interim action and
will be automatically withdrawn when your state plan is approved.
46. Section 60.2535 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (d).
c. Adding paragraphs (b) and (c).
Sec. 60.2535 What compliance schedule must I include in my state
plan?
(a) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999, your state plan must
include compliance schedules that require CISWI units to achieve final
compliance as expeditiously as practicable after approval of the state
plan but not later than the earlier of the two dates specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) For CISWI units in the incinerator subcategory that commenced
construction after November 30, 1999, but on or before June 4, 2010,
and for CISWI units in the energy recovery units and waste-burning
kilns subcategories that commenced construction before June 4, 2010,
your state plan must include compliance schedules that require CISWI
units to achieve final compliance as expeditiously as practicable after
approval of the state plan but not later than the earlier of the two
dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval.
(c) For CISWI units in the small remote incinerator subcategory
that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but on or before
June 4, 2010, your state plan must include compliance schedules that
require small remote incinerator CISWI units to achieve final
compliance as expeditiously as practicable after approval of the state
plan but not later than the earlier of the two dates specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) March 21, 2016.
(2) 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval.
* * * * *
47. Section 60.2540 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2540 Are there any state plan requirements for this subpart
that apply instead of the requirements specified in subpart B?
* * * * *
(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart must be as
protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. State
plans must require all CISWI units to comply by the dates specified in
Sec. 60.2535. This applies instead of the option for case-by-case less
stringent emission standards and longer compliance schedules in Sec.
60.24(f).
* * * * *
48. Section 60.2541 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2541 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other
acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129(b)(2) obligations?
Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129
obligations by submitting an acceptable written request for delegation
of the federal plan that meets the requirements of this section. This
is the only other option for a state to meet its Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129 obligations.
(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request must include the
following:
(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal authority to
administer and enforce the federal plan.
(2) The items under Sec. 60.2515(a)(1), (2), and (7).
(3) Certification that the hearing on the state delegation request,
similar to the hearing for a state plan submittal, was held, a list of
witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at
the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or
written submission.
(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Regional Administrator who sets forth the terms, conditions, and
effective date of the delegation and that serves as the mechanism for
the transfer of authority. Additional guidance and information is given
in EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and Enforcement
of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129(b)(3) federal plans.
(b) A state with an already approved CISWI Clean Air Act section
111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from receiving EPA approval of a
delegation request for the revised federal plan, providing the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are met, and at the time
of the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal of EPA's
previous state plan approval.
(c) A state's Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 obligations are
separate from its obligations under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
49. Section 60.2542 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2542 What authorities will not be delegated to state, local,
or tribal agencies?
The authorities listed under Sec. 60.2030(c) will not be delegated
to state, local, or tribal agencies.
50. Section 60.2545 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2545 Does this subpart directly affect CISWI unit owners and
operators in my state?
* * * * *
(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the guidelines contained in this subpart for CISWI units that
commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999 by December 2,
2002, EPA will implement and enforce a federal plan, as provided in
Sec. 60.2525, to ensure that each unit within your state reaches
compliance with all the provisions of this subpart by December 1, 2005.
(c) If you do not submit an approvable plan to implement and
enforce the
[[Page 80510]]
guidelines contained in this subpart by [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that
commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, EPA will implement
and enforce a federal plan, as provided in Sec. 60.2525, to ensure
that each unit within your state that commenced construction on or
before June 4, 2010, reaches compliance with all the provisions of this
subpart by [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
51. Section Sec. 60.2550 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2550 What CISWI units must I address in my state plan?
(a) * * *
(1) Incineration units in your state that commenced construction on
or before June 4, 2010.
* * * * *
52. Section Sec. 60.2555 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
c. Revising paragraphs (c), (e)(3), (f)(3), and (g).
d. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k), and (l).
e. Revising paragraphs (m) and (n).
f. Removing paragraph (o).
Sec. 60.2555 What combustion units are exempt from my state plan?
This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i), (m), and (n) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.2805, 60.2860, and 60.2870.
* * * * *
(c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
subject to subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2875. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a small power production facility and
that the waste material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec. 60.2875. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a cogeneration facility and that the
waste material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
(g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
(m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
(n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter that are subject to subpart LLLL
of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) or subpart MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines for Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units).
Sec. 60.2558 [Removed]
53. Section 60.2558 is removed.
54. Section 60.2635 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.2635 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or to prevent
conditions that may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *
55. Section 60.2650 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.2650 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
* * * * *
(d) Prevention and correction of malfunctions or conditions that
may lead to malfunction.
* * * * *
56. Section 60.2670 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2670 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
(a) You must meet the emission limitations for each CISWI unit,
including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 2 of this subpart or
tables 6 through 9 of this subpart by the final compliance date under
the approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as applicable.
The emission limitations apply at all times the unit is operating
including and not limited to startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(b) Units that do not use wet scrubbers must maintain opacity to
less than or equal to the percent opacity (three 1-hour blocks
consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values) specified in table 2
of this subpart, as applicable.
57. Section 60.2675 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(2)
through (4).
b. Revising paragraph (b).
c. Adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g).
The revisions and addtions read as follows:
Sec. 60.2675 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
(a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to comply with the emission
limitations, you must establish operating limits for up to four
operating parameters (as specified in table 3 of this subpart) as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section during the
initial performance test.
* * * * *
(2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate matter
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average pressure
drop across the wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
emission limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average amperage to
the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at the inlet to the wet acid gas
or particulate matter scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission
limitations.
(4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated as the lowest
1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet
[[Page 80511]]
acid gas scrubber measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the HCl emission limitation.
(b) You must meet the operating limits established during the
initial performance test on the date the initial performance test is
required or completed (whichever is earlier). You must conduct an
initial performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and
continuous parameter monitoring system within 60 days of installation
of the monitoring system.
* * * * *
(d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the (secondary) voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the
particulate matter performance test. Calculate the average electric
power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = secondary electric
power) for each test run. The operating limit for the electrostatic
precipitator is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
(e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to comply with
the emission limitations, you must measure the sorbent flow rate during
the performance testing. The operating limit for the carbon sorbent
injection is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average sorbent flow rate
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limitations.
(f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the charge rate, the secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit), and the reagent
flow rate during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The operating
limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction are calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average charge rate, secondary chamber temperature, and
reagent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limitations.
(g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
or fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, and if you do
not determine compliance with your particulate matter emission
limitation with a particulate matter continuous emissions monitoring
system, you must maintain opacity to less than or equal to ten percent
opacity (1-hour block average).
58. Section 60.2680 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2680 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter,
activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?
(a) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
fabric filter, or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in
some other manner, including mass balances, to comply with the emission
limitations under Sec. 60.2670, you must petition the EPA
Administrator for specific operating limits to be established during
the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
(2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
(4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
(b) [Reserved]
59. Section 60.2685 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2685 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission Limit
During Malfunction.
In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec. 60.2670 you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at Sec. 60.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving
all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative
defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
(1) The excess emissions:
(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
(6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and systems, as well
as control systems, were kept in operation if at all possible,
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices;
(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs;
(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the
[[Page 80512]]
amount of excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
Sec. 60.2670 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of
this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45-day
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedances.
60. Section 60.2690 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and
(g)(1) and (2) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2690 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?
* * * * *
(c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in tables 2 and 6 through 9 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through
octa-isomer emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octa-chlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in table 4 of this subpart.
* * * * *
(h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 must be used to
determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in table 2 of
this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart.
(i) If you have an applicable opacity operating limit, you must
determine compliance with the opacity limit using Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4, based on three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values, unless you are required to install a
continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent with Sec. 60.2710 and
Sec. 60.2730.
61. Section 60.2695 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2695 How are the performance test data used?
You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through
9 of this subpart.
62. Section 60.2700 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2700 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the amended
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?
You must conduct a performance test, as required under Sec. Sec.
60.2690 and 60.2670, to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in table 2 of this subpart and tables 6 through 9 of this
subpart, to establish compliance with any opacity operating limits in
Sec. 60.2675, and to establish operating limits using the procedures
in Sec. 60.2675 or Sec. 60.2680. The performance test must be
conducted using the test methods listed in table 2 of this subpart and
tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec. 60.2690.
The use of the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate
the performance test. You must conduct a performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the
monitoring system.
63. Section 60.2705 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2705 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
test?
(a) The initial performance test must be conducted no later than
180 days after your final compliance date. Your final compliance date
is specified in table 1 of this subpart.
(b) If you commence or recommence combusting a solid waste at an
existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial facility and
you conducted a test consistent with the provisions of this subpart
while combusting the given solid waste within the 6 months preceding
the reintroduction of that solid waste in the combustion chamber, you
do not need to retest until 6 months from the date you reintroduce that
solid waste.
(c) If you commence combusting or recommence combusting a solid
waste at an existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial
facility and you have not conducted a performance test consistent with
the provisions of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste
within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that solid waste in
the combustion chamber, you must conduct a performance test within 60
days commencing or recommencing solid waste combustion.
64. Section 60.2706 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2706 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?
(a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the final compliance date for
meeting the amended emission limitations.
(b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the state agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.
65. Section 60.2710 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2710 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
amended emission limitations and the operating limits?
(a) Compliance with standards.
(1) The emission standards and operating requirements set forth in
this subpart apply at all times.
(2) If you cease combusting solid waste you may opt to remain
subject to the provisions of this subpart. Consistent with the
definition of CISWI unit, you are subject to the requirements of this
subpart at least 6 months following the last date of solid waste
combustion. Solid waste combustion is ceased when solid waste is not in
the combustion chamber (i.e., the solid waste feed to the combustor has
been cut off for a period of time not less than the solid waste
residence time).
(3) If you cease combusting solid waste you must be in compliance
with any newly applicable standards on the effective date of the waste-
to-fuel switch. The effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch is a
date selected by you, that must be at least 6 months from the date that
you ceased combusting solid waste, consistent with Sec. 60.2710(a)(2).
Your source must remain in compliance with this subpart until the
effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch.
(4) If you own or operate an existing commercial or industrial
combustion unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste
[[Page 80513]]
material, and you commence or recommence combustion of solid waste, you
are subject to the provisions of this subpart as of the first day you
introduce or reintroduce solid waste to the combustion chamber, and
this date constitutes the effective date of the fuel-to-waste switch.
You must complete all initial compliance demonstrations for any section
112 standards that are applicable to your facility before you commence
or recommence combustion of solid waste. You must provide 30 days prior
notice of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The
notification must identify:
(i) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(ii) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the
CISWI unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6
months, and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(iv) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(v) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with (2) and (3) above.
(5) All air pollution control equipment necessary for compliance
with any newly applicable emissions limits which apply as a result of
the cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid
waste must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch.
(6) All monitoring systems necessary for compliance with any newly
applicable monitoring requirements which apply as a result of the
cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid waste
must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and drift
checks must be performed as of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel,
or fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy tests must be performed as
of the performance test deadline for PM CEMS. Relative accuracy testing
for other CEMS need not be repeated if that testing was previously
performed consistent with section 112 monitoring requirements or
monitoring requirements under this subpart.
(b) You must conduct an annual performance test for the pollutants
listed in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart
and opacity for each CISWI unit as required under Sec. 60.2690. The
annual performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed
in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart and
the procedures in Sec. 60.2690. Opacity must be measured using EPA
Reference Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60. Annual performance tests are not
required if you use CEMS or continuous opacity monitoring systems to
determine compliance.
(c) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec. 60.2675 or established under Sec. 60.2680 and as
specified in Sec. 60.2735. Operation above the established maximum or
below the established minimum operating limits constitutes a deviation
from the established operating limits. Three-hour block average values
are used to determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection
system alarms) unless a different averaging period is established under
Sec. 60.2680. Operating limits are confirmed or reestablished during
performance tests.
(d) You must burn only the same types of waste and fuels used to
establish subcategory applicability (for ERUs) and operating limits
during the performance test.
(e) For energy recovery units, incinerators, and small remote
units, you must perform annual visual emissions test for ash handling.
(f) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for opacity using EPA Reference Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60 (except where particulate matter continuous monitoring system
or continuous parameter monitoring systems are used) and the pollutants
listed in table 7 of this subpart.
(g) For facilities using a CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the
carbon monoxide emission limit, compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limit may be demonstrated by using the CEMS according to the
following requirements:
(1) You must measure emissions according to Sec. 60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
CEMS data during startup and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are
not corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen
content. You must demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon
monoxide emissions limit using a 30-day rolling average of the 1-hour
arithmetic average emission concentrations, including CEMS data during
startup and shutdown as defined in this subpart, calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7.
(2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring
system in accordance with the applicable requirements of performance
specification 4A of appendix B and the quality assurance procedures of
appendix F of this part.
(h) For waste-burning kilns, demonstrate continuous compliance with
the particulate matter emissions limit using a particulate matter
continuous emissions monitoring system according to the procedures in
Sec. 60.2730(n). Energy recovery units with design heat input
capacities greater than 250 MMBtu/hr may elect to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit using
a particulate matter CEMS according to the procedures in Sec.
60.2730(n) instead of the continuous parameter monitoring system
specified in Sec. 60.2710(i).
(i) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
or equal to 10 MMBTU/hour but less than 250 MMBtu/hr you must install,
operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2730.
(j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for the pollutants (except mercury and particulate matter, and
hydrogen chloride if no acid gas wet scrubber is used) listed in table
8 of this subpart. If your waste-burning kiln is not equipped with a
wet scrubber, you must determine compliance with the hydrogen chloride
emission limit using a CEMS as specified in Sec. 60.2730. You must
determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit using a mercury
CEMS according to the following requirements:
(1) Operate a CEMS in accordance with performance specification 12A
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a sorbent trap based integrated
monitor in accordance with performance specification 12B at 40 CFR part
60, appendix B. The duration of the performance test must be a calendar
month. For each calendar month in which the waste-burning kiln
operates, hourly mercury concentration data and stack gas volumetric
flow rate data must be obtained.
(2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous emissions
monitoring systems must install, operate, calibrate and maintain an
[[Page 80514]]
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the mercury mass
emissions rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements of
performance specifications 6 and 12A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and
quality assurance procedure 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury continuous emissions monitor
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating under
normal conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill
is not operating.
(k) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air pollution control device. The inspection must
include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
(2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec. 60.13(i).
(l) For each CMS required in this section, you must develop and
submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a site-specific monitoring
plan according to the requirements of this paragraph (l) that addresses
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.
(i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.11(d).
(v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 60.13.
(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f), and (g).
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
(3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and
(m)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of no greater
than 2 percent of the expected process flow rate.
(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal velocity
distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance evaluation in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than annually.
(n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM scrubber pressure
drop).
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
(4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each
performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system
continues to meet the performance requirements in your monitoring plan.
Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new pressure
sensor.
(o) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM scrubber pressure
drop).
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
(4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each
performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system
continues to meet the performance requirements in your monitoring plan.
Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new pressure
sensor.
(p) If you have an operating limit that requires a secondary
electric power monitoring system for an electrostatic precipitator, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and (p)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the precipitator collection plates.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric power
monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time
of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(q) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
monitoring system to measure sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt,
weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (l) and (q)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent injection rate
monitoring
[[Page 80515]]
system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each
performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(r) If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system
to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection
system as specified in paragraphs (l) and (r)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Install a bag leak detection sensor(s) in a position(s) that
will be representative of the relative or absolute particulate matter
loadings for each exhaust stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a
positive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.
(2) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak detection
system in accordance with your monitoring plan and consistent with the
guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17).
(4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a system that
will sound an alarm when an increase in relative particulate matter
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is observed readily by plant operating personnel.
(s) For facilities using a CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the
sulfur dioxide emission limit, compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emission limit may be demonstrated by using the CEMS specified in Sec.
60.2730 to measure sulfur dioxide and calculating a 30-day rolling
average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1
of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. The sulfur
dioxide CEMS must be operated according to performance specification 2
in appendix B of this part and must follow the procedures and methods
specified in this paragraph (s). For sources that have actual inlet
emissions less than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative
accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide CEMS should be no greater
than 20 percent of the mean value of the reference method test data in
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry
volume absolute value of the mean difference between the reference
method and the CEMS, whichever is greater.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
performance specification 2 in appendix B of this part, collect sulfur
dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data concurrently (or within a
30- to 60-minute period) with both the continuous emissions monitors
and the test methods specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (s)(1)(ii)
of this section.
(i) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6 or 6C, or as an
alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system at
the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device must be 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the
unit subject to this rule. The span value of the CEMS at the outlet of
the sulfur dioxide control device must be 50 percent of the maximum
estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of the unit subject
to this rule.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(t) For facilities using a CEMS to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit, compliance with the
nitrogen oxides emission limit may be demonstrated by using the CEMS
specified in Sec. 60.2730 to measure nitrogen oxides and calculating a
30-day rolling average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7. The nitrogen oxides CEMS must be operated according to performance
specification 2 in appendix B of this part and must follow the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (t)(1) through (t)(5) of
this section.
(1) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
performance specification 2 of appendix B of this part, collect
nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data concurrently (or
within a 30- to 60-minute period) with both the CEMS and the test
methods specified in paragraphs (t)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B,
or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be used.
(2) The span value of the CEMS must be 125 percent of the maximum
estimated hourly potential nitrogen oxide emissions of unit.
(3) Conduct accuracy determinations quarterly and calibration drift
tests daily in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this part.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit be determined using
carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent
oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections,
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must be
established during the initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (t)(4)(i) through
(t)(4)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be reestablished
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B must be used to determine
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a sampling
location. Method 3A, 3B, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), as applicable, must be
used to determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as the
carbon dioxide monitor.
(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.
(iv) A minimum of 3 runs must be performed.
(u) For facilities using a continuous emissions monitoring system
to demonstrate continuous compliance with any of the emission limits of
this subpart, you must complete the following:
(1) Demonstrate compliance with the appropriate emission limit(s)
using a 30-day rolling average, calculated using Equation 19-19 in
section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7.
(2) Operate all continuous emissions monitoring system in
accordance with the applicable procedures under appendices B and F of
this part.
(v) Use of the bypass stack at any time is an emissions standards
deviation for particulate matter, HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, NO\X\,
SO2, and dioxin/furans.
(w) For energy recovery units with a design heat input capacity of
100 MMBtu per hour or greater that do not use an carbon monoxide CEMS,
you must install, operate, and maintain a oxygen analyzer system as
defined in Sec. 60.2875 according to the procedures in
[[Page 80516]]
paragraphs (w)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by the initial
performance test date specified in Sec. 60.2675.
(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the oxygen level
set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume that is established as the
operating limit for oxygen according to paragraph (w)(3) of this
section.
(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it is not below
the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration measured during the most
recent CO performance test.
(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling average oxygen
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 of Appendix A-7 of this part.
(x) For energy recovery units with design heat input capacities
greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you must install, certify,
maintain, and operate a PM CPMS monitoring emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the system as specified in
paragraphs (x)(1) through (5) of this section. For other energy
recovery units, you may elect to use PM CPMS operated in accordance
with this section in lieu of using other CMS for monitoring PM
compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP secondary power, PM scrubber
pressure)
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM CPMS according
to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan
developed in accordance with Sec. 60.2710(l) and (x)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be based on in-
stack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation, or beta
attenuation of the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas sample.
The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as
milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal.
(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period required to
complete sampling, measurement, and reporting for each measurement) no
longer than 60 minutes.
(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and responding to
particulate matter concentrations of no greater than 0.5 mg/actual
cubic meter.
(2) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all energy
recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS output as millamps,
PM concentration, or other raw data signal value.
(3) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of all of the
hourly average PM CPMS output collected during all energy recovery unit
operating hours data (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data
signal).
66. Section 60.2715 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2715 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
You must conduct annual performance tests between 11 and 13 months
of the previous performance test.
67. Section 60.2716 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2716 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution
control device inspection?
On an annual basis (no more than 12 months following the previous
annual air pollution control device inspection), you must complete the
air pollution control device inspection as described in Sec. 60.2706.
68. Section 60.2720 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2720 May I conduct performance testing less often?
(a) You must conduct annual performance tests according to the
schedule specified in Sec. 60.2715, with the following exceptions:
(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to
establish new values for the operating limits to apply from that point
forward, as specified in Sec. 60.2725. The Administrator may request a
repeat performance test at any time.
(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 days of a
process change, as defined in Sec. 60.2875.
(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test for any
pollutant in table 2 or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as
applicable, demonstrates that the emission level for the pollutant is
no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or
(ii) of this section, as applicable, and you are not required to
conduct a performance test for the pollutant in response to a request
by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process
change in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you may elect to skip
conducting a performance test for the pollutant for the next 2 years.
You must conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the third
year and no more than 37 months following the previous performance test
for the pollutant. For cadmium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be
emitted at emission levels no greater than their respective emission
levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to
qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph.
(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and dioxins/
furans, the emission level equal to 75 percent of the applicable
emission limit in table 2 or tables 6 through 9 of this subpart, as
applicable, to this subpart.
(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of combustion ash
from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent of the time during each of
the three 1-hour observations periods.
(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a pollutant as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and a subsequent
performance test for the pollutant indicates that your CISWI unit does
not meet the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of
this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual performance tests
for the pollutant according to the schedule specified in paragraph (a)
of this section until you qualify for less frequent testing for the
pollutant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
69. Section 60.2730 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6) and
(c) and adding paragraphs (d) through (r) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2730 What monitoring equipment must I install and what
parameters must I monitor?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alert automatically an operator when an increase in
relative particulate matter emission over a preset level is detected.
The alarm must be located where it is observed easily by plant
operating personnel.
* * * * *
(c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber, activated
carbon, selective non-catalytic reduction, or an electrostatic
precipitator to comply with the emission limitations under Sec.
60.2670, you must install, calibrate (to the manufacturers'
specifications), maintain and operate the equipment necessary to
monitor compliance with the site-specific operating limits established
using the procedures in Sec. 60.2680.
(d) If you use activated carbon injection to comply with the
emission limitations in this subpart, you must measure the minimum
sorbent flow rate once per hour.
(e) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must complete the following:
[[Page 80517]]
(1) Following the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.2690, whichever
date comes first, ensure that the affected facility does not operate
above the maximum charge rate, or below the minimum secondary chamber
temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit) or the minimum reagent
flow rate measured as 3-hour block averages at all times.
(2) Operation of the affected facility above the maximum charge
rate, below the minimum secondary chamber temperature and below the
minimum reagent flow rate simultaneously constitute a violation of the
nitrogen oxides emissions limit.
(f) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limits of this subpart, you must monitor the secondary power
to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates and maintain the 3-
hour block averages at or above the operating limits established during
the mercury or particulate matter performance test.
(g) For waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet scrubber, in
place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA Method 321 at 40 CFR part
63, appendix A, an owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a CEMS for monitoring hydrogen chloride emissions
discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the system. To
demonstrate continuous compliance with the hydrogen chloride emissions
limit for units other than waste-burning kilns not equipped with a wet
scrubber, a facility may substitute use of a hydrogen chloride
continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the hydrogen
chloride annual performance test, monitoring the minimum hydrogen
chloride sorbent flow rate and monitoring the minimum scrubber liquor
pH.
(h) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the particulate
matter emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a particulate
matter continuous emissions monitoring system for conducting the
particulate matter annual performance test and monitoring the minimum
pressure drop across the wet scrubber, if applicable.
(i) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the dioxin/furan annual performance test.
You must record the output of the system and analyze the sample
according to EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. This option
to use a continuous automated sampling system takes effect on the date
a final performance specification applicable to dioxin/furan from
continuous monitors is published in the Federal Register. The owner or
operator who elects to continuously sample dioxin/furan emissions
instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7 must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous
automated sampling system and must comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(j) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the mercury emissions
limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling
system for the mercury annual performance test. You must record the
output of the system and analyze the sample at set intervals using any
suitable determinative technique that can meet performance
specification 12B criteria. This option to use a continuous automated
sampling system takes effect on the date a final performance
specification applicable to mercury from monitors is published in the
Federal Register. The owner or operator who elects to continuously
sample mercury emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA
Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, ASTM D6784-02
(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17), or an
approved alternative method for measuring mercury emissions, must
install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous automated
sampling system and must comply with the requirements specified in
Sec. 60.58b(p) and (q).
(k) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the nitrogen oxides
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
emissions monitoring system for the nitrogen oxides annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the nitrogen oxides emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a CEMS for measuring
nitrogen oxides emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. The requirements under performance specification
2 of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part and the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be
followed for installation, evaluation and operation of the CEMS.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
required under Sec. 60.52b(d) must be determined based on the 30-day
rolling average of the hourly emission concentrations using CEMS outlet
data. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per
million by volume (dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-day rolling
average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
calculated using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(l) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the sulfur dioxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a CEMS for measuring
sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. The requirements under performance specification
2 of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance requirements of
procedure 1 of appendix F of this part and the procedures under Sec.
60.13 must be followed for installation, evaluation and operation of
the CEMS.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations using CEMS outlet data. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-day rolling
average emission concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be
calculated using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(m) For energy recovery units that do not use a wet scrubber,
fabric filter with bag leak detection system, or particulate matter
CEMS, you must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous
opacity monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs
(m)(1) through (5) of this section by the compliance date specified in
Sec. 60.2670. Energy recovery units that use a particulate matter
continuous emissions monitoring system to demonstrate initial and
continuing compliance according to the procedures in Sec. 60.2730(n)
are not required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system and
must perform the annual performance tests for opacity consistent with
Sec. 60.2710(f).
(1) Install, operate and maintain each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to performance specification 1 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous opacity
monitoring system according to the requirements in Sec. 60.13 and
according to performance
[[Page 80518]]
specification 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) As specified in Sec. 60.13(e)(1), each continuous opacity
monitoring system must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second period and one cycle of data
recording for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) Reduce the continuous opacity monitoring system data as
specified in Sec. 60.13(h)(1).
(5) Determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and 1-hour
block averages as applicable) collected.
(n) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, in place of particulate matter
testing with EPA Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, an owner or
operator must install, calibrate, maintain and operate a CEMS for
monitoring particulate matter emissions discharged to the atmosphere
and record the output of the system. The owner or operator of an
affected facility who continuously monitors particulate matter
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 must install, calibrate, maintain and
operate a CEMS and must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (n)(1) through (14) of this section.
(1) Notify the Administrator 1 month before starting use of the
system.
(2) Notify the Administrator 1 month before stopping use of the
system.
(3) The monitor must be installed, evaluated and operated in
accordance with the requirements of performance specification 11 of
appendix B of this part and quality assurance requirements of procedure
2 of appendix F of this part and Sec. 60.13.
(4) The initial performance evaluation must be completed no later
than 180 days after the final compliance date for meeting the amended
emission limitations, as specified under Sec. 60.2690 or within 180
days of notification to the Administrator of use of the continuous
monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously determining
compliance by Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 performance
tests, whichever is later.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels for the affected facility must be established according to the
procedures and methods specified in Sec. 60.2710(s)(5)(i) through
(iv).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility must conduct an
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required
under Sec. 60.2690. Compliance with the particulate matter emission
limit must be determined by using the CEMS specified in paragraph (n)
of this section to measure particulate matter and calculating a 30-day
rolling average emission concentration using Equation 19-19 in section
12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of
this part.
(7) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit must be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average calculated using
Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A-7 of the part from the 1-hour arithmetic average of
the CEMS outlet data.
(8) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages must be obtained as specified Sec. 60.2735.
(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7)
of this section must be expressed in milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide)(dry basis) and
must be used to calculate the 30-day rolling average emission
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages must be calculated using
the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(10) All valid CEMS data must be used in calculating average
emission concentrations even if the minimum CEMS data requirements of
paragraph (n)(8) of this section are not met.
(11) The CEMS must be operated according to performance
specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
(12) During each relative accuracy test run of the CEMS required by
performance specification 11 in appendix B of this part, particulate
matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data must be collected
concurrently (or within a 30-to 60-minute period) by both the
continuous emissions monitors and the following test methods.
(i) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-3 must be used.
(ii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2, as applicable, must be used.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests must be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in appendix F of
this part.
(14) When particulate matter emissions data are missing because of
CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks and zero and span
adjustments, you must collect emissions data by using other monitoring
systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions
data for a minimum of 85 percent of the hours per day, 90 percent of
the hours per calendar quarter, and 95 percent of the hours per
calendar year that the affected facility is operated and combusting
waste.
(o) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit, a facility may substitute use of a continuous
automated sampling system for the carbon monoxide annual performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide emissions
limits.
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS for measuring
carbon monoxide emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the
output of the system. The requirements under performance specification
4B of appendix B of this part, the quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part and the procedures under Sec. 60.13 must be
followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the CEMS.
(2) Following the date that the initial performance test for carbon
monoxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.
60.2690, compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limit may be
determined based on the 30-day rolling average of the hourly arithmetic
average emission concentrations, including CEMS data during startup and
shutdown as defined in this subpart, using CEMS outlet data. Except for
CEMS data during startup and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, the
1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million
corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 30-
day rolling average emission concentrations. CEMS data during startup
and shutdown, as defined in this subpart, are not corrected to 7
percent oxygen, and are measured at stack oxygen content. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages must be calculated using the data points required
under Sec. 60.13(e)(2).
(p) The owner/operator of an affected source with a bypass stack
shall install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), maintain
and operate a device or method for measuring the use of the bypass
stack including date, time and duration.
(q) For energy recovery units with a design heat input capacity of
100 MMBtu per hour or greater that do not use a carbon monoxide CEMS,
you must install, operate, and maintain a oxygen analyzer system as
defined in Sec. 60.2875
[[Page 80519]]
according to the procedures in paragraphs (q)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) The oxygen analyzer system must be installed by the initial
performance test date specified in Sec. 60.2675.
(2) You must operate the oxygen trim system with the oxygen level
set at the minimum percent oxygen by volume that is established as the
operating limit for oxygen according to paragraph (q)(3) of this
section.
(3) You must maintain the oxygen level such that it is not below
the lowest hourly average oxygen concentration measured during the most
recent CO performance test.
(4) You must calculate and record a 30-day rolling average oxygen
concentration using Equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 of Appendix A-7 of this part.
(r) For energy recovery units with design heat input capacities
greater than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hour, you must install, certify,
maintain, and operate a PM CPMS monitoring emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the system as specified in
paragraphs (r)(1) through (5) of this section. For other energy
recovery units, you may elect to use PM CPMS operated in accordance
with this section in lieu of using other CMS for monitoring PM
compliance (e.g., bag leak detectors, ESP secondary power, PM scrubber
pressure).
(1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain your PM CPMS according
to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan
developed in accordance with Sec. 60.2710(l) and (r)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) The operating principle of the PM CPMS must be based on in-
stack or extractive light scatter, light scintillation, or beta
attenuation of the exhaust gas or representative exhaust gas sample.
The reportable measurement output from the PM CPMS may be expressed as
milliamps, stack concentration, or other raw data signal.
(ii) The PM CPMS must have a cycle time (i.e., period required to
complete sampling, measurement, and reporting for each measurement) no
longer than 60 minutes.
(iii) The PM CPMS must be capable of detecting and responding to
particulate matter concentrations of no greater than 0.5 mg/actual
cubic meter.
(2) Collect PM CPMS hourly average output data for all energy
recovery unit operating hours. Express the PM CPMS output as millamps,
PM concentration, or other raw data signal value.
(3) Calculate the arithmetic 30-day rolling average of all of the
hourly average PM CPMS output collected during all energy recovery unit
operating hours data (e.g., milliamps, PM concentration, raw data
signal).
70. Section 60.2735 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2735 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must
obtain?
For each continuous monitoring system required or optionally
allowed under Sec. 60.2730, you must monitor and collect data
according to this section:
(a) You must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all
required intervals at all times compliance is required except for
periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods (as specified in Sec. 60.2770(o) of this part), and
required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities including, as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments. A monitoring system malfunction is any
sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the
monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures
that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions. You are required to effect monitoring system repairs
in response to monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods
and to return the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as
practicable.
(b) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or
out-of control periods, or required monitoring system quality assurance
or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or
operating levels. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
(c) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-
control periods, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions
or out-of-control periods, and required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities including, as applicable,
calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments, failure to
collect required data is a deviation of the monitoring requirements.
71. Section 60.2740 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text.
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (e).
c. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
d. Adding paragraphs (n) through (u).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 60.2740 What records must I keep?
You must maintain the items (as applicable) as specified in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) through (u) of this section for a period
of at least 5 years:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for
controls other than wet scrubbers under Sec. 60.2675(d) through (f) or
Sec. 60.2680, you must maintain data collected for all operating
parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits.
* * * * *
(e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show
a deviation from the operating limits in table 3 of this subpart or a
deviation from other operating limits established under Sec.
60.2675(d) through (f) or Sec. 60.2680 with a description of the
deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of
corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(n) Maintain records of the annual air pollution control device
inspections that are required for each CISWI unit subject to the
emissions limits in table 2 of this subpart or tables 6 through 9 of
this subpart, any required maintenance and any repairs not completed
within 10 days of an inspection or the timeframe established by the
state regulatory agency.
(o) For continuously monitored pollutants or parameters, you must
document and keep a record of the following parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems.
(1) All 6-minute average levels of opacity.
(2) All 1-hour average concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions.
(3) All 1-hour average concentrations of nitrogen oxides emissions.
(4) All 1-hour average concentrations of carbon monoxide emissions.
You must indicate which data are CEMS data during startup and shutdown.
(5) All 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter
emissions.
(6) All 1-hour average concentrations of mercury emissions.
(7) All 1-hour average concentrations of hydrogen chloride
emissions.
(8) All 1-hour average percent oxygen concentrations.
(9) All 1-hour average PM CPMS readings or particulate matter
continuous emissions monitor outputs.
(p) Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates,
times and durations.
[[Page 80520]]
(q) If you choose to stack test less frequently than annually,
consistent with Sec. 60.2720(a) through (c), you must keep annual
records that document that your emissions in the previous stack test(s)
were less than 75 percent of the applicable emission limit and document
that there was no change in source operations including fuel
composition and operation of air pollution control equipment that would
cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past
year.
(r) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(s) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(t) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(u) For operating units that combust non-hazardous secondary
materials that have been determined not to be solid waste pursuant to
Sec. 241.3(b)(1), you must keep a record which documents how the
secondary material meets each of the legitimacy criteria. If you
combust a fuel that has been processed from a discarded non-hazardous
secondary material pursuant to Sec. 241.3(b)(4), you must keep records
as to how the operations that produced the fuel satisfies the
definition of processing in Sec. 241.2. If the fuel received a non-
waste determination pursuant to the petition process submitted under
Sec. 241.3(c), you must keep a record that documents how the fuel
satisfies the requirements of the petition process.
72. Section 60.2770 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and adding
paragraphs (k) through (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2770 What information must I include in my annual report?
* * * * *
(e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit
that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no
deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(k) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction that occurred during the
reporting period and that caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 60.11(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(l) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a CISWI unit for which you are not using a CMS to
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the
annual report must contain the following information.
(1) The total operating time of the CISWI unit at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(m) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the CEMS, was out of control as specified in
paragraph (o) of this section, the annual report must contain the
following information for each deviation from an emission or operating
limitation occurring for a CISWI unit for which you are using a
continuous monitoring system to comply with the emission and operating
limitations in this subpart.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including start and end dates and hours and
descriptions of corrective actions taken.
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total
operating time of the CISWI unit at which the continuous monitoring
system downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant that was
monitored at the CISWI unit.
(9) A brief description of the CISWI unit.
(10) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(11) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring system,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(n) If there were periods during which the continuous monitoring
system, including the CEMS, was not out of control as specified in
paragraph (o) of this section, a statement that there were not periods
during which the continuous monitoring system was out of control during
the reporting period.
(o) A continuous monitoring system is out of control if any of the
following occur.
(1) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the
relevant standard.
(2) The continuous monitoring system fails a performance test audit
(e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy
test audit, or linearity test audit.
(3) The continuous opacity monitoring system calibration drift
exceeds two times the limit in the applicable performance specification
in the relevant standard.
(p) For energy recovery units, include the annual heat input and
average annual heat input rate of all fuels being burned in the unit to
verify which subcategory of energy recovery unit applies.
73. Section 60.2780 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and
removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 60.2780 What must I include in the deviation report?
* * * * *
(c) Durations and causes of the following:
(1) Each deviation from emission limitations or operating limits
and your corrective actions.
(2) Bypass events and your corrective actions.
* * * * *
74. Section 60.2790 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 80521]]
Sec. 60.2790 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must
submit?
(a) Yes. You must submit notifications as provided by Sec. 60.7.
(b) If you cease combusting solid waste but continue to operate,
you must provide 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel switch, consistent with Sec. 60.2710(a). The
notification must identify:
(1) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
(2) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
(3) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the CISWI
unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6 months,
and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
(4) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
(5) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-fuel
switch), consistent with paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section).
75. Section 60.2795 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2795 In what form can I submit my reports?
(a) Submit initial, annual and deviation reports electronically or
in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates.
(b) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or performance test, as they are
defined in Sec. 63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, the owner or operator of the affected facility must submit the
relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except
opacity data, to EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically
to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html).
76. Section 60.2805 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2805 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V
operating permit for my unit?
Yes. Each CISWI unit and air curtain incinerator subject to
standards under this subpart must operate pursuant to a permit issued
under Clean Air Act sections 129(e) and Title V.
77. Section 60.2860 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60.2860 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
After the date the initial stack test is required or completed
(whichever is earlier), you must meet the limitations in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(a) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values), except as described in paragraph (b)
of this section.
(b) Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 35 percent opacity
(as determined by the average of three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten
6-minute average opacity values) during the startup period that is
within the first 30 minutes of operation.
78. Section 60.2870 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.2870 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for air curtain incinerators?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The results (as determined by the average of three 1-hour
blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values) of the
initial opacity tests.
* * * * *
79. Section 60.2875 is amended by:
a. Adding definitions for ``Affirmative defense,'' ``Annual heat
input,'' ``Average annual heat input rate,'' ``Burn-off oven,''
``Bypass stack,'' ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown'', ``Chemical
recovery unit,'' ``Continuous monitoring system,'' ``Energy recovery
unit,'' ``Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass),''
``Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal),'' ``Energy
recovery unit designed to burn liquid wastes material and gas (Liquid/
gas),'' ``Energy recovery unit designed to burn solid materials
(Solid),'' ``Foundry sand thermal reclamation unit,'' ``Homogeneous
wastes,'' ``Incinerator,'' ``Kiln,'' ``Laboratory analysis unit,''
``Minimum voltage or amperage,'' ``Opacity,'' ``Operating day,''
``Oxygen analyzer system,'' ``Oxygen trim system,'' ``Performance
evaluation,'' ``Performance test,'' ``Process change,'' ``Raw mill,''
``Small remote incinerator,'' ``Soil treatment unit,'' ``Solid waste
incineration unit,'' ``Space heater'' and ``Waste-burning kiln,'' in
alphabetical order.
b. Revising the definition for ``Commercial and industrial solid
waste incineration (CISWI) unit,'' ``Cyclonic burn barrel'',
``Modification,'' and ``Wet scrubber.''
c. Removing paragraph (3) of the definition for ``Deviation.''
d. Removing the definition for ``Agricultural waste,'' ``Commercial
or industrial waste,'' and ``Solid waste.''
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 60.2875 What definitions must I know?
* * * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Annual heat input means the heat input for the 12 months preceding
the compliance demonstration.
Average annual heat input rate means annual heat input divided by
the hours of operation for the 12 months preceding the compliance
demonstration.
* * * * *
Burn-off oven means any rack reclamation unit, part reclamation
unit, or drum reclamation unit. A burn-off oven is not an incinerator,
waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote
incinerator under this subpart.
Bypass stack means a device used for discharging combustion gases
to avoid severe damage to the air pollution control device or other
equipment.
* * * * *
CEMS data during startup and shutdown means carbon monoxide CEMS
data collected during the first 4 hours of operation of energy recovery
unit startup from a cold start and the hour of operation following the
cessation of waste material being fed to the energy recovery unit
during a unit shutdown.
Chemical recovery unit means combustion units burning materials to
recover chemical constituents or to produce chemical compounds where
there is an existing commercial market for such recovered chemical
constituents or compounds. A chemical recovery unit is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small,
remote incinerator under this subpart. The following seven types of
units are considered chemical recovery units:
(1) Units burning only pulping liquors (i.e., black liquor) that
are reclaimed in
[[Page 80522]]
a pulping liquor recovery process and reused in the pulping process.
(2) Units burning only spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin
sulfuric acid.
(3) Units burning only wood or coal feedstock for the production of
charcoal.
(4) Units burning only manufacturing byproduct streams/residue
containing catalyst metals that are reclaimed and reused as catalysts
or used to produce commercial grade catalysts.
(5) Units burning only coke to produce purified carbon monoxide
that is used as an intermediate in the production of other chemical
compounds.
(6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to produce
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or other gases for use in
other manufacturing processes.
(7) Units burning only photographic film to recover silver.
* * * * *
Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) unit
means any distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial
facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months, any
solid waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241. If the
operating unit burns materials other than traditional fuels as defined
in Sec. 241.2 that have been discarded, and you do not keep and
produce records as required by Sec. 60.2740(u), the material is a
solid waste and the operating unit is a CISWI unit. While not all CISWI
units will include all of the following components, a CISWI unit
includes, but is not limited to, the solid waste feed system, grate
system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and
bottom ash system. The CISWI unit does not include air pollution
control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at the
solid waste hopper (if applicable) and extends through two areas: the
combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately after the last
combustion chamber or after the waste heat recovery equipment, if any;
and the combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at the truck
loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final
disposal. The CISWI unit includes all ash handling systems connected to
the bottom ash handling system.
* * * * *
Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means the total equipment,
required under the emission monitoring sections in applicable subparts,
used to sample and condition (if applicable), to analyze, and to
provide a permanent record of emissions or process parameters. A
particulate matter continuous parameter monitoring system (PM CPMS) is
a type of CMS.
* * * * *
Cyclonic burn barrel means a combustion device for waste materials
that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of
a lid, which fits onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces
combustion air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing
of waste material and air. A cyclonic burn barrel is not an
incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small,
remote incinerator under this subpart.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation,
operating limit, or operator qualification and accessibility
requirements.
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Energy recovery unit means a combustion unit combusting solid waste
(as that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241) for
energy recovery. Energy recovery units include units that would be
considered boilers and process heaters if they did not combust solid
waste.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn biomass (Biomass) means an
energy recovery unit that burns solid waste, biomass, and non-coal
solid materials but less than 10 percent coal, on a heat input basis on
an annual average, either alone or in combination with liquid waste,
liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn coal (Coal) means an energy
recovery unit that burns solid waste and at least 10 percent coal on a
heat input basis on an annual average, either alone or in combination
with liquid waste, liquid fuel or gaseous fuels.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn liquid waste material and gas
(Liquid/gas) means an energy recovery unit that burns a liquid waste
with liquid or gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuel or waste
materials.
Energy recovery unit designed to burn solid materials (Solid)
includes energy recovery units designed to burn coal and energy
recovery units designed to burn biomass.
* * * * *
Foundry sand thermal reclamation unit means a type of part
reclamation unit that removes coatings that are on foundry sand. A
foundry sand thermal reclamation unit is not an incinerator, waste-
burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator
under this subpart.
* * * * *
Homogeneous wastes are stable, consistent in formulation, have
known fuel properties, have a defined origin, have predictable chemical
and physical attributes, and result in consistent combustion
characteristics and have a consistent emissions profile.
Incinerator means any furnace used in the process of combusting
solid waste (as the term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part
241) for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing
combustible matter. Incinerator designs include single chamber and two-
chamber.
Kiln means an oven or furnace, including any associated preheater
or precalciner devices, used for processing a substance by burning,
firing or drying. Kilns include cement kilns that produce clinker by
heating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of
Portland Cement.
Laboratory analysis unit means units that burn samples of materials
for the purpose of chemical or physical analysis. A laboratory analysis
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
* * * * *
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run
average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured
during the most recent particulate matter or mercury performance test
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit that has
been changed later than June 1, 2001, and that meets one of two
criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit
exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the
CISWI unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs
(current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of
the CISWI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of
CISWI unit.
(2) Any physical change in the CISWI unit or change in the method
of operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted
for which Clean Air Act section 129 or section 111 has established
standards.
[[Page 80523]]
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the
following midnight during which any amount of solid waste is combusted
at any time in the CISWI unit.
Oxygen analyzer system means all equipment required to determine
the oxygen content of a gas stream and used to monitor oxygen in the
boiler flue gas or firebox. This definition includes oxygen trim
systems. The source owner or operator is responsible to install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate the oxygen analyzer system in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Oxygen trim system means a system of monitors that is used to
maintain excess air at the desired level in a combustion device. A
typical system consists of a flue gas oxygen and/or carbon monoxide
monitor that automatically provides a feedback signal to the combustion
air controller.
* * * * *
Performance evaluation means the conduct of relative accuracy
testing, calibration error testing, and other measurements used in
validating the continuous monitoring system data.
Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the
execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to
demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission standard as specified
in the performance test section of the relevant standard.
Process change means a significant permit revision, but only with
respect to those pollutant-specific emission units for which the
proposed permit revision is applicable, including but not limited to a
change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the
emission limits for the affected CISWI unit (e.g., change in the
sorbent used for activated carbon injection).
* * * * *
Raw mill means a ball and tube mill, vertical roller mill or other
size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill,
used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or
removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is
used to remove moisture from feed materials, it is also, by definition,
a raw material dryer. The raw mill also includes the air separator
associated with the raw mill.
* * * * *
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid
waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241)
and combusts 3 tons per day or less solid waste and is more than 25
miles driving distance to the nearest municipal solid waste landfill.
Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats petroleum-
contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site remediation. A soil
treatment unit may be direct-fired or indirect fired. A soil treatment
unit is not an incinerator, waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit
or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of
any facility which combusts any solid (as that term is defined by the
Administrator in 40 CFR part 241) waste material from commercial or
industrial establishments or the general public (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include
incinerators or other units required to have a permit under section
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term ``solid waste
incineration unit'' does not include (A) materials recovery facilities
(including primary or secondary smelters) which combust waste for the
primary purpose of recovering metals, (B) qualifying small power
production facilities, as defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration
facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous waste (such as units which
burn tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the
production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration
facilities which burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric
energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are
used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes, or (C)
air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood
wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain
incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be established by the
Administrator by rule.
Space heater means a usually portable appliance for heating a
relatively small area. A space heater is not an incinerator, waste-
burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator
under this subpart.
* * * * *
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in
part, by combusting solid waste (as that term is defined by the
Administrator in 40 CFR part 241). A waste-burning kiln does not
include a kiln that is feeding non-hazardous secondary ingredients
exclusively into the cold end of the kiln.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that uses
an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate matter
(including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb
and neutralize acid gases.
* * * * *
80. Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 is revised to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Increments of Progress
and Compliance Schedules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comply with these increments of progress By these dates \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment 1--Submit final control plan.... (Dates to be specified in
state plan).
Increment 2--Final compliance............. (Dates to be specified in
state plan).\b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the state.
\b\ The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of
state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWI units that commenced
construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later
than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state
plan or [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for CISWI units that commenced construction
on or before June 4, 2010. For small remote incinerators, the date can
be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or March 21, 2016 for small remote incinerator
CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010.
81. Table 2 to subpart DDDD is amended by:
a. Revising the heading.
b. Revising the entries for ``Hydrogen chloride,'' ``Mercury,''
``Opacity'' and ``Oxides of nitrogen.''
c. Adding footnotes b and c.
[[Page 80524]]
Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60-Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply Before [Date To Be Specified in
State Plan] \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \a\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Hydrogen chloride.................... 62 parts per million by 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 120 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
* * * * * * *
Mercury.............................. 0.47 milligrams per dry 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
standard cubic meter. minimum sample time (Method 29 or 30B at
per run). 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8) or ASTM
D6784-02 (Reapproved
2008).\c\
Opacity.............................. 10 percent............. Three 1-hour blocks Performance test
consisting of ten 6- (Method 9 at 40 CFR
minute average opacity part 60, appendix A-
values. 4).
* * * * * * *
Oxides of nitrogen................... 388 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
by dry volume. minimum sample time (Methods 7 or 7E at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
82. Table 4 of subpart DDDD is amended by revising the column
headings to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Toxic Equivalency
Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan isomer Toxic equivalency factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. Table 5 of subpart DDDD is amended by:
a. Revising the entry for ``Annual Report''.
b. Revising the entry for ``Emission limitation or operating limit
deviation report''.
Table 5 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirement \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Due date Contents Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Annual report..................... No later than 12 months Name and address. Sec. Sec. 60.2765
following the submission Statement and and 60.2770.
of the initial test signature by responsible
report. Subsequent official.
reports are to be Date of report...
submitted no more than 12 Values for the
months following the operating limits..
previous report. Highest recorded
3-hour average and the
lowest 3-hour average, as
applicable, for each
operating parameter
recorded for the calendar
year being reported..
If a performance
test was conducted during
the reporting period, the
results of the test.
If a performance
test was not conducted
during the reporting
period, a statement that
the requirements of Sec.
60.2720(a) were met.
[[Page 80525]]
Documentation of
periods when all
qualified CISWI unit
operators were
unavailable for more than
8 hours but less than 2
weeks.
If you are
conducting performance
tests once every 3 years
consistent with Sec.
60.2720(a), the date of
the last 2 performance
tests, a comparison of
the emission level you
achieved in the last 2
performance tests to the
75 percent emission limit
threshold required in
Sec. 60.2720(a) and a
statement as to whether
there have been any
operational changes since
the last performance test
that could increase
emissions.
* * * * * * *
Emission limitation or operating By August 1 of that year Dates and times Sec. 60.2775 and
limit deviation report. for data collected during of deviation. 60.2780.
the first half of the Averaged and
calendar year. By recorded data for those
February 1 of the dates..
following year for data Duration and
collected during the causes of each deviation
second half of the and the corrective
calendar year. actions taken..
Copy of operating
limit monitoring data and
any test reports..
Dates, times and
causes for monitor
downtime incidents..
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.
84. Table 6 to Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Incinerators on and After
[Date To Be Specified in State Plan] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \b\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.0026 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide...................... 36 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 4.6 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.13 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 2 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 29 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 60 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 0.0036 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8). Use ICPMS for the
analytical finish.
Mercury.............................. 0.0054 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 an ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008) \b\, collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 2 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008).\c\
meters per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
[[Page 80526]]
Oxides of nitrogen................... 53 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E at 40
minimum sample time CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Particulate matter filterable........ 34 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter). A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 11 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 6 or 6c at 40
per run). CFR part 60, appendix
A-4.
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5% of the observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
hourly observation part 60, appendix A-
period. 7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or [THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
\b\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
85. Table 7 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Energy Recovery Units After
[Date To Be Specified In State Plan] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet this emission limitation
\b\ Using this And determining
For the air pollutant ---------------------------------------- averaging time compliance using
Liquid/gas Solids this method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium......................... 0.023 milligrams Biomass--0.00078 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 29 at 40
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume of CFR part 60,
cubic meter. 2 dry standard appendix A-8).
Coal--0.058 cubic meters). Use ICPMS for the
milligrams per analytical
dry standard finish.
cubic meter..
Carbon monoxide................. 36 parts per Biomass--490 parts 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry per million dry hour minimum (Method 10 at 40
volume. volume. sample time per CFR part 60,
Coal--46 parts per run). appendix A-4).
million dry
volume..
Dioxins/furans (total mass 2.9 nanograms per Biomass--0.52 3-run average Performance test
basis). dry standard nanograms per dry (collect a (Method 23 at 40
cubic meter. standard cubic minimum volume of CFR part 60,
meter \c\. 1 dry standard appendix A-7).
Coal--0.51 cubic meter).
nanograms per dry
standard cubic
meter.\c\.
Dioxins/furans (toxic 0.32 nanograms per Biomass--0.12 3-run average Performance test
equivalency basis). dry standard nanograms per dry (collect a (Method 23 at 40
cubic meter. standard cubic minimum volume of CFR part 60,
meter. 4 dry standard appendix A-7).
Coal--0.075 cubic meters).
nanograms per dry
standard cubic
meter.\c\.
Hydrogen chloride............... 14 parts per 0.50 parts per 3-run average (for Performance test
million dry million dry Method 26, (Method 26 or 26A
volume. volume. collect a minimum at 40 CFR part
of 120 liters; 60, appendix A-
for Method 26A, 8).
collect a minimum
volume of 1 dry
standard cubic
meter).
Lead............................ 0.096 milligrams Biomass--0.0019 3-run average Performance test
per dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 29 at 40
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume of CFR part 60,
cubic meter. 2 dry standard appendix A-8).
Coal--0.0031 cubic meters). Use ICPMS for the
milligrams per analytical
dry standard finish.
cubic meter..
[[Page 80527]]
Mercury......................... 0.031 milligrams 0.0020 milligrams 3-run average (For Performance test
per dry standard per dry standard Method 29 and (Method 29 or 30B
cubic meter. cubic meter. ASTM D6784-02 at 40 CFR part
(Reapproved 2008) 60, appendix A-8)
\b\, collect a or ASTM D6784-02
minimum volume of (Reapproved 2008)
2 dry standard \d\.
cubic meters per
run. For Method
30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in
Method 30B at 40
CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen.............. 76 parts per Biomass--290 parts 3-run average (for Performance test
million dry per million dry Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E
volume. volume. minimum sample at 40 CFR part
Coal--340 parts time per run). 60, appendix A-
per million dry 4).
volume..
Particulate matter filterable... 110 milligrams per Biomass--11 3-run average Performance test
dry standard milligrams per (collect a (Method 5 or 29
cubic meter. dry standard minimum volume of at 40 CFR part
cubic meter or 30- 1 dry standard 60, appendix A-3
day rolling cubic meter). or appendix A-8)
average if PM if the unit has a
CEMS is required design capacity
or being used. less than or
Coal--86 equal to 250
milligrams per MMBtu/hr; or PM
dry standard CEMS (performance
cubic meter or 30- specification 11
day rolling of appendix B and
average if PM procedure 2 of
CEMS is required appendix F of
or being used.. this part) if the
unit has a design
capacity greater
than 250 MMBtu/
hr. Use Method 5
or 5I of Appendix
A of this part
and collect a
minimum sample
volume of 1 dscm
for the PM CEMS
correlation
testing.
Sulfur dioxide.................. 720 parts per Biomass--7.3 parts 3-run average (1 Performance test
million dry per million dry hour minimum (Method 6 or 6c
volume. volume. sample time per at 40 CFR part
Coal--650 parts run). 60, appendix A-4.
per million dry
volume..
Fugitive ash.................... Visible emissions Visible emissions Three 1-hour Visible emission
for no more than for no more than observation test (Method 22
5 percent of the 5 percent of the periods. at 40 CFR part
hourly hourly 60, appendix A-
observation observation 7).
period. period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
\b\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis
limit.
\c\ If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant
for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below this limit, you can skip testing
according to Sec. 60.2720 if all of the other provision of Sec. 60.2720 are met. For all other pollutants
that do not contain a footnote ``c'', your performance tests for this pollutant for at least 2 consecutive
years must show that your emissions are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for skip testing.
\d\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
86. Table 8 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Waste-Burning Kilns After
[Date To Be Specified in State Plan] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \b\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.00082 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8).
[[Page 80528]]
Carbon monoxide...................... 120 (long kilns)/410 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
(preheater/ minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
precalciner) parts per per run). part 60, appendix A-
million dry volume. 4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 3.6 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 0.075 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
\c\. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
Hydrogen chloride.................... 3.0 parts per million 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry volume \c\. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 321 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 63, appendix A of
meter) or 30-day this part) or HCL CEMS
rolling average if HCL if a wet scrubber is
CEMS is being used. not used.
Lead................................. 0.0043 milligrams per 3-run average (collect Performance test
dry standard cubic a minimum volume of 2 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
meter. dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meters). 8).
Mercury.............................. 0.011 milligrams per 30-day rolling average. Mercury CEMS or sorbent
dry standard cubic trap monitoring system
meter. (performance
specification 12A or
12B, respectively, of
appendix B of this
part.)
Oxides of nitrogen................... 630 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E at 40
minimum sample time CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4). Use a span gas
with a concentration
of 1000 ppm or less.
Particulate matter filterable........ 9.2 milligrams per dry 30-day rolling average. PM CEMS (performance
standard cubic meter. specification 11 of
appendix B and
procedure 2 of
appendix F of this
part; Use Method 5 or
5I of Appendix A of
this part and collect
a minimum sample
volume of 2 dscm for
the PM CEMS
correlation testing.).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 830 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6c at 40
minimum of 20 liters; CFR part 60, appendix
for Method 6C, 1 hour A-4).
minimum sample time
per run).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
\b\ All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/
furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
\c\ If you are conducting stack tests to demonstrate compliance and your performance tests for this pollutant
for at least 2 consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below this limit, you can skip testing
according to Sec. 60.2720 if all of the other provision of Sec. 60.2720 are met. For all other pollutants
that do not contain a footnote ``c'', your performance tests for this pollutant for at least 2 consecutive
years must show that your emissions are at or 75 percent of this limit in order to qualify for skip testing.
87. Table 9 of Subpart DDDD is added as follows:
Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60--Model Rule--Emission Limitations That Apply to Small, Remote Incinerators
After [Date To Be Specified in State Plan] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And determining
For the air pollutant You must meet this Using this averaging compliance using this
emission limitation \b\ time method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.............................. 0.61 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 8).
Carbon monoxide...................... 20 parts per million 3-run average (1 hour Performance test
dry volume. minimum sample time (Method 10 at 40 CFR
per run). part 60, appendix A-
4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis).... 1,200 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 57 nanograms per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
basis). standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 23 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 7).
[[Page 80529]]
Hydrogen chloride.................... 220 parts per million 3-run average (For Performance test
dry volume. Method 26, collect a (Method 26 or 26A at
minimum volume of 120 40 CFR part 60,
liters per run. For appendix A-8).
Method 26A, collect a
minimum volume of 1
dry standard cubic
meter per run).
Lead................................. 2.7 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 29 at 40 CFR
dry standard cubic part 60, appendix A-
meter). 8).
Mercury.............................. 0.0057 milligrams per 3-run average (For Performance test
dry standard cubic Method 29 and ASTM (Method 29 or 30B at
meter. D6784-02 (Reapproved 40 CFR part 60,
2008) \b\, collect a appendix A-8) or ASTM
minimum volume of 2 D6784-02 (Reapproved
dry standard cubic 2008) \c\.
meters per run. For
Method 30B, collect a
minimum sample as
specified in Method
30B at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
Oxides of nitrogen................... 240 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 7E, 1 hour (Method 7 or 7E at 40
minimum sample time CFR part 60, appendix
per run). A-4).
Particulate matter filterable........ 230 milligrams per dry 3-run average (collect Performance test
standard cubic meter. a minimum volume of 1 (Method 5 or 29 at 40
dry standard cubic CFR part 60, appendix
meter). A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide....................... 420 parts per million 3-run average (for Performance test
dry volume. Method 6, collect a (Method 6 or 6c at 40
minimum of 20 liters CFR part 60, appendix
per run; for Method A-4).
6C, 1 hour minimum
sample time per run).
Fugitive ash......................... Visible emissions for Three 1-hour Visible emission test
no more than 5 percent observation periods. (Method 22 at 40 CFR
of the hourly part 60, appendix A-
observation period. 7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a
revised state plan or [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
\b\ All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard
conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis
limit.
\c\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17.
PART 241--SOLID WASTES USED AS FUELS OR INGREDIENTS IN COMBUSTION
UNITS
88. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6903, 6912, 7429.
Subpart A--General
89. Section 241.2 is amended by:
a. Revising the definition of ``clean cellulosic biomass.''
b. Revising the definition of ``contaminants.''
c. Revising the definition of ``established tire collection
programs.''
Sec. 241.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Clean cellulosic biomass means those residuals that are akin to
traditional cellulosic biomass, including, but not limited to:
Agricultural and forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest
thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust, trim, tree harvesting
residuals from logging and sawmill materials, hogged fuel, wood
pellets, untreated wood pallets); urban wood (e.g., tree trimmings,
stumps, and related forest-derived biomass from urban settings); corn
stover and other biomass crops used specifically for the production of
cellulosic biofuels (e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses,
byproducts of ethanol natural fermentation processes); bagasse and
other crop residues (e.g., peanut shells, vines, orchard trees, hulls,
seeds, spent grains, cotton byproducts, corn and peanut production
residues, rice milling and grain elevator operation residues); wood
collected from forest fire clearance activities, trees and clean wood
found in disaster debris, clean biomass from land clearing operations,
and clean construction and demolition wood. These fuels are not
secondary materials or solid wastes unless discarded. Clean biomass is
biomass that does not contain contaminants at concentrations not
normally associated with virgin biomass materials.
* * * * *
Contaminants means all pollutants listed in Clean Air Act sections
112(b) and 129(a)(4), with modifications outlined in this definition to
reflect constituents found in non-hazardous secondary materials prior
to combustion. The definition includes the following elemental
contaminants that commonly form Clean Air Act section 112(b) and
129(a)(4) pollutants: Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chlorine,
chromium, cobalt, fluorine, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, nitrogen,
selenium, and sulfur. The definition does not include the following
Clean Air Act section 112(b) and 129(a)(4) pollutants that are either
unlikely to be found in non-hazardous secondary materials prior to
combustion or are adequately measured by other parts of this
definition: Hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine gas (Cl2),
hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), fine mineral fibers, particulate matter, coke
oven emissions, diazomethane, white phosphorus, titanium tetrachloride,
m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene.
* * * * *
[[Page 80530]]
Established tire collection program means a comprehensive
collection system or contractual arrangement that ensures scrap tires
are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities through
arrival at the combustion facility.
* * * * *
Subpart B--Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that
are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion
Units
90. Amend 241.3 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (a),
b. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii),
c. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(iii).
Sec. 241.3 Standards and Procedures for Identification of Non-
Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes When Used as Fuels
or Ingredients in Combustion Units.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section or in
241.4(a) of this subpart, non-hazardous secondary materials that are
combusted are presumed to be solid wastes, unless a petition is
submitted to, and a determination granted by, the Regional
Administrator pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. The criteria
to be addressed in the petition, as well as the process for making the
non-waste determination, are specified in paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The non-hazardous secondary material must contain
contaminants or groups of contaminants at levels comparable in
concentration to or lower than those in traditional fuel(s) which the
combustion unit is designed to burn. In determining which traditional
fuel(s) a unit is designed to burn, persons can choose a traditional
fuel that can be or is burned in the particular type of boiler, whether
or not the combustion unit is permitted to burn that traditional fuel.
In comparing contaminants between traditional fuel(s) and a non-
hazardous secondary material, persons can use ranges of traditional
fuel contaminant levels compiled from national surveys, as well as
contaminant level data from the specific traditional fuel being
replaced. Such comparisons are to be based on a direct comparison of
the contaminant levels in both the non-hazardous secondary material and
traditional fuel(s) prior to combustion.
* * * * *
91. Add Sec. 241.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 241.4 Non-Waste Determinations for Specific Non-Hazardous
Secondary Materials When Used as a Fuel.
(a) The following non-hazardous secondary materials are not solid
wastes when used as a fuel in a combustion unit:
(1) Scrap tires that are not discarded and are managed under the
oversight of established tire collection programs, including tires
removed from vehicles and off-specification tires.
(2) Resinated wood.
(b) Any person may submit a rulemaking petition to the
Administrator to identify additional non-hazardous secondary materials
to be listed in paragraph (a) of this section. Contents and procedures
for submittal of the petitions include the following:
(1) Each petition must be submitted to the Administrator by
certified mail and must include:
(i) The petitioner's name and address;
(ii) A statement of the petitioner's interest in the proposed
action;
(iii) A description of the proposed action, including (where
appropriate) suggested regulatory language; and
(iv) A statement of the need and justification for the proposed
action, including any supporting tests, studies, or other information.
Where the non-hazardous secondary material does not meet the legitimacy
criteria, the applicant must explain why such non-hazardous secondary
material should be considered a non-waste fuel, balancing the
legitimacy criteria with other relevant factors.
(2) The Administrator will make a tentative decision to grant or
deny a petition and will publish notice of such tentative decision,
either in the form of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, a
proposed rule, or a tentative determination to deny the petition, in
the Federal Register for written public comment.
(3) Upon the written request of any interested person, the
Administrator may, at its discretion, hold an informal public hearing
to consider oral comments on the tentative decision. A person
requesting a hearing must state the issues to be raised and explain why
written comments would not suffice to communicate the person's views.
The Administrator may in any case decide on its own motion to hold an
informal public hearing.
(4) After evaluating all public comments the Administrator will
make a final decision by publishing in the Federal Register a
regulatory amendment or a denial of the petition.
(5) The Administrator will grant or deny a petition based on the
weight of evidence showing the following:
(i) The non-hazardous secondary material has not been discarded in
the first instance and is legitimately used as a fuel in a combustion
unit, or if discarded, has been sufficiently processed into a material
that is legitimately used as a fuel.
(ii) Where any one of the legitimacy criteria in section
241.3(d)(1) is not met, that the use of the non-hazardous secondary
material is integrally tied to the industrial production process, that
the non-hazardous secondary material is functionally the same as the
comparable traditional fuel, or other relevant factors as appropriate.
[FR Doc. 2011-31648 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P