0106-00-002-002

MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION: 

 BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT FOR FEDERAL PLAN

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

August 20, 1998
iii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS ............................................... 1-1

2.0 GENERAL ........................................................... 2-1

3.0 DEFINITION OF INCREMENTS ......................................... 3-1

3.1 Final Control Plan Requirements ................................... 3-1

3.2 State Plan Process ............................................. 3-3

3.3 Title V Permitting .............................................. 3-4

4.0 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES ............................................ 4-1

4.1 Dates on the Generic Schedules ................................... 4-1

4.2 Delaying the Increment 1 Date .................................... 4-2

4.3 Options 1, 2, and 3 ............................................. 4-3

4.4 Dates Already Achieved ......................................... 4-5

4.5 Site-Specific Schedules .......................................... 4-6

5.0 COMPLIANCE DEADLINE ............................................. 5-1

5.1 1995 vs. 1997 Limits ........................................... 5-1

5.2 Final Compliance Date .......................................... 5-2

5.3 Timing for Performance Test ..................................... 5-3

6.0 NOx TRADING ....................................................... 6-1

7.0 DIOXIN TESTING SCHEDULE .......................................... 7-1

8.0 EMISSION LIMITS .................................................... 8-1

8.1 Fugitive Ash .................................................. 8-1

8.2 Sulfur Dioxide ................................................ 8-1

9.0 MONITORING ....................................................... 9-1

9.1 Carbon Feed Rate .............................................. 9-1

9.2 CEM Performance Specifications for CO ............................ 9-2

10.0 OPERATOR TRAINING .............................................. 10-1

10.1 State Operator Training ........................................ 10-1

10.2 Stand-in Provisions ............................................ 10-1

10.3 States’ Authority ............................................. 10-2

11.0 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM DATA ................ 11-1

12.0 STATE PLAN INFORMATION ........................................ 12-1
1-1

1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS

A list of the commenters, their affiliations, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) docket number assigned to their correspondence is given in table 1-1.

TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE 

COMBUSTOR FEDERAL PLAN

Docket

Number Commenter and affiliation 

IV-D-01 J. M. Daniel, Jr., P. E., DEE,

Director of Technical Support

Department of Environmental Quality

Commonwealth of Virginia

Richmond, VA

IV-D-02 J. B. Britton, Esq., Counsel

Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand

Washington, D.C.

(for Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility)

IV-D-03 M. P. Tracey, Director of Engineering

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority

Hartford, CT

IV-D-04 M. Barnett, Environmental Compliance Engineer

Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia

Chesapeake, VA

IV-D-05 M. Swanson, Senior Environmental Analyst

Northern States Power Company

Minneapolis, MN

IV-D-06 B. Mathur, Chief, Bureau of Air

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Springfield, IL
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE 

COMBUSTION FEDERAL PLAN

Docket

Number Commenter and affiliation 

1-2

IV-D-07 D. R. Schregardus, Director

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Columbus, OH

IV-D-08 R. D. Fletcher, Chief

Emissions Assessment Branch

California Environmental Protection Agency

Sacramento, CA

IV-D-09 T. J. Porter, Director

Air Quality Management

Wheelabrator Environmental Systems, Inc.

Hampton, NH

IV-D-10 D. Chamberlain, Deputy Secretary for Air, 

 Recycling and Radiation Protection

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Harrisburg, PA

IV-D-11 E. Bennett, President

Savannah Energy Systems Company, LP

Savannah, GA

IV-G-01 S. Mitchel, State Implementation Plan Coordinator

Air Quality Division

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

St. Paul, MN

IV-G-02 L. Brasowski, Vice-President

Environmental Permitting

Ogden Energy Group, Inc.

Fairfield, NJ

IV-G-03 R. J. Gozikowski, Acting Director

Department of Public Works

Fairfax County, Fairfax, Virginia

IV-G-04 M. Zannes, President

Integrated Waste Services Association

Washington, D.C.
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE 

COMBUSTION FEDERAL PLAN

Docket

Number Commenter and affiliation 

1-3

IV-G-05 R. D. Fletcher, Chief

Emissions Assessment Branch

California Environmental Protection Agency

Sacramento, CA
2-1

2.0 GENERAL

Comment: One commenter (IV-G-02) stated that it is important that the Municipal

Waste Combustor Federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart FFF) maintain full consistency with

the individual State plans as they are completed, submitted, and revised so that owners and

operators of large municipal waste combustors (MWCs) in States with State regulations but

without approved State plans are not subject to fluctuating requirements between the Federal

plan and the subsequently approved State plan. The commenter encouraged EPA to minimize

conflicting requirements or compliance schedules for implementing the emission guidelines. 

Two commenters (IV-G-05, IV-D-08/IV-G-05) supported EPA’s options for determining the

incremental dates for site-specific compliance schedules. Both commenters agreed that the

options are a good way of ensuring consistency between State plans and the Federal plan.

Response: The EPA agrees that the MWC Federal plan should be as consistent as

practical with State plans. Because the Federal plan is an interim action until a State plan is

approved, EPA designed the Federal plan to be consistent with the 40 CFR part 60, subparts

B and Cb requirements for State plans. The Federal plan contains the same required elements

as a State plan. To ensure a smooth transition from Federal plan to State plan, EPA requested

that States and owners and operators submit compliance schedules that were already

negotiated and agreed upon. During the comment period, several States submitted

compliance schedules (from State plans) to include in the Federal plan. Adding site-specific

schedules in the Federal plan ensures that owners and operators are progressing with their

retrofits and assures the Federal plan is as consistent as practical with State plans.
3-1

3.0 DEFINITION OF INCREMENTS

3.1 Final Control Plan Requirements

Comment: Two commenters (IV-G-01, IV-D-05) believe that the requirements that

describe the final control plan are burdensome to facilities. One commenter (IV-D-05)

requested that EPA retain the “old” definition of final control plan. Several commenters

(IV-D-05, IV-D-09, IV-G-01, IV-G-04) stated that the final control plan requirements are not

consistent with what they envisioned while considering how to comply with 40 CFR part 60,

subparts B and Cb.

One commenter (IV-G-01) was specifically concerned with the requirements for

engineering specifications and drawings. To provide the level of detail for the final control

plan in the Federal plan, the commenter (IV-G-01) might have to prematurely make a

technology choice in order to submit the specifications and drawings before the final control

plan compliance date. The commenter (IV-G-01) noted that bid-level drawings are extremely

expensive and suggested that it may not be possible to provide the specifications and drawings

for a reasonable cost. Some MWC owners rely on in-house engineering staff, particularly if

the retrofits require modifications or replacement of existing components and the staff may

use only sketches or catalogue drawings to describe the necessary work. Some MWC owners

may rely on vendor documents, or have established relationships with contractors and

equipment suppliers where plans and specifications are never prepared. The commenter (IVG-01) specifically questioned the utility of the requirement to provide engineering

specifications and drawings, and questioned EPA’s goal in making this requirement.

Two commenters (IV-G-04, IV-D-09) contended that the Federal plan requirements

for a final control plan go well beyond the requirements specified in EPA’s “Municipal Waste

Combustion: Summary of the Requirements for Section 111(d)/129 State Plans for

Implementing the Municipal Waste Combustor Emission Guidelines” (EPA-456R-96-003)

State plan guidance document. One commenter (IV-D-09) contended that the Federal plan
3-2

description of a final control plan is unnecessary and inconsistent with the guidance document. 

Another commenter (IV-G-02) agreed that the Federal plan requirements are inconsistent with

the guidance document. One commenter (IV-D-09) cited the guidance document’s

description of control plan as, “a brief document or letter describing the controls that the

source will use to comply with the emission limitations and other requirements” (pg. 3-23). 

The commenter provided an example final control plan consistent with the description in the

State plan guidance document.

Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-G-04) contended that the control plan requirements

could jeopardize a facility’s ability to meet the compliance date for the first increment. One

commenter (IV-D-09) contended that it is highly unlikely that detailed bid specifications will

be available by the required final control plan submittal dates. The commenter (IV-D-09)

noted that if the requirements for the final control plan were revised to be consistent with

EPA’s State plan guidance document (EPA-456R-96-003), then the compliance date for the

first increment might be met.

Response: The EPA recognizes that it is important to be as consistent as practical

with 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb and the State plan guidance document. Therefore,

EPA revised the Federal plan to require a final control plan consistent with these

requirements. The final rule requires a control plan that describes the controls or the process

changes that the source will use to comply with the emission limits and other requirements. A

letter or brief document containing this information is sufficient. This definition is consistent

with 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb and the State plan guidance document, as well as the

example plan submitted by commenter IV-D-09. The letter would identify the pollutant and

the means of controlling the pollutant. For example, to control particulate matter the owner

or operator would install fabric filters. To control mercury the owner or operator would

install an activated carbon injection system to supplement the acid gas/particulate matter

control system. The EPA’s goal is to be sure that owners and operators select a control

technology, award contracts, and begin construction to complete retrofits before

December 19, 2000.

3.2 State Plan Process
3-3

Comment: Two commenters (IV-G-01, IV-G-02) contended that the Federal plan

requirements would disrupt the State plan process to implement the emission guidelines. One

commenter (IV-G-02) requested that EPA modify the Federal plan so that the definitions of

final control plan and begin on-site construction are consistent with the State plan guidance

document (EPA-456R-96-003). The commenter (IV-G-02) noted that operators, State

agencies, and client communities have been planning capital improvements to be fully

compliant with the emission guidelines (as noted in the schedules they submitted and the

State’s section 111(d) State plan) based on EPA’s State plan guidance document. One

commenter (IV-D-05) noted that the compliance schedules they previously submitted were

not based on the Federal plan definition of final control plan.

One commenter (IV-D-09) noted that States that already have approved State plans

were held to the final control plan description in the State plan guidance document. The

commenter (IV-D-09) recommended that the State plan guidance document definition should

be incorporated into the Federal plan to ensure consistency between currently approved State

plans, the Federal plan, and State plans approved after promulgation of the Federal plan. 

Consistency will avoid increasing the stringency of future State plan approval and jeopardizing

future State plan approvals, if plans did not incorporate the final control requirements

described in the Federal plan.

One commenter (IV-G-02) believes that if the Federal plan criteria for the increments

is adopted in the final Federal plan, the State implementation process would need to be

changed. Another commenter (IV-G-01) stated that the control plan requirements in the

Federal plan would complicate that transition from the Federal plan to a State plan. If these

requirements remain in the Federal plan, then facilities would be required to begin work on

them. For example, owners and operators of MWC facilities would begin preparing detailed

drawings and specifications even though the State plan does not have the same requirements. 

The result will cause unnecessary expense and the potential for facilities to fail to meet some

requirements because of having two dissimilar sets of requirements.

Response: The EPA agrees that the Federal plan should be as consistent as practical 

with State plans and EPA's State plan guidance document. As intended when the guidance
3-4

document was issued, EPA will base its approval or disapproval of a State plan on whether it

meets the criteria in the guidance document and is consistent with subparts B and Cb. 

The EPA modified the Federal plan so that the definition of final control plan is

consistent with the State plan guidance document. By changing the definition of final control

plan and allowing the options for submitting compliance schedules, EPA expects a smoother

transition for facilities that are initially covered by the Federal plan, but are later covered by a

State plan.

Regarding the definition of on-site construction, the EPA contends that the definition

in the Federal plan is consistent with and merely clarifies the definition in the 40 CFR 60,

subparts B and Cb and the guidance document. The Federal plan allows EPA, States, and

owners and operators to easily identify the exact date of initiating on-site construction. The

EPA maintains that this clarification will also ensure a smoother transition for facilities that are

initially covered by the Federal plan, but are later covered by a State plan. 

3.3 Title V Permitting

Comment: One commenter (IV-G-01) contended that the complete regulatory

analysis and description of all control technologies available duplicates the applicable

requirements analysis MWC owners are already required to perform as a part of the Title V

permitting process. Regardless of the Federal plan, States must issue Title V permits for all

MWCs subject to the emission guidelines. The commenter recommended that the final

control plan should only include a description of the technologies chosen by the facility

owners, as § 62.14109(g)(2) requests.

Another commenter (IV-D-09) contended that it is unnecessary to require the level of

detail described in § 62.14109(g)(1) - (g)(4). The comprehensive air pollution control

analysis, engineering drawings, and other information will be discussed and approved by

States during the construction and permitting process. 

Response: To be as consistent as practical with 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb

and the guidance document, EPA deleted the requirements for a complete analysis of the

applicable regulatory requirements, methods of compliance, and selected control technology

options. Rather than requiring a complete analysis of the control options available, the EPA is

requiring a letter describing the air pollution control devices or process changes that the
3-5

source will use to comply with the emission limits and other requirements (see section 3.1). 

Any technique that will meet the emission limits can be used.
4-1

4.0 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES

4.1 Dates on the Generic Schedules

Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-G-04) requested that the increment 1

through 4 compliance dates should “float” relative to publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register (i.e., each date would be a certain number of months after publication in the

Federal Register) or float relative to issuance of any revised construction permits. The

commenters believe that floating the dates would provide facilities more flexibility considering

the late timing of the final Federal plan. States without approved plans would have more time

to submit their implementation plans or obtain EPA approval of permits. Therefore, floating

the dates would eliminate the potential for facilities to be in violation of the generic Federal

plan schedule while waiting for approval of the State plan or receipt of State construction

permits. One commenter (IV-G-04) contended that facilities may not meet the incremental

compliance dates because of circumstances beyond their control. A delay would provide

facilities more flexibility that will assist in achieving more timely compliance. Two

commenters (IV-D-09, IV-G-04) requested that if floating the dates is not an option, then all

dates should be delayed 6 months.

Response: The EPA maintains that the dates in the generic compliance schedule are

achievable for MWC facilities for several reasons: the generic schedule is based on actual

retrofits; owners and operators may submit site-specific alternative dates (with a justification)

if they wish to differ from the generic schedule; and owners and operators have received

adequate notice to begin retrofits. The EPA contends that facilities can meet the generic

compliance schedule in the Federal plan. The generic compliance schedule and increments of

progress are based on case studies of four MWC plants that either completed or are in the

process of completing retrofits. To develop a realistic generic schedule, EPA reviewed the
4-2

retrofit schedules for MWC units at four MWC plants containing 12 units. To provide

maximum flexibility, the first three Federal plan increments are based on the maximum time

required by any of the retrofits studied. The fourth increment was established to provide the

maximum time to complete retrofits and still meet the final compliance date. The fifth and

final increment is dictated by the Act. The retrofit case studies are documented in docket

A-97-45 (II-A-1 through II-A-5). 

For MWC owners and operators who may have difficulty meeting the generic schedule

because of circumstances beyond their control, EPA is retaining options 2 and 3 for

submitting compliance schedules (see section 4.3). In addition, EPA is delaying the increment

1 compliance date (see section 4.2). Because EPA is allowing this flexibility, EPA is not

floating the generic increment dates in the final Federal plan.

The EPA maintains that MWC owners and operators have had adequate notice to

begin retrofits. MWC owners and operators have known that they would need to install

controls by December 19, 2000 since the promulgation of the emission guidelines on

December 19, 1995. In July of 1996, EPA published the EPA State plan guidance document

(EPA-456R-96-003) that clearly describes the increments of progress and the final compliance

date of December 19, 2000. Thus, MWC owners and operators had adequate time to develop

their final control plans and begin retrofits. 

4.2 Delaying the Increment 1 Date 

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) noted that the increment 1 date (submit final

control plan) is a great concern to MWC owners and operators given the extensive

information required by the Federal plan. The commenter stated that with anticipated

promulgation of the Federal plan in the May or June time frame, there will not be sufficient

time to prepare this information. The commenter requested that EPA delay the September 21,

1998 increment 1 date, unless EPA makes the definition of final control plan consistent with

the State plan guidance document.

Response: The EPA decided to move the increment 1 compliance date. Because the

promulgation date of the MWC Federal plan will be closer to the increment 1 date than EPA

expected, and in order to allow sufficient notice and a reasonable amount of time to submit

their control plans after the rule is adopted, the increment 1 date will be 60 days after the
4-3

Federal plan is published in the Federal Register. However, the overall generic compliance

schedule for the MWC Federal plan is not changing: MWC owners and operators subject to

the generic schedule are still bound by the final compliance date (increment 5) of

December 19, 2000 and the dates for meeting increments 2 through 4 are still the same. In

addition, the EPA revised the Federal plan definition of final control plan to be consistent with

the State plan guidance document (see section 3.1). The revised control plan definition and

submittal date allow MWC owners and operators to meet the increment 1 date.

4.3 Options 1, 2, and 3

Comment: One commenter (IV-G-05/IV-D-08), a State agency, supported option 2

(State submits alternative dates for increments 1, 2, 3, and 4) because it allows the Federal

plan to maintain consistency with the increments of progress that the local air pollution

control authorities have already established for each facility in the State. The commenter

stated that this option makes the most sense for the State since it allows each facility to have a

compliance schedule that is specifically tailored to its individual needs while still meeting the

statutory deadlines. The commenter (IV-G-05/IV-D-08) submitted compliance schedules for

two facilities in the State to be included in the final Federal plan. The commenter noted that

including these schedules in the Federal plan allows the affected facilities to follow a

consistent compliance schedule that continues when the State plan is approved.

One commenter supported (IV-D-03) option 3 (State or owner or operator submits

alternative dates for increments 2, 3, and 4). The commenter noted that allowing MWC

owners or operators to define the increment dates ensures maximum flexibility and increases

regulatory efficiency without affecting human health or the environment. The commenter

claimed that it is essential that the Federal plan provide this flexibility so that the regulating

authority can follow its regular budgeting, procurement and construction procedures in a

manner that neither disrupts operation of the facilities under its control, nor imposes undue

hardships on the municipalities which are served by, and ultimately pay for the resource

recovery facilities in the State.

One commenter (IV-D-09) claimed that option 3 is not realistic since the time required

to receive alternative date approval may still put the facility in violation of the Federal plan. 
4-4

Response: The EPA is retaining options 1, 2, and 3 to be as consistent as practical

with State plans and offer flexibility on intermediate increments as long as the increment 1 and

5 dates are met. The EPA agrees that it makes sense to maintain consistency between the

Federal plan and schedules already negotiated with MWC owners and operators. Since the

approved site-specific schedule is included in the Federal plan, the MWC facility will be

following the same site-specific schedule after the State plan is approved. The EPA also

agrees that including option 3 (State or owner or operator submits alternative dates for

increments 2 through 4) allows maximum flexibility and increases regulatory efficiency

without affecting human health or the environment. If a site-specific compliance schedule is

not submitted, the owner or operator must follow the Federal plan generic compliance

schedule to retrofit control equipment.

The EPA is requiring all MWC units subject to the Federal plan to meet the generic

increment 1 compliance date. (In the adopted Federal plan, the generic increment 1

compliance date is 60 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register.) The EPA is

requiring MWC units to meet the increment 1 compliance date to ensure that owners and

operators select a control technology, award contracts, and begin construction to complete

retrofits before December 19, 2000. The EPA contends that owners and operators must

determine by the increment 1 date how they intend to meet the emission limits. A later date

would compromise the chances of the sources meeting the final compliance date. The EPA

believes the requirement is reasonable, important and not intrusive.

Furthermore, EPA contacted States that submitted a site-specific schedule with an

increment 1 date that is later than the generic schedule and the States agreed that facilities in

their States could meet the generic increment 1 date. (Several States also contacted individual

facilities to confirm this.) As discussed in section 4.2 of this document, EPA moved the

increment 1 date in order to allow sufficient notice and a reasonable amount of time for

owners and operators to submit their control plan. As discussed in section 3.0 of this

document, the EPA changed the definition of final control plan in the final rule to be

consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cb and the State plan guidance document. 

The revised requirements make it much easier for a facility to meet the increment 1

compliance date. 
4-5

In addition, the EPA contends that facilities can meet the increment 1 date for the

following reasons: 

C Facilities have known about the emission guidelines since they were promulgated in

December 1995, and most have started planning their controls. 

C Facilities have known about the generic increment date since proposal of the Federal

plan (1/23/98); 

C EPA moved the compliance date back by at least 2 months from the proposed

increment 1 date; and

C EPA simplified the required content for the increment 1 final control plan.

Regarding the process and timing of EPA approval of alternative dates, the EPA will

review and approve or disapprove the alternative compliance dates in a timely manner. If a

State chose option 2 (State submits alternative dates for increments 1, 2, 3, and 4 during the

comment period), the EPA reviewed schedules and approved or disapproved them prior to

adopting the Federal plan. Approved schedules are included in the adopted Federal plan. If a

State or owner or operator chooses option 3 (State or owner or operator submits alternative

dates for increments 2, 3, and 4 on or before the generic increment 1 date), EPA will review

the compliance schedule as quickly as possible. In order to facilitate EPA review, the sitespecific schedule requests should include a justification describing why the site-specific

schedule is needed and should show that the site-specific schedule will lead to achieving final

compliance no later than December 19, 2000. The generic schedule will apply until a sitespecific schedule is approved. (See section 4.5 of this document and docket A-97-45, IV-A-1

for a discussion of EPA’s review of compliance schedules.)

4.4 Dates Already Achieved

Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-G-04) requested that EPA revise Table 6

of subpart FFF to show that the Westchester RESCO facility in Westchester County,

New York and the Baltimore RESCO facility in Baltimore, Maryland started retrofit

construction. The commenters noted that the increment 3 (start construction) dates for

Westchester (1/1/98) and Baltimore (4/1/98) will have passed before promulgation of the

Federal plan. The commenters requested that “NA” (not applicable) be inserted in place of
4-6

the dates to show a date is not applicable because the increment has already been met. The

commenters stated that eliminating the dates would make it clear that these two facilities were

not required to submit the 10 day notices specified by the Federal plan. Therefore, these

facilities would not be out of compliance immediately upon Federal plan promulgation.

Response: The EPA revised the final Federal plan so that rather than inserting “NA”

(not applicable) for increment dates that have already been achieved, the EPA is inserting an

increment compliance date of 60 days after publication of this Federal plan. The owner or

operator must submit a notification to EPA that the increment was met on or before that date. 

This is the same notification as required for all facilities subject to a compliance schedule: the

owner or operator must mail the (post-marked) notification to the appropriate EPA Regional

Office within 10 business days of the increment date defined in the Federal plan. For

increment dates that have been achieved, the due date for this notification is 70 days (60 days

plus 10 days) after publication of this rule. This is consistent with the notification date for the

first increment of progress in the generic schedule and allows time for the facilities to prepare

and submit their notifications. The EPA has determined that notifications are required, even if

the increment was achieved prior to promulgation of the Federal plan in order to assure that

the increment was actually completed and that the facility is on schedule for meeting the final

compliance date. Any facility that does not submit the required notification by the specified

date will be out of compliance.

4.5 Site-Specific Schedules

Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-08/IV-G-05, IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IVD-11, IV-G-01, IV-G-02, IV-G-03, IV-G-04) requested that EPA either remove, revise, or

add site-specific compliance schedules to table 6 of subpart FFF. Two commenters (IV-D-01,

IV-G-02) requested that EPA remove the proposed compliance schedule for the

Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility in Alexandria, Virginia. Both commenters

(IV-D-01, IV-G-02) requested that the facility be subject to the appropriate generic

compliance schedule and increments of progress in the Federal plan. One commenter

(IV-D-02) requested that EPA revise the Federal plan for the Alexandria/Arlington facility to

reflect the December 19, 2000 final compliance date authorized by 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Cb. The commenter (IV-D-02) noted that the proposed compliance schedule for
4-7

Alexandria/Arlington accelerated by 14 months the allowable final compliance date of

December 19, 2000. The commenter (IV-D-02) noted that the facility’s operator intends to

retrofit all three combustion units in order to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. The

operator is physically unable to meet the proposed compliance date. The retrofit includes the

installation of scrubbers, baghouses, a carbon injection system, and systems for the control of

mercury and nitrogen oxides. The commenter (IV-D-02) noted that to accomplish such a

retrofit requires approximately two and a half years for the securing of financing, bidding for

equipment and construction contracts, procurement, and actual construction. 

One commenter (IV-D-11) requested that EPA remove the site-specific compliance

schedule for the Savannah Energy Systems Company in Savannah, Georgia. The commenter

noted that the facility has proactively engaged in an accelerated program to install air pollution

control devices and implement process changes necessary to ensure compliance with the

emission guidelines. For example, the facility has already installed a new continuous

monitoring system which was used for diagnostic purposes in selecting the particular devices

or process changes needed for compliance. They also recently completed on-site construction

of new spray dryer absorbers, baghouses, selective non-catalytic reduction systems, and

carbon injection systems for both MWC units at the facility. The commenter believes that

these new air pollution control systems are sufficiently complex that a commitment to meet a

deadline other than the statutory deadline of December 19, 2000 is not warranted.

Three commenters (IV-D-01, IV-G-02, IV-G-03) requested that EPA modify the

proposed compliance schedule for the I-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility in Lorton,

Virginia. One commenter (IV-D-01) requested that EPA modify the schedule to

accommodate the construction schedules for the facility while still allowing Virginia to comply

with the emission reduction requirements of § 182(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act. All three

commenters provided the same schedule as follows: Increment 1 (March 1, 1999), Increment

2 (October 15, 1999), Increment 3 (March 1, 2000), Increment 4 (November 19, 2000), and

Increment 5 (December 19, 2000).

One commenter (IV-D-10) requested that EPA revise Pennsylvania’s compliance

schedule in the site-specific compliance schedule table in subpart FFF so that it is consistent

with the revisions to Pennsylvania’s State plan. The commenter also proposed August 2,
4-8

2002 (or 3 years after EPA approval of the State plan, whichever is first) as the final

compliance date for the supplemental emission limits in 40 CFR 60, subpart Cb promulgated

on August 25, 1997. The commenter also noted that for mercury and dioxins, final

compliance would be 1 year after State plan approval or 1 year after issuance of a revised

permit if a permit modification is required, for designated MWC units that were constructed

after June 26, 1987.

One commenter (IV-G-01) requested that EPA correct the increment 4 date for

United Power Association in Elk River, Minnesota. The increment 4 date should be June 30,

2000. The commenter (IV-G-01) also requested that EPA change the final compliance date

for the Hennepin Energy Resources to June 30, 1998.

One commenter (IV-G-02) requested that EPA add a site-specific compliance

schedule for the Bristol Resource Recovery Facility in Bristol, Connecticut; Mid-Connecticut

Resource Recovery Facility in Hartford, Connecticut; Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility

in Crows Landing, California, Tulsa Resource Recovery Facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The

commenter provided the following dates for the Connecticut facilities: increment 1 (9/14/98),

increment 2 (5/11/99), increment 3 (11/9/99), increment 4 (11/12/00), increment 5 (12/12/00). 

The commenter (IV-G-02) provided the following dates for the Tulsa, Oklahoma facility:

increment 1 (9/30/98), increment 2 (11/2/98), increment 3 (6/1/99), increment 4 (9/29/00),

increment 5 (12/19/00).

Two commenters (IV-G-02, IV-D-08/IV-G-05) provided the following dates for the

Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility in Crows Landing, California: increment 1 (7/19/99),

increment 2 (1/19/00), increment 3 (5/19/00), increment 4 (11/19/00), increment 5 (12/19/00). 

One commenter (IV-G-05/IV-D-08) specifically noted that the reason for the increments of

progress is to make the necessary process changes to ensure continuous compliance with the

mercury emission limit. 

Response: The EPA received and reviewed site-specific compliance schedules under

option 2 (State submits a site-specific compliance schedule during the comment period) and

the approved schedules are published in the final Federal plan. A detailed discussion of the

review is documented in a memo to the docket (A-97-45, IV-A-1). The EPA reviewed these

schedules for acceptability along with schedules previously received. In its review, EPA
4-9

considered the comments summarized above. The EPA determined a compliance schedule’s

acceptability based on the following criteria: Does the schedule meet the final compliance

deadline of December 19, 2000? Does the schedule require 1 year to comply with the

mercury and dioxin limits for MWC units that commenced construction after June 26, 1987? 

Does the schedule meet the revised generic increment 1 date? (See the response in section

4.3.) Are the increment 2, 3, and 4 dates earlier than or the same as the increment 2, 3, and 4

dates in the generic schedule? If any of the increment 1 through 4 dates were later than the

generic compliance schedule, EPA contacted the State and discussed any questions. The EPA

accepted dates later than the generic dates for increments 2, 3, and 4, if the State submitted a

justification letter to explain why the increment 2, 3, and 4 dates are later than the generic

compliance schedule. Note that this approach is consistent with option 3. Under option 3

(State or owner or operator submits a site-specific compliance schedule on or before the

generic increment 1 date), the State or owner or operator must submit a justification for an

increment 2, 3, or 4 date that is later than the generic schedule in the Federal plan.

Acceptable compliance schedules are included in the final Federal plan. Site-specific

compliance schedules that did not meet EPA’s criteria or for which EPA did not receive a

justification letter are not included in the final Federal plan. Facilities without site-specific

compliance schedules are subject to the generic compliance schedule in the Federal plan until a

State plan is approved that includes those facilities.

The EPA removed the site-specific compliance schedules in the final plan for facilities

in Georgia, Minnesota, and New York because the State plans were approved. MWC units

covered by these State plans will follow the compliance schedule and other requirements in

the approved State plan.

The EPA did not include the site-specific schedule for the Tulsa Resource Recovery

Facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma; the Bristol Resource Facility in Bristol, Connecticut; and the

Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility in Hartford, Connecticut because these

schedules were submitted by an owner/operator under option 2. Only States may submit sitespecific compliance schedules under option 2. However, under option 3, the owner or

operator or the State may submit a site-specific compliance schedule.
4-10

Following is a brief summary of EPA’s review and response to commenters regarding

the site-specific compliance schedules. Detailed discussion of site-specific compliance

schedules is reserved for a memorandum to the docket (A-97-45, IV-A-1). As requested by

commenters, the EPA removed the site-specific compliance schedules for the

Alexandria/Arlington MWC facility and the Savannah Energy Systems Company MWC

facility in Savannah, Georgia. 

As requested by commenters, the EPA modified the proposed site-specific compliance

schedule for the I-95 Energy/Resource Recovery Facility in Lorton, Virginia; American RefFuel in Delaware County, Pennsylvania; and Montenay Energy Resource in Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania. For the MWC facilities in Pennsylvania (and all other affected

facilities), the EPA is requiring compliance with the 1995 and 1997 emission limits by

December 19, 2000 for the reasons discussed in section 5.1 of this document. The EPA

received justification letters from the Commonwealth of Virginia; Fairfax County, Virginia;

Odgen Energy Group; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the

modified compliance schedules are in the final Federal plan.

The EPA added site-specific compliance schedules submitted by the State of California 

under option 2 for the following facilities: the Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility in Crows

Landing, California; and the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility in Long Beach, California. 

The EPA and the State of California received a justification letter prepared by Ogden Martin

Systems and the compliance schedules as submitted are included in the final Federal plan.
5-1

5.0 COMPLIANCE DEADLINE

5.1 1995 vs. 1997 Limits

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) requested that EPA keep the staggered

compliance schedule for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, and nitrogen oxides. The

commenter pointed out that the 1997 amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb,

require staggered compliance with the emission limits for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride,

lead, and nitrogen oxides: December 1995 limits by December 19, 2000 and August 1997

limits by August 25, 2002. The commenter believes that compliance with the limits should

remain staggered, rather than requiring the more strict standards earlier. The commenter

noted that although it may require the same equipment to meet both the year 2000

requirements and the year 2002 requirements, from an operational perspective, there may be a

significant cost associated with requiring the more strict standards earlier. The commenter did

not provide further information.

Response: The final Federal plan requires compliance with all limits by December 19,

2000. The same types of air pollution control technology that served as the basis for the 1995

limits achieved the 1997 amended limits: spray dryer/fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator

(ESP), carbon injection, and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for non-refractory

combustor types. Large MWC units would need to install these controls by December 19,

2000 to meet the original 1995 limits. As soon as the controls are installed, they will also

meet the final, amended 1997 limits. The EPA’s test data used to develop the emission

guidelines shows that these controls reduce emission levels to well below the 1995 and 1997

limits (dockets A-89-08, A-90-45). The 1997 limits are only slightly different than the 1995

limits and would neither require major operational changes nor significantly increase costs. 

The commenters were not able to provide any specific information that would change this
5-2

conclusion. In addition, section 129(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act says that requirements

promulgated pursuant to sections 111 and 129 must be effective “as expeditiously as

practicable.” The EPA maintains that requiring full compliance by December 19, 2000 is

consistent with the intent of section 129 without causing additional burden to MWC facilities. 

Thus, the final Federal plan requires compliance with the final amended emission limits for

sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, and nitrogen oxides by December 19, 2000.

In addition, the EPA maintains that it is more efficient to require one set of limits. If

there were two sets of limits, the facilities would have to conduct additional tests and submit

additional reports to show compliance with the second set of limits for these four pollutants. 

The EPA or State government would review these additional reports. A single set of limits

reduces the burden on the owner or operator and the Federal or State government. 

5.2 Final Compliance Date

Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-G-04) requested that EPA make it clear

that emission limits for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium have the same final compliance date regardless of the

need to install control equipment. For example, if a facility is already equipped with a spray

dryer and fabric filter for gas control, but will install selective non-catalytic reduction for

nitrogen oxides control, the compliance date for all limits including the CEM requirements is

the increment 5 compliance date.

Response: Section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires each unit subject to the

emission guidelines to be in compliance with all requirements no later than 5 years after

promulgation of the emission guidelines (i.e., December 19, 2000). Because many MWC

units are expected to retrofit combustion controls, as well as acid gas, particulate matter,

mercury, and/or nitrogen oxides control, they are given the maximum time to complete

retrofits. The final compliance date is December 19, 2000 for all emission limits regardless of

which controls must be retrofit. However, facilities that commenced construction after June

26, 1987 must meet the dioxin and mercury limits and the testing and monitoring specifically

associated with dioxin and mercury compliance within 1 year of Federal plan promulgation. 

Compliance for the remaining pollutants and associated monitoring must be achieved by

December 19, 2000.
5-3

5.3 Timing for Performance Test

Comment: One commenter (IV-G-01) contended that the last sentence in 40 CFR

62.14108(a)(5) could be interpreted to say a facility can be out of compliance during the

180 days between the final compliance date and the performance test. Section 62.14108(a)(5)

says “On and after the date the initial performance test is completed or is required to be

completed, whichever is earlier, no pollutant may be discharged into the atmosphere from an

affected facility in excess of the emission limits of this subpart.” The commenter requested

that EPA edit 40 CFR 62.14108(a)(5) to clarify that facilities may not be out of compliance

during the 180 days after installation of equipment. The commenter cited section 129(b)(2) of

the Clean Air Act, which says that units must be in compliance with requirements no later than

5 years after promulgation of the emission guidelines. However, the commenter believes it is

appropriate to allow up to 180 days after installation of equipment for performance testing (as

is granted in New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards). The commenter

pointed out that 40 CFR 62.14108(a)(5) could cause debate between States and affected

facilities of exactly when facilities are supposed to be in compliance. 

Response: The EPA maintains that if a facility has retrofitted all air pollution control

equipment and the equipment is operating as designed, then the facility has reached 

compliance and should meet all emission limits. As defined in § 62.14108(a)(5), by the final

compliance date, a facility must have incorporated all process changes or completed retrofit

construction as designed in the final control plan and connected the air pollution control

equipment or process changes with the affected facility identified in the final control plan such

that if the affected facility is brought on line, all necessary process changes or air pollution

control equipment are operating fully. The EPA maintains that facilities meeting this

definition will produce emissions well below the emission limits in the Federal plan. 

Consistent with section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the MWC Federal plan requires final

compliance by December 19, 2000, which is five years after promulgation of the emission

guidelines. 

The EPA agrees that it is appropriate to allow a facility up to 180 days to conduct

performance testing after installation of equipment. Therefore, consistent with the New

Source Performance Standards and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
5-4

Pollutants, the final Federal plan allows a facility up to 180 days after installation of equipment

to complete performance testing. The 180 days allows a facility to make final adjustments and

tune the newly installed control equipment, reach stable operation, and perform a stack test.

(A State may require the performance test earlier in their State plan.) If the initial compliance

test submitted to EPA shows the facility failed to attain the emission limits or if an initial

compliance test is not submitted within the required 180 days, then EPA can take appropriate

enforcement action.
6-1

6.0 NOx TRADING

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) requested that EPA include a provision to

allow States that currently have active NOx trading programs to continue to trade under these

programs until their State plans are approved. The commenter (IV-D-03) strongly supports

EPA’s decision to allow States to establish programs to allow owners or operators of existing

MWC units to trade NOx emission credits. The commenter stated that EPA’s proposed

requirement for the State and EPA to approve NO trading programs on a case-by-case basis x

is time consuming and unnecessary. The commenter believes that it is in the best interest of

EPA, the State, and the commenter to avoid the administrative burden and expense of

preparing, finalizing, and approving new trading agreements and orders on a case-by-case

basis for each of the MWC units. 

The commenter (IV-D-03) requested that the Federal plan should be the mechanism to

assure that the NOx trading can continue if the State plan is not approved by May 1, 1999. 

The commenter (IV-D-03) noted that the MWC units in Connecticut currently have Trading

Agreements and Orders that have been issued by the Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection. The Trading Orders were also approved by EPA as part of the

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State (62 FR 52016, October 6,

1997). Connecticut’s State plan that will be submitted by the State will include a program to

codify the trading concepts included in the Agreements and Orders. Since the existing

Trading Agreements and Orders remain in effect only until May 1, 1999, the commenter

requested that the Federal plan allow NO trading in case the Connecticut State plan is not x

approved by May 1, 1999.

Response: The EPA has reviewed Connecticut's existing Trading Agreements and

Orders and has included them in the Federal plan. However, EPA has not included a
6-2

provision to allow those sources, much less other sources that do not have current

agreements, to continue to trade after the agreements expire. The EPA does not intend to

circumvent Connecticut's internal and public processes for approving trading agreements

under their trading program by unilaterally extending their existing agreements past the

current expiration dates. Furthermore, EPA has reviewed a draft of the Connecticut State

plan and sees no reason why Connecticut cannot submit an approvable plan to EPA in time for

EPA approval well before the May 1, 1999 expiration date for the trading agreements. 

Similarly, EPA has not included a blanket provision to allow "State-approved trading to

continue under existing Trading Agreements and Orders until a State plan is approved"

because there are no such agreements other then those in Connecticut that have been

submitted by any State for our approval and EPA does not want to circumvent the current

State and EPA review processes. That is, the case-by-case review discussed in the proposal

preamble was intended as a potential gap-filling measure while States were making good faith

efforts to submit approvable State plans; not as an avenue to circumvent the processes in

EPA-approved State trading programs. 

Comment: The State of New Jersey submitted a letter (A-97-45, IV-A-1) to EPA

prior to proposal of the MWC Federal plan requesting that EPA include New Jersey’s Open

Market Emissions Trading (OMET) Program in the MWC Federal plan. However, the

OMET currently does not allow NO trading for MWC units and the amendments that will x

allow NOx trading for MWC units will not become operative until after the Federal plan

generic compliance date for increment 1. To meet increment 1, owners and operators would

indicate in their final control plan how they will control each pollutant, including whether they

intend to use trading. To rectify this timing problem, New Jersey requested that the owners

or operators of any of the five New Jersey facilities subject to the Federal plan be allowed the

option of submitting the final control plan according to the date in the Federal plan generic

schedule and reserving the sections in the final control plan which address compliance with the

NO limits. The owners or operators would submit the reserved sections by December 15, x

1999 and would indicate how they intend to comply with the NOx limits. The State

anticipates that the amended OMET would be operative by that time. 
6-3

Response: The EPA agrees to allow any New Jersey facility intending to comply with

the NO emission limits by use of NO trading to reserve the NO portion of the final control x x x

plan as described above because EPA supports open market concepts, including trading,

especially when they can be harnessed to achieve environmental limits, minimize costs, and

EPA can ensure the technical validity and track the parameters of the trade. The reserved

NO portions of the control plans must be submitted by December 15, 1999. New Jersey will x

need to promptly amend and submit their OMET program to EPA in order to allow sufficient

time (approximately 12 months) for EPA to review the program and follow the necessary

administrative procedures, including proposal and promulgation notices in the

Federal Register. The final compliance date for NOx

 remains December 19, 2000. Also, there

is no guarantee that owners and operators will be able to rely on OMET to meet the NOx

emission limits. MWC owners and operators subject to the Federal plan must decide the best

means of reaching final compliance by December 19, 2000.
7-1

7.0 DIOXIN TESTING SCHEDULE

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) requested that EPA revise the schedule for the

alternative dioxin testing to allow testing of one unit each calendar year, rather than testing of

a unit within 12 months of the previous test. The commenter operates four MWC units at a

single MWC plant. Each year, the facility is required by law to shut down and inspect each of

the four units, perform maintenance, and conduct stack testing. To accommodate these

requirements, their current schedule is to test Units 1 and 3 in October and test Units 2 and 4

in April. The plant has already tested all four units for 2 consecutive years and all four units

achieved dioxin levels less than 15 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm),

qualifying the plant for alternative (reduced) dioxin testing under 40 CFR 62.14109 of

subpart FFF. With their current maintenance/testing schedule, the “not more than 12 months

following the previous performance test” interval in the proposed Federal plan is problematic. 

For example, if the facility tests Unit 1 in October (including a dioxin test), their next

scheduled test (if the commenter tests the units in order - 1, 2, 3, then 4) for Unit 2 would be

in April (6 months later). The commenter contends that in order to meet the “no more than

12 months” requirement, the facility would have to test a unit each 6 months. The current 

commenter believes that this runs counter to EPA’s intent when the alternative testing

scenario was allowed, the intent being to reduce the cost of stack testing required of facilities

that have minimized their dioxin emissions.

Response: The commenter notes, and EPA confirms, the MWC plant in question

achieves low dioxin emissions (less than 15 ng/dscm) and the MWC plant qualifies for the

alternative (reduced) dioxin testing schedule under 40 CFR 62.14109(d). The current

maintenance/testing schedule selected by the MWC facility does not result in a 12-month

interval between maintenance of all four units. Because a full 12-month interval does not
7-2

exist, the alternative testing option is not fully beneficial to the source. If a 12-month

maintenance interval existed, the full benefit of the alterative testing option would have been a

75 percent reduction in dioxin testing [(16-4)/16 x 100 = 75%]. For the MWC plant in

question, the alternative testing schedule results in a 50 percent reduction in dioxin testing 

[(8-4)8 x 100 = 50%]. The commenter suggests revising the regulatory text in the Federal

plan to require only one dioxin test per calendar year, and notes this would restore the full

75 percent reduction in testing no matter what maintenance schedule was selected. The EPA

carefully considered the suggestion but notes that up to 18 months would elapse between

some dioxin tests at the MWC plant in question if the suggested regulatory text was used. 

The EPA believes more than 12 months between tests is excessive, but the EPA has

considered an alternative. 

To respond to the commenters’ concerns and to allow maximum flexibility in MWC

maintenance, EPA modified the final regulatory text to allow the source to reorder the testing

sequence. A testing sequence of unit numbers 1-2-3-4 does not have to be followed. In the

final rule, the testing sequence can be established by the MWC owner and operator and

approved by EPA. The revised testing sequence would remain in force until the owner or

operator submits a revision to EPA and EPA approves the revision. For the MWC plant in

question, a reordered testing sequence of unit numbers 1-3-2-4 results in a 67 percent

reduction in dioxin testing [(12-4)/12 x 100 = 67%] and no test is more than 12 months apart. 

The EPA considers the reordered testing sequence to be as protective as a basic testing

sequence (1-2-3-4) and provides the same environmental protection.
8-1

8.0 EMISSION LIMITS

8.1 Fugitive Ash

Commenter: One commenter (IV-G-02) requested that EPA identify additional

maintenance activities for exemption from the fugitive ash emission standard. (The

commenter refers to the fugitive ash emission standards in 40 CFR 60.55b of subpart Eb,

which are the same as the fugitive ash standards in the MWC Federal plan, 40 CFR 62.14106

of subpart FFF.) The commenter noted that the fugitive ash emission standard includes a

specific exemption when the ash handling equipment is off-line (not operating) for

maintenance. Because this standard specifically applies to emissions discharged from

buildings and enclosures of ash conveying systems during facility operations, the commenter

suggested that periods of time when the MWC boiler is not operating also should be exempt

because emissions will occur through the boiler door during cleaning.

Response: The EPA notes that the fugitive ash emission standards apply only to “ash

conveyance systems.” Because the boiler doors are part of the boiler and are not part of the

ash conveying system, the fugitive ash standard would not apply to the boiler doors. 

Furthermore, the emission limits for the boiler exhaust do not apply when the boiler is not

operating. 

8.2 Sulfur Dioxide

Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-10, IV-D-04) noticed an error in

Table 4 of the preamble. Compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit should be 29 ppm

or 75 percent removal, not 80 percent removal. Seventy-five percent removal is consistent

with the amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, published in the Federal Register on

August 25, 1997 (62 FR 45116).
8-2

Response: The EPA agrees that there was an error in Table 4 of the proposal

preamble. The EPA corrected the error for the final rule. 
9-1

9.0 MONITORING

9.1 Carbon Feed Rate

Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-G-04) requested a clarification on whether

short term dips or temporary interruptions in carbon feed rates would be considered violations

of 40 CFR 60.58b(m)(2). Examples of such interruptions would be when the carbon injection

system is not operating for calibration, maintenance, malfunction, or other unavoidable

conditions. The commenters suggested that quarterly carbon estimates are the appropriate

method for determining continuous compliance with the carbon feed levels established during

performance tests.

Response: The EPA determined that interruptions in operation of the carbon injection

system are not automatically violations because the carbon injection feed rate established

during the performance test is not an instantaneous average. The baseline carbon feed rate is

the average feed rate during the mercury (or dioxin) performance test. To determine

compliance, this average carbon feed rate is compared to the average carbon feed rate during

subsequent MWC operations; an instantaneous average is not used. For example, if a large

MWC unit is equipped with carbon injection and a performance test is conducted, the

performance test would take about 8 hours and the carbon feed during the test would be

about 15 pounds. The carbon injection rate over the 8-hour period would average 1.9 pounds

per hour (15/8=1.9). During subsequent MWC operations, 15 pounds of carbon should be

injected during each 8-hour operating period and would average 1.9 pounds per hour. If the

screw feeder for the carbon injection system has to be taken off line for calibration for two

hours, the carbon that is not injected during the downtime must be injected after restart. 

Therefore, 15 pounds of carbon would be injected during the remaining 6 hours of operation 

in the 8-hour period resulting in the same 1.9 pound per hour average feed rate over the
9-2

8-hours (although the average over the 6 hours would be 2.5 pounds per hour, 15/6=2.5) ). 

To minimize carbon injection system downtime, good engineering practices must always be

applied. 

9.2 CEM Performance Specifications for CO

Comment: One commenter (IV-G-02) requested that EPA identify Performance

Specification 4 (PS 4) as an acceptable alternative standard to PS 4A in evaluating carbon

monoxide (CO) continuous emissions monitor (CEM) performance. The commenter

(IV-G-02) noted that PS 4A requires utilization of a dual range analyzer, which is not

warranted for an MWC unit due to their consistent operation in a low range. In addition,

calibration and certification of auto-ranging analyzers are problematic. Analyzers designed to

meet PS 4 are precision (low concentration) analyzers and do not have the ability to switch

ranges automatically.

The commenter believes that PS 4 as applied to MWC operating practices are at least

as protective as those requirements listed in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. The commenter

considers PS 4 to be more restrictive in evaluating CO analyzer performance. CO analyzers at

the commenter’s MWC facilities have been certified and operating in accordance with PS 4. 

If PS 4 is not acceptable as an alternative, the commenter would need to acquire and install

another CO analyzer for each MWC to measure the high range (above the emission limit).

Response: The EPA has determined that, for purposes of the MWC Federal plan,

PS 4 is not "as protective as" PS 4A because PS 4 does not include a response time

specification and does not require a high-range scale that will capture emissions from units

that experience spikes in CO emissions. Therefore, EPA is retaining PS 4A in the Federal

plan and is not allowing PS 4 as an alternative. However, to add flexibility to PS 4A, EPA

intends to amend PS 4A to remove the high-level scale specification. The amendments would

still require units that experience spikes of CO emissions to operate the CEM with a scale that

accommodates higher emissions. Units that consistently operate with lower emissions,

however, would have the flexibility to set an appropriate high-level value. Therefore, all

MWC units would not necessarily require a dual range analyzer or additional analyzer to

measure emissions up to the 2000 ppm level as is currently required by PS 4A. These changes

to PS 4A would address the concerns raised by the commenter while still retaining the
9-3

response time specifications requirements. In addition to these changes, EPA also intends to

amend PS 4A to define relative accuracy in terms of a percentage of the applicable emission

standard in addition to the current options to use 10 percent of the mean value of the

reference method test data or 5 ppm. The EPA is in the process of amending and reformatting

a number of test methods to make technical corrections, including these to PS 4A. The EPA

expects to promulgate these amendments in the fall of 1998.
10-1

10.0 OPERATOR TRAINING

10.1 State Operator Training

Commenter: One commenter (IV-G-01) submitted the State’s current rule regarding

operator training and certification. The commenter also enclosed a proposed State rule

incorporating Federal requirements for full certification of operators. The proposed rule is

scheduled to become effective May 4, 1998. Minnesota has developed waste combustor

training and has adopted examination and certification rules for waste combustor operators. 

Operators of large MWCs in Minnesota have chosen to obtain State certification rather than

ASME certification.

Response: The EPA emission guidelines allow for State operator training and State

certification as alternatives to the EPA training course and ASME certification. Because

Minnesota has developed these programs, the final Federal plan will allow State operator

training and State certification for MWCs in Minnesota. The Federal plan also allows State

operator training in Connecticut and State certification in Connecticut and Maryland.

10.2 Stand-in Provisions

Comment: One commenter (IV-G-02) requested that EPA develop guidance to

identify certain circumstances where a provisionally certified shift supervisor may fill in for a

fully certified operator. (The commenter cites 40 CFR 60.54b of subpart Eb, which is crossreferenced in both the emission guidelines [40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb] and the Federal plan

[40 CFR part 62, subpart FFF].) Such circumstances might include vacation, sick leave,

medical leave, family leave, training and miscellaneous employment issues covering hiring,

firing, promoting, retiring and transferring employees.

Response: The EPA addressed questions about circumstances where a provisionally

certified shift supervisor may fill in for a fully certified operator in a May 14, 1998 Guidance
10-2

Memorandum from the Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (The

guidance memorandum refers to 40 CFR 60.54b(c)(2) of subpart Eb and would apply to the

MWC Federal plan and a State plan because both cross reference these operator certification

provisions in subpart Eb.) The memorandum can be found in MWC docket A-97-45 as item

IV-B-1. The EPA discusses its intention in drafting the “stand-in” provisions and suggests

guidance for implementing the provisions. 

10.3 States’ Authority

Comment: The commenter (IV-G-02) addressed the emission guidelines (40 CFR 60,

subpart Cb), not the Federal plan; however, the Federal plan implements these same

provisions. The commenter requested that EPA clarify that a State still has the authority to

grant the following exemption. Section 60.39b(c)(4)(iii)(A) says "the requirement in §

60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of this part does not apply to chief facility operators, shift

supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained full certification from the

American Society of American Engineers on or before the date of State plan approval."

Section 60.39b(c)(4)(iii)(B) says “The owner or operator of a designated facility may request

that the EPA Administrator waive this requirement specified in § 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of

this part for chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control room operators who have

obtained provisional certification from ASME on or before the date of State plan approval.” 

The commenter requested that EPA clarify whether or not States have the authority to waive

the requirement.

Response: As part of the technical amendments to the 1995 emission guidelines, EPA

determined the "the EPA Administrator" (not "the Administrator") has the authority to grant

the waiver in § 60.39b(c)(4)(iii)(B) (see 62 FR 45116, July 25, 1997). The EPA is retaining

this determination in the MWC Federal plan. Operator certification and training is a

substantive requirement. The EPA's policy always has been that authority to approve

alternative emission limitations are withheld. Thus, to ensure that no waiver is erroneously

approved that would result in less environmental protection than intended by the emission

guidelines, EPA is withholding delegation of this specific authority. All such waivers are

issued by EPA. Section 62.14100 of the Federal plan lists the authorities retained by the EPA

Administrator.
11-1

11.0 CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM DATA

Comment: The commenter (IV-G-02) addressed the emission guidelines 

(40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb), not the Federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart FFF) and

requested clarification on § 60.58b(e)(8). (Section 62.14109 of the MWC Federal plan cross

references § 60.58b(e)(8) of the emission guidelines.) The commenter believes § 60.58b(e)(8)

was intended to establish a certain minimum data collection requirement (75 percent). This

75 percent standard does not adequately address a 4-hour standard such as applied to carbon

monoxide (CO). Also, the commenter believes the rule could be interpreted to mean that a

single valid data point could represent any reporting period including daily averages. The

commenter proposed that the 75 percent standard apply to any discrete reporting period. 

Response: For pollutants measured by Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems

(CEMS), including CO, there are two separate requirements: (1) an emission limit, and (2) a

minimum data collection requirement. The intent of the emission limit requirement is to

assure that emissions do not exceed the emission limit. The intent of the minimum data

collection requirement is to ensure that the CEM is properly and continuously operated. 

These separate requirements are further described below to provide clarification of the CEMS

requirements. No changes are being made to the Federal plan.

For CO, compliance with the emission limit is based on 4-hour or 24-hour block

averages, depending on combustor type, as specified in § 60.58b(i)(1) and (2). The 4-hour or

24-hour average is calculated as the average of 1-hour arithmetic averages. As specified in

§ 60.58b(i)(4), the 1-hour arithmetic averages are calculated using the data points generated

by the CEMS, and at least two data points must be used to calculate each 1-hour average. All

valid data measured during each 4-hour or 24-hour period is used to determine compliance, as

specified in § 60.58b(i)(11). For most 4-hour periods, the facility will have 4 hours of valid
11-2

data and will use all of the data to calculate the 4-hour average. However, in cases when, for

example, only 1 hour of valid data are available due to a CEMS breakdown, this 1-hour

average would be used to represent the 4-hour period. This approach of using all valid CEMS

data has been used historically in the NSPS program to determine compliance with emission

limits. If only one valid hour of data (a minimum of 2 data points) was available and there

was a concern about whether it was representative of the period, EPA can use its enforcement

discretion. The commenter’s data and other data indicates that CO CEMS are very reliable

and it will be unusual to have only one data point for a 4-hour or 24-hour period (the

situation mentioned by the commenter). Furthermore, most CO CEMS gather data on a

continuous basis rather than once every 15 minutes, so plants typically have instantaneous

readings and a continuous strip chart or recorded values at very frequent intervals. Therefore,

it is highly unlikely that there would be only one data point for a 1-hour period if the monitor

was working during that hour. However, a single data point would not be used to determine

compliance because it would not constitute a valid hour of data.

There is a separate requirement for minimum data collection for CO contained in

§ 60.58b(i)(10). Valid CEMS hourly averages must be obtained for 75 percent of the

operating hours per day for 90 percent of the operating days per year. This is the same data

collection requirement that applies to other CEMS such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen

oxides (NOx) CEMS. Available information shows that CEMS for these pollutants are very

reliable, and when properly operated and maintained, are able to meet this minimum data

collection requirement. In fact, most of the time, CEMS provide valid data for much greater

than 75 percent of the operating hours in a day. Data submitted by the commenter confirms

this. The minimum data collection requirement is based on the reliability of CEMS and is not

linked to the emission limit. If the minimum amount of data are not collected, this failure to

obtain sufficient data is an enforceable violation regardless of whether the emission limit is

met. Again, this approach has historically been used in the NSPS program.
12-1

12.0 STATE PLAN INFORMATION

Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-08/IV-G-05, IV-D-07, IV-D-10)

representing State agencies provided updates on the status of their State plan submittals. One

commenter (IV-D-06) requested that EPA change the status of Illinois in the Federal plan. 

The commenter, the State agency, submitted its State plan for large MWCs on June 23, 1997. 

On December 29, 1997, the EPA approved the Illinois State plan through a direct final

rulemaking (62 FR 67570). The EPA received no adverse comments and the State plan

became effective on February 27, 1998. One commenter (IV-D-07), the Ohio EPA,

documented that they have not submitted a negative declaration letter. The commenter

enclosed a copy of a consent order that requires the two MWC facilities in the State to meet

the requirements of 40 CFR 60, subpart Cb before being resurrected. Two commenters

(IV-D-08/IV-G-05, IV-D-10) representing State agencies provided current annual emissions

for their States. 

Response: The promulgated Federal plan must apply to all States that do not have an

approved State plan in order to assure that all MWCs meet the emission guidelines. When a

State plan is approved, the Federal plan will no longer apply. Prior to promulgation, the EPA

approved the State plans for Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, South

Carolina and Tennessee. MWC units covered in the approved State plans are listed in the

exclusion table in subpart FFF. The exclusion table is provided as a matter of convenience

and is not controlling in determining whether a large unit is subject to the Federal plan. As

State plans are approved, EPA will periodically amend the exclusion table in § 62.14102 of

subpart FFF to identify MWC units covered in EPA approved and currently effective State

plans. The emissions data submitted by the commenters is available in the comment letters in

docket A-97-45.