UNITEQ ilAliG QQU~t QF A~~iALS FOR DISTRIOT Of eO~UMa\A CKlCUIT 

MAY ~ c to" 

BECE1VED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE ··l8N'TEO,.1'(~~U~~~Cu\eU£1f FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CI CHJ1tiDtS"m\tl\W~.::.~ '-

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER 

AGENCIES, 

Petitioner 

v. 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

and LISA M. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN.CY 

Respondents 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

------------------------------------) 

PETITION FOR REVIEW 

. $~ .. 

Case No. -----

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act § 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies hereby petitions this Court for review of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency final agency action entitled "Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units; Final Rule," 76 Fed. Reg. 15372-15454 (Mar. 21, 2011). The challenged 

action, a copy of which is attached to this Petition, amends certain provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 

60.17 and promulgates 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subpart LLLL and Subpart MMMM containing new 

source performance standards and emission guidelines applicable to sewage sludge 

incinerators at publicly-owned treatment works. 

\ 

\ 

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 1
Dated: May 6, 2011 Respectfully submitted, . 

Nathan Gardner-Andrews 

General Counsel 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER 

AGENCIES 

1816 Jefferson Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-2505 

(202) 833-3692 

ngardner-andrews@nacwa.org 

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 2
UNllli\:l §W~i \;QUR+ Ott J.\F~EALS FOR O\$'fR\Ol Q~ OOLUM8\A C\RCU1T UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUI 

Petitioner 

v. 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

and LISA M. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Respondents 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

-----------------------------------) 

Case No. 

RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

CLERK 

11-1131 

-----

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, 

Petitioner the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) makes the following 

disclosures: 

1. NACWA is a voluntary not-for-profit trade association of the nation's publicly-owned sewage 

treatment authorities and municipal clean water agencies. NACWA's members operate 

nearly 300 of the nation's publicly-owned treatment works which collectively serve the 

majority of the sewered population of the United States. 

2. NACWA's purpose and general nature is to provide a forum for collaboratively addressing 

issues affecting publicly-owned sewage treatment authorities and to advocate on behalf of 

its members regarding legislative, regulatory and legal matters. 

3. NACWA has no parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10 percent or greater 

ownership interest in NACWA. 

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 3
4. NACWA has no outstanding shares or debt securities in the hands of the public and has no 

parent, subsidiary or affiliate that has issued shares or debt securities to the public. 

Dated: May 6, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

Jeffre A. ni 

PILLSB Y W HROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

2300 N Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037-1128 

(202) 663-9152 

jeffrey.knight@pillsburylaw.com 

Nathan Gardner-Andrews 

General Counsel 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER 

AGENCIES 

1816 Jefferson Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-2505 

(202) 833-3692 

ngard ner -and rews@nacwa.org 

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Petition for Review and Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement have 

been served by United States first-class mail this 6th day of May 2011 upon each of the 

following: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Correspondence Control Unit 

Hon. LISA P. JACKSON 

Administrator 

Office of General Counsel (2311) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. 

Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building (AR), 1101A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Je y. Knight 

PI LSBUR WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

23 eet, NW 

Washington, DC 20037-1128 

(202) 663-9152 

ieffrey.knight@pillsburvlaw.com 

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 5
Vol. 76 Monday, 

No. 54 March 21, 2011 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; Final 

Rule 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 1
15372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559; FRL–9272–9] 

RIN 2060–AP90 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 

EPA’s new source performance 

standards and emission guidelines for 

sewage sludge incineration units located 

at wastewater treatment facilities 

designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. This final rule sets limits for 

nine pollutants under section 129 of the 

Clean Air Act: Cadmium, carbon 

monoxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate 

matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and polychlorinated 

dibenzofurans, and sulfur dioxide. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on May 

20, 2011. The incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the rule 

is approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of May 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single 

docket under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559 for this action. This 

docket includes previous actions 

including the standards proposed on 

October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and a 

supplemental notice issued on 

November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource and 

Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0964; fax number: (919) 541–3470; 

e-mail address: 

hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

As Arsenic 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and 

Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CASS Continuous Automated Sampling 

System 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

Systems 

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

System 

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit 

CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring 

System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

Cr Chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators 

FF Fabric Filter 

FB Fluidized Bed 

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious 

Waste Incineration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin 

Monitoring System 

ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury 

Monitoring System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic 

Meter 

MH Multiple Hearth 

Mn Manganese 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustion 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial 

Classification System 

Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard 

Cubic Meter 

Ni Nickel 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

OTM Other Test Method 

OW Office of Water 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-PDioxins and Polychlorinated 

Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPM Parts per Million 

PPMV Parts per Million by Volume 

PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specifications 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 

TMB Total Mass Basis 

TPD Tons per Day 

TPY Tons per Year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UL Upper Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for 

this final rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of 

emissions and what are the emissions? 

C. What is the relationship of the final 

standards to other standards for the use 

or disposal of sewage sludge and 

associated air emissions? 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. What units are affected by the final 

standards? 

B. What are the emission limits in the 

emission guidelines for existing sources? 

C. What are the emission limits in the new 

source performance standards for new 

sources? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15373 

D. What are the testing and monitoring 

requirements? 

E. What are the other requirements for new 

and existing SSI units? 

F. What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements? 

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

H. What are the Title V permit 

requirements? 

I. What are the applicability dates of the 

standards? 

J. What are the requirements for 

submission of emissions test results to 

EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG 

and NSPS Emission Limits 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts 

Estimation 

E. Compliance Requirements 

F. Definitions 

V. Significant Public Comments and 

Rationale for Changes to the Proposed 

Rule 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues 

Regulating SSI Under Section 112 vs. 

Section 129 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

D. Baseline Emissions 

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

H. Compliance Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing 

Units 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New 

Units 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by the final action are those that 

operate sewage sludge incinerators 

(SSI). Although there is no specific 

NAICS code for SSI, these units may be 

operated by wastewater treatment 

facilities designed to treat domestic 

sewage sludge. The following NAICS 

codes could apply: 

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Solid waste combustors and incinerators .................................................................... 562213 Municipalities with SSI units. 

Sewage treatment facilities .......................................................................................... 221320 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a general 

guide for identifying entities likely to be 

affected by the final action. To 

determine whether your facility would 

be affected by the final action, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.4770 of subpart 

LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of 

subpart MMMM. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

the final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the final 

action will also be available on the 

WWW through the TTN. Following 

signature, a copy of the final action will 

be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final rule is available only 

by filing a petition for review in the 

Court by May 20, 2011. Section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides 

that ‘‘only an objection to this final rule 

that was raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public 

comment can be raised during judicial 

review.’’ This section also provides a 

mechanism for EPA to convene a 

proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within [the period for public comment] 

or if the grounds for such objection 

arose after the period for public 

comment (but within the time specified 

for judicial review) and if such objection 

is of central relevance to the outcome of 

this rule.’’ Any person seeking to make 

such a demonstration to EPA should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for 

this final rule? 

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled, 

‘‘Solid Waste Combustion,’’ requires 

EPA to develop and adopt standards for 

solid waste incineration units pursuant 

to CAA sections 111 and 129. Section 

129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to 

establish performance standards, 

including emission limitations, for 

‘‘solid waste incineration units.’’ Section 

129 of the CAA defines ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ as ‘‘a distinct 

operating unit of any facility which 

combusts any solid waste material from 

commercial or industrial establishments 

or the general public’’ (section 

129(g)(1)). Section 129 of the CAA also 

provides that ‘‘solid waste’’ shall have 

the meaning established by EPA 

pursuant to its authority under the 

RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sections 

111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address 

emissions from new units (i.e., NSPS), 

and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) 

address emissions from existing units 

(i.e., EG). The NSPS are directly 

enforceable Federal regulations, and 

under CAA section 129(f)(1), become 

effective 6 months after promulgation. 

Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not 

themselves directly enforceable. Rather, 

the EG are implemented and enforced 

through either an EPA-approved state 

plan or a promulgated Federal plan. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 3
15374 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Sierra Club v. EPA; DC Cir. Nos. 06–1066, 07– 

1063. 

States are required to submit a plan to 

implement and enforce the EG to EPA 

for approval not later than 1 year after 

EPA promulgates the EG (CAA section 

129(b)(2)). The state plan must be ‘‘at 

least as protective as’’ the EG and must 

ensure compliance with all applicable 

requirements not later than 3 years after 

the state plan is approved by EPA, or 5 

years after promulgation of the relevant 

EG, whichever is sooner. EPA’s 

procedures for submitting and 

approving state plans are set forth in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state 

plan is approved by EPA, the plan 

requirements become federally 

enforceable, but the state has primary 

responsibility for implementing and 

enforcing the plan. However, EPA is 

required to develop, implement, and 

enforce a Federal plan for solid waste 

incineration units located in any state 

which has not submitted an approvable 

state plan within 2o years after the date 

of promulgation of the relevant EG 

(CAA section 129(b)(3)). The Federal 

plan must assure that each solid waste 

incineration unit subject to the Federal 

plan is in compliance with all 

provisions of the EG not later than 5 

years after the date the relevant 

guidelines are promulgated. EPA views 

the Federal plan as a ‘‘place-holder’’ that 

remains in effect only until such time as 

a state without an approved plan 

submits and receives EPA approval of 

its state plan. Once an applicable state 

plan has been approved, the 

requirements of the Federal plan no 

longer apply to solid waste incineration 

units covered by that state plan. 

The CAA sets forth a two-stage 

approach to regulating emissions from 

solid waste incinerator units. The 

statute also provides EPA with 

substantial discretion to distinguish 

among classes, types, and sizes of 

incineration units within a category 

while setting standards. In the first stage 

of setting standards, CAA section 

129(a)(2) requires EPA to establish 

technology-based emission standards 

that reflect levels of control EPA 

determines are achievable for new and 

existing units, after considering costs, 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements 

associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the 

CAA then directs EPA to review those 

standards and revise them as necessary 

every 5 years. In the second stage, CAA 

section 129(h)(3) requires EPA to 

determine whether further revisions of 

the standards are necessary in order to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA 

must use to establish the first-stage 

technology-based standards for the 

standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

provides that standards ‘‘applicable to 

solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this 

section shall reflect the maximum 

degree of reduction in emissions of 

[certain listed air pollutants] that the 

Administrator, taking into consideration 

the cost of achieving such emission 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, determines is achievable 

for new and existing units in each 

category.’’ This level of control is 

referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, 

EPA must first calculate the minimum 

stringency levels for new and existing 

solid waste incineration units in a 

category, generally based on levels of 

emissions control achieved or required 

to be achieved by the subject units. The 

minimum level of stringency is called 

the MACT ‘‘floor,’’ and CAA section 

129(a)(2) sets forth differing levels of 

minimum stringency that EPA’s 

standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and 

reconstructed sources, or existing 

sources. For new and reconstructed 

sources, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides 

that the ‘‘degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable 

* * * shall not be less stringent than 

the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

unit, as determined by the 

Administrator.’’ Emissions standards for 

existing units may be less stringent than 

standards for new units, but ‘‘shall not 

be less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of units in 

the category.’’ 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology analyses involve an 

assessment of the emissions from the 

best performing unit or units in a source 

category. The assessment can be based 

on actual emissions data, knowledge of 

the air pollution control in place in 

combination with actual emissions data, 

state regulatory requirements that may 

enable EPA to estimate the actual 

performance of the regulated units, or 

other emissions information. For each 

source category, the assessment involves 

a review of actual emissions data with 

an appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Other methods of estimating 

emissions can also be used, if the 

methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual 

emissions performance of a source or 

sources. In addition to the MACT floor 

limit, EPA must examine whether more 

stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ standards 

should be adopted. In considering 

whether such standards are appropriate, 

EPA must consider the cost of achieving 

such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements. The 

CAA requires that the MACT floor for 

new sources be no less stringent than 

the emissions control achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar 

unit. EPA is also required to consider 

beyond-the-floor standards for new 

sources, consistent with the factors 

described above. Clean Air Act section 

129(a)(1) identifies five categories of 

solid waste incineration units: 

• Units that combust municipal waste 

at a capacity greater than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust municipal waste 

at a capacity equal to or less than 250 

tpd. 

• Units that combust hospital, 

medical, and infectious waste. 

• Units that combust commercial or 

industrial waste. 

• Units that combust waste and 

which are not specifically identified in 

section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D) are 

referred to in section 129(a)(1)(E) as 

‘‘other categories’’ of solid waste 

incineration units. 

A SSI unit is an incinerator located at 

a wastewater treatment facility designed 

to treat domestic sewage sludge that 

combusts sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of 

having not been specifically identified 

in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D), have 

been interpreted to be part of the 

broader category of ‘‘other categories’’ of 

solid waste. EPA has issued emission 

standards for large and small MWC, 

HMIWI, CISWI, and OSWI units; 

however, as explained further below, 

none of those emission standards apply 

to SSI units. 

EPA issued emission standards for 

OSWI units on December 16, 2005 (70 

FR 74870). Based on EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA at that time, 

the OSWI standards did not include 

emission standards for SSI units. EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration 

of the OSWI standards on February 14, 

2006, regarding the exclusion of certain 

categories, including SSI.1 While EPA 

granted the petition for reconsideration 

on June 28, 2006, EPA’s final review, 

which became effective January 22, 

2007, concluded that no additional 

changes were necessary to the 2005 

OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation 

is currently being held in abeyance. EPA 

currently intends to revise the emission 

standards for OSWI units in the future, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 4
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15375 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257–8. 

3CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 

112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 4Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.DC No. 1:01CV01537. 

and that rulemaking will address all 

OSWI units except SSI units. 

In the OSWI rule issued on December 

16, 2005, EPA stated that it had decided 

not to regulate SSI units under CAA 

section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 

112, pointing to a statement in EPA’s 

2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating 

that sewage sludge incinerators do not 

combust waste from a commercial or 

industrial establishment or the general 

public. We declined to revise that 

decision to regulate SSI units under 112 

in the response to the petition for 

reconsideration on this issue for five 

reasons, including our position that 

section 129(a)(1)(E) did not require 

regulation of all ‘‘other’’ solid waste 

incineration units and that section 

129(g)(1)’s enumerated exemptions to 

the definition of ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ were not exclusive, 

and that section 129(h)(2) gave EPA the 

discretion to choose whether to regulate 

incinerators under section 112 or 

section 129 of the Act. (72 FR 2620). In 

June 2007, in a separate decision related 

to EPA’s December 1, 2000, emission 

standards for CISWI units, the Court 

held that any unit combusting any solid 

waste must be regulated under section 

129 of the CAA. The impact of this 

decision on EPA’s regulation of SSI is 

explained in detail in the NPRM.2

EPA considers SSI units to be ‘‘other 

solid waste incineration units,’’ since 

that category is intended to encompass 

all solid waste incineration units that 

are not included in the first four 

categories identified in CAA section 

129(a) through (d). EPA plans to re-issue 

emission standards for the remaining 

OSWI units at a later time. EPA is taking 

final action on emission standards for 

SSI units at this time because these 

emission standards are needed as part of 

EPA’s fulfillment of its obligations 

under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 112(c)(6). Clean 

Air Act section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for 

EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, 

as the result of emissions from area 

sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of 

urban areas. EPA must then ensure that 

sources representing 90 percent of the 

aggregate area source emissions of each 

of the 30 identified HAP are subject to 

standards pursuant to section 112(d).3

Sewage sludge incineration units are 

one of the source categories identified 

for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni 

and PCB. EPA is ordered by the Court 

to satisfy its obligation under CAA 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by 

January 16, 2011.4

In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA 

provided a list of source categories for 

regulation under CAA section 112(d)(2) 

or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the 

CAA requires EPA to identify categories 

of sources of seven specified pollutants 

to assure that sources counting for not 

less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of each such pollutant are 

subject to standards under CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) (63 FR 17838). 

Sewage sludge incineration units are 

one of the identified source categories 

for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Hg. Further information 

can be found in the Memorandum titled, 

‘‘Emission Standards for Meeting the 

Ninety Percent Requirement under 

Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act’’ 

in the SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0559).Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 

SSI standards prior to taking action on 

the remaining source categories that will 

be regulated under CAA section 

129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI units. 

B. What are the primary sources of 

emissions and what are the emissions? 

Sewage sludge incineration units may 

be operated by municipalities or other 

entities. Incineration continues to be 

used to dispose of sewage sludge. 

Combustion of solid waste, and 

specifically sewage sludge, causes the 

release of a wide array of air pollutants, 

some of which exist in the waste feed 

material and are released unchanged 

during combustion, and some of which 

are generated as a result of the 

combustion process itself. The 

pollutants for which numerical limits 

must be established, as specified in 

section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, 

HCl, Hg, NOX, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and 

SO2; and, where appropriate, numerical 

limits for opacity must also be 

established. These emissions come from 

the SSI unit’s stack and fugitive PM 

emissions, as indicated by the 

associated visible emissions, also occur 

from ash handling. 

C. What is the relationship of the final 

standards to other standards for the use 

or disposal of sewage sludge and 

associated air emissions? 

Under authority of section 405(d) and 

(e) of the CWA, as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 

1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated 

regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 

CFR part 503 designed to protect public 

health and the environment from any 

reasonably anticipated adverse effects of 

certain pollutants that may be present in 

sewage sludge. The part 503 regulations 

establish requirements for the final use 

and disposal of sewage sludge when: (1) 

The sludge is applied to the land for a 

beneficial use (e.g., for use in home 

gardens); (2) the sludge is disposed on 

land by placing it on surface disposal 

sites; and (3) the sewage sludge is 

incinerated. The standards apply to 

POTW that generate or treat domestic 

sewage sludge, as well as to any person 

who uses or disposes of sewage sludge 

from such treatment works. 

The part 503 requirements for firing 

sewage sludge in a SSI are in subpart E 

of the regulations. Subpart E includes 

general requirements; pollutant limits; 

operational standards; management 

practices; and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

These part 503 regulations require 

that SSI meet the National Emission 

Standards for Beryllium and Hg in 

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 

CFR part 61. The regulations also 

require that the allowable concentration 

of five other inorganic pollutants be 

calculated using equations in the 

regulation. The inorganic pollutants 

included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The 

terms in the equations must be 

determined on a case-by-case basis, 

except for the risk-specific 

concentration for the inhalation 

exposure pathway to protect individuals 

when these pollutants are inhaled. The 

site-specific variables for the equations 

(incinerator type, dispersion factor, 

control efficiency, feed rate, and stack 

height) must be used to calculate 

allowable daily concentrations of As, 

Cd, Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge 

fed to the incinerator. 

Also included in subpart E of part 503 

is an operational standard for THC. The 

value for THC in the final part 503 

regulation cannot be exceeded in the 

exit gas from the SSI stack. Management 

practices and frequency of monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements are also included in this 

subpart. 

Under today’s final standards, EPA is 

establishing limits for three of the 

inorganic pollutants covered by the 

current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and 

Hg) and the following six additional 

pollutants: HCl, CO, NOX, SO2, PM, and 

total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the 

pollutants covered here, there are other 

differences between the part 503 

regulations and these final standards. 

The emission limits for inorganic 

pollutants under part 503 are risk-based 

numbers rather than technology-based. 

Also, part 503 does not distinguish 

between new and existing units or 

between incinerator types (i.e., MH or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 5
15376 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

FB incinerator) for setting emission 

limits since emission limits are based on 

risks to a highly exposed individual. 

Because both part 503 and these final 

standards cover the same universe of 

facilities, there are certain issues that 

arise in terms of potential impacts to 

current SSI facilities. First, the 

regulation of sewage sludge under CAA 

section 129 will result in stricter 

emission standards than under the 

current CWA rule. Additional pollution 

controls will increase costs for facilities 

that continue to use the incineration 

disposal method. If the additional costs 

are high enough, many entities may 

choose to adopt alternative disposal 

methods (e.g., surface disposal in 

landfills or other beneficial land 

applications). Consequently, a potential 

impact of this rule is that some of the 

estimated 110 facilities that operate SSI 

as the primary means of disposal could 

discontinue this practice and would 

instead landfill or land apply their 

sewage sludge. Second, one must 

consider the available capacity of 

surface disposal sites to receive 

additional sewage sludge and the 

potential for added costs if the use of 

SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI will be 

subject to two different sets of 

requirements (numeric standards, 

operational standards, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting) under the 

two different statutes, creating an 

additional burden to these facilities 

unless alternative regulatory approaches 

are implemented. EPA plans to evaluate 

the requirements under both statutes to 

determine what changes, if any, should 

be made to the part 503 regulations. 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

This preamble discusses the final 

standards as they apply to the owner or 

operator of a new or existing SSI unit. 

This preamble also describes the major 

requirements of the SSI regulations. For 

a full description of the final 

requirements and compliance times, see 

the SSI standards in subparts LLLL and 

MMMM. 

A. What units are affected by the final 

standards? 

The final standards and guidelines 

apply to owners or operators of SSI 

units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 

40 CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater 

treatment facilities designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge. A SSI unit is 

an enclosed device or devices using 

controlled flame combustion that burns 

sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed 

system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat 

recovery equipment, if any, and bottom 

ash system. The SSI unit includes all 

ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. The 

combustion unit bottom ash system 

ends at the truck loading station or 

similar equipment that transfers the ash 

to final disposal. The SSI unit does not 

include air pollution control equipment 

or the stack. The affected facility is each 

individual SSI unit. The SSI standards 

in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply to 

new and existing SSI units that burn 

sewage sludge as defined in the 

subparts. The final standards define two 

subcategories for new and existing SSI 

units: MH incinerators and FB 

incinerators. 

The combustion of sewage sludge that 

is not burned in a SSI unit located at a 

wastewater treatment facility designed 

to treat domestic sewage sludge is 

subject to other section 129 standards, 

such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR 

part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR 

part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the 

MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB 

of this part) or the Hazardous Waste 

Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart 

EEE). 

B. What are the emission limits in the 

emission guidelines for existing sources? 

The final emission limits for existing 

sources in the MH incinerator 

subcategory and FB incinerator 

subcategory are presented in Table 1 of 

this preamble. Existing sources may 

comply with either the PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ or TMB emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units Emission limit for 

MH incinerators 

Emission limit for 

FB incinerators 

Cd ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.095 0.0016 

CO ..................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 3,800 64 

HCl .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 1.2 0.51 

Hg ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.28 0.037 

NOX ................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 220 150 

Pb ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.30 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.32 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 5.0 1.2 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 80 18 

SO2 .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 26 15 

C. What are the emission limits in the 

new source performance standards for 

new sources? 

The final emission limits for new 

sources in the MH incinerator 

subcategory and FB incinerator 

subcategory are presented in Table 2 of 

this preamble. Existing sources may 

comply with either the PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ or TMB emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units Emission limit for 

MH incinerators 

Emission limit for 

FB incinerators 

Cd ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0024 0.0011 

CO ..................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 52 27 

HCl .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 1.2 0.24 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15377 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW SSI UNITS—Continued 

Pollutant Units Emission limit for 

MH incinerators 

Emission limit for 

FB incinerators 

Hg ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.15 0.0010 

NOX ................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 210 30 

Pb ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0035 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.045 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.0022 0.0044 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 60 9.6 

SO2 .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 26 5.3 

D. What are the testing and monitoring 

requirements? 

These final standards require all new 

and existing SSI units to demonstrate 

initial and annual compliance with the 

emission limits using EPA-approved 

emission test methods. The final 

standards also provide an option for less 

frequent testing if sources demonstrate 

that their emissions of regulated 

pollutants are below thresholds of the 

emission limits. 

For existing SSI units, the EG requires 

initial and annual emissions 

performance tests (or continuous 

emissions monitoring or continuous 

sampling as an alternative), bag leak 

detection systems for FF controlled 

units, continuous parameter monitoring, 

and annual inspections of air pollution 

control devices, if they are used to meet 

the emission limits. Additionally, 

existing units are required to conduct 

Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7) visible emissions test of 

the ash handling operations during each 

compliance test. 

For new SSI units, the NSPS requires 

initial and annual emissions 

performance tests (or continuous 

emissions monitoring or continuous 

sampling as an alternative), bag leak 

detection systems for FF controlled 

units, as well as continuous parameter 

monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be 

used to meet the emission limits. The 

final rule requires all new SSI units to 

install a CO CEMS. Operators of new 

units are also required to conduct 

Method 22 visible emissions testing of 

the ash handling operations during each 

compliance test. 

For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, 

HCl, NOX, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS; 

ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous 

sampling with periodic sample analysis) 

are approved alternatives to parametric 

monitoring and annual compliance 

testing. For new SSI units, CO CEMS are 

required, and use of Cd, HCl, NOX, PM, 

Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS 

(continuous sampling, with periodic 

sample analysis) are approved 

alternatives to parametric monitoring 

and annual compliance testing. 

E. What are the other requirements for 

new and existing SSI units? 

Owners or operators of new or 

existing SSI units are required to meet 

operator training and qualification 

requirements, which include: Ensuring 

that at least one operator or supervisor 

per facility complete the operator 

training course, that qualified 

operator(s) or supervisor(s) complete an 

annual review or refresher course 

specified in the regulation, and that they 

maintain plant-specific information, 

updated annually, regarding training. 

Owners or operators of new SSI units 

are required to conduct a siting analysis, 

which includes submitting a report that 

evaluates site-specific air pollution 

control alternatives that minimize 

potential risks to public health or the 

environment, considering costs, energy 

impacts, non-air environmental impacts 

and any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

Owners or operators of new or 

existing SSI units are required to submit 

a monitoring plan for any continuous 

monitoring system or bag leak detection 

system used to comply with the rule. 

They must also submit a monitoring 

plan for their ash handling system that 

specifies the operating procedures they 

will follow to ensure that they meet the 

fugitive emission limit. 

F. What are the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements? 

Records of the initial and all 

subsequent stack or PS tests, deviation 

reports, operating parameter data, 

continuous monitoring data, 

maintenance and inspections of the air 

pollution control devices, the siting 

analysis (for new units only), 

monitoring plan and operator training 

and qualification must be maintained 

for 5 years. The results of the stack tests 

and PS tests and values for operating 

parameters are required to be included 

in initial and subsequent compliance 

reports. 

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

The Court vacated portions of two 

provisions in EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations governing the emissions of 

HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), (the 

‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’) that EPA 

promulgated under section 112 of the 

CAA. When incorporated into CAA 

section 112(d) regulations for specific 

source categories, these two provisions 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standard 

during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra 

Club v. EPA directly affects only the 

subset of CAA section 112(d) rules that 

incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) 

by reference and that contain no other 

regulatory text exempting or excusing 

compliance during SSM events, the 

legality of source category-specific SSM 

provisions is questionable. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

EPA is requiring that emission 

limitations in these final standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating. 

In establishing these standards, EPA has 

taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods and, for the reasons 

explained below, has not established 

different standards for those periods. 

We are not promulgating a separate 

emission standard for the source 

category that applies during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Based on the 

information available at this time, we 

believe that SSI units will be able to 

meet the emission limits during periods 

of startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate 

oil to start the unit and add waste once 

the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning 

natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel 

oil are expected to generally be lower 

than from burning solid wastes. 

Emissions during periods of shutdown 

are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 7
15378 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

5See, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even any upset 

provision can anticipate all upset situations. After 

a certain point, the transgression of regulatory 

limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other 

eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). 

6 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction). 

7See, 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). 

8See proposed definition 40 CFR 60.4930 and 40 

CFR 60.5250 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to 

mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, 

a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). 9 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2. 

materials in the incinerator would be 

almost fully combusted before 

shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors 

for SSI units ranked individual SSI 

units based on actual performance for 

each pollutant and subcategory, with an 

appropriate accounting of emissions 

variability. Because we accounted for 

emissions variability, we believe we 

have adequately addressed any minor 

variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * * ’’ (40 CFR 60.2). EPA has 

determined that malfunctions should 

not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that 

occur at such times do not need to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times. Nothing 

in CAA section 129 or in case law 

requires that EPA anticipate and 

account for the innumerable types of 

potential malfunction events in setting 

emission standards.5

Further, it is reasonable to interpret 

CAA section 129 as not requiring EPA 

to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we 

note that CAA section 129 uses the 

concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ or ‘‘best 

performing’’ sources in defining MACT, 

the level of stringency that major source 

standards must meet. Applying the 

concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ or ‘‘best 

performing’’ to a source that is 

malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best controlled 

or best performing sources is to operate 

in such a way as to avoid malfunctions 

of their units. 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were 

considered a distinct operating mode, 

we believe it would be impracticable to 

take malfunctions into account in 

setting CAA section 129 standards for 

SSI. As noted above, by definition, 

malfunctions are sudden and 

unexpected events, and it would be 

difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category. Moreover, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, 

degree, and duration, further 

complicating standard setting. 

For the SSI standards, malfunctions 

are required to be reported in deviation 

reports. We will then review the 

deviation reports to determine if the 

deviation is a violation of the standards. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. EPA would also consider 

whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 129 standard was, 

in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable’’ and was not 

instead ‘‘caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.’’ 6

Finally, EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can fail and that such failure 

can sometimes cause an exceedance of 

the relevant emission standard.7 EPA is 

therefore finalizing the proposed 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emissions limits that are 

caused by malfunctions, with some 

revisions to the proposed regulatory 

provision.8 Under this provision, the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 

and in 40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria 

ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that 

causes an exceedance of the emission 

limit meets the narrow definition of 

malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable 

and not caused by poor maintenance 

and or careless operation). 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 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM 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). 

H. What are the Title V permit 

requirements? 

All new and existing SSI units 

regulated by the final SSI rule are 

required to apply for and obtain a Title 

V permit. These Title V operating 

permits assure compliance with all 

applicable requirements for regulated 

SSI units, including all applicable CAA 

section 129 requirements.9

The permit application deadline for a 

CAA section 129 source applying for a 

Title V operating permit depends on 

when the source first becomes subject to 

the relevant Title V permits program. If 

a regulated SSI unit is a new unit and 

is not subject to an earlier permit 

application deadline, a complete Title V 

permit application must be submitted 

on or before the relevant date below. 

• For a SSI unit that commenced 

operation as a new source on or before 

the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart LLLL, the source must 

submit a complete Title V permit 

application no later than 12 months 

after the promulgation date of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart LLLL; or 

• For a SSI unit that commences 

operation as a new source after the 

promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

LLLL, the source must submit a 

complete Title V permit application no 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 8
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15379 

10CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

and 71.5(a)(1)(i). 

11CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 

70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i). 

later than 12 months after the date the 

SSI unit commences operation as a new 

source.10

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and 

is not subject to an earlier permit 

application deadline, then the source 

must submit a complete Title V permit 

application by the earlier of the 

following dates: 

• Twelve months after the effective 

date of any applicable EPA-approved 

CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an 

EPA approved state or tribal plan that 

implements the SSI EG); or 

• Twelve months after the effective 

date of any applicable Federal plan; or 

• Thirty-six months after 

promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM. 

For any existing SSI unit not subject 

to an earlier permit application 

deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart MMMM, applies 

regardless of whether or when any 

applicable Federal plan is effective, or 

whether or when any applicable state or 

tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is 

approved by EPA and becomes effective. 

(See CAA sections 129(e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 

70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).) 

If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as 

a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than those 

mentioned above, for example, a SSI 

unit may be a major source (or part of 

a major source), then you may be 

required to apply for a Title V permit 

prior to the deadlines specified above. If 

more than one requirement triggers a 

source’s obligation to apply for a Title 

V permit, the 12-month time frame for 

filing a Title V permit application is 

triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to Title 

V.11

For additional background 

information on the interface between 

CAA section 129 and Title V, including 

EPA’s interpretation of section 129(e), 

information on updating existing Title V 

permit applications and reopening 

existing Title V permits, see the final 

‘‘Federal Plan for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,’’ 

October 3, 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well 

as the ‘‘Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses’’ document in the OSWI 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0156). 

I. What are the applicability dates of the 

standards? 

New SSI units that commence 

construction after October 14, 2010, or 

that are modified 6 months or more after 

the date of promulgation, must meet the 

NSPS emission limits of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL within 6 months after the 

promulgation date of the standards or 

upon startup, whichever is later. 

Under the final EG, and consistent 

with CAA section 129 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 

60, subpart B, states are required to 

submit state plans containing the 

existing source emission limits of 

subpart MMMM of this part, and other 

requirements to implement and enforce 

the EG within 1 year after promulgation 

of the EG. States must submit state plans 

to EPA by March 21, 2012. State plans 

apply to existing SSI in the state 

(including SSI that are modified prior to 

and including the date 6 months after 

promulgation) and must be at least as 

protective as the EG. 

The final EG requires existing SSI to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards as expeditiously as 

practicable after approval of a state plan, 

but no later than 3 years from the date 

of approval of a state plan or 5 years 

after promulgation of the EG, whichever 

is earlier. Consistent with CAA section 

129, EPA expects states to require 

compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable. However, because we 

believe that many SSI units will find it 

necessary to retrofit existing emissions 

control equipment and/or install 

additional emissions control equipment 

in order to meet the final limits, EPA 

anticipates that states may choose to 

provide the 3-year compliance period 

allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If 

EPA does not approve a state plan or 

issue a Federal plan, then the 

compliance date is 5 years from the date 

of the final rule. 

EPA intends to develop a Federal plan 

that will apply to existing SSI units in 

any state that has not submitted an 

approved state plan within 2 years after 

promulgation of the EG. The final EG 

allows existing SSI units subject to the 

Federal plan up to 5 years after 

promulgation of the EG to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards, as 

allowed by CAA section 129(b)(3). 

J. What are the requirements for 

submission of emissions test results to 

EPA? 

EPA must have performance test data 

to conduct effective reviews of CAA 

sections 112 and 129 standards, as well 

as for many other purposes including 

compliance determinations, emission 

factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In 

conducting these required reviews, EPA 

has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for 

regulatory agencies and source owners 

and operators to locate, collect, and 

submit emissions test data because of 

varied locations for data storage and 

varied data storage methods. One 

improvement that has occurred in 

recent years is the availability of stack 

test reports in electronic format as a 

replacement for cumbersome paper 

copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking a step 

to improve data accessibility and 

increase the ease and efficiency of 

reporting for sources. Owners and 

operators of SSI facilities are required to 

submit, to EPA’s ERT database, 

electronic copies of reports of certain 

performance tests required under the 

SSI EG and NSPS. Data entry will be 

through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the Emissions 

Reporting Tool (ERT) whenever 

conducting performance tests. The ERT 

was developed with input from stack 

testing companies who generally collect 

and compile performance test data 

electronically and offices within state 

and local agencies that perform field test 

assessments. The ERT is currently 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/ert/ert_tool.html, and access to 

direct data submittal to EPA’s electronic 

emissions database (WebFIRE) will 

become available by December 31, 2011. 

The requirement to submit source test 

data electronically to EPA would not 

require any additional performance 

testing and would apply to those 

performance tests conducted using test 

methods that are supported by the ERT. 

The ERT contains a specific electronic 

data entry form for most of the 

commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The Web site listed below contains a 

listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT. In 

addition, when a facility submits 

performance test data to WebFIRE, there 

will be no additional requirements for 

emissions test data compilation. 

Moreover, we believe industry will 

benefit from development of improved 

emission factors, fewer follow-up 

information requests, and better 

regulation development as discussed 

below. The information to be reported is 

already required for the existing test 

methods and is necessary to evaluate 

the conformance to the test method. 

One major advantage of submitting 

source test data through the ERT is a 

standardized method to compile and 

store much of the documentation 

required to be reported by this rule that 

also clearly states what testing 

information would be required. Another 

important benefit of submitting these 

data to EPA at the time the source test 

is conducted is that it should 

substantially reduce the effort involved 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 9
15380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

in data collection activities in the 

future. When EPA has source category 

performance test data in hand, there 

will likely be fewer or less substantial 

data collection requests in conjunction 

with prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

results in a reduced burden on both 

affected facilities (in terms of reduced 

manpower to respond to data collection 

requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing 

and distributing data collection requests 

and assessing the results). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also 

benefit in that their review may be more 

streamlined and accurate because they 

would not have to re-enter the data to 

assess the calculations and verify the 

data entry. Finally, another benefit of 

submitting these data to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data will 

greatly improve the overall quality of 

the existing and new emission factors by 

supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data upon which the emission factor 

is based and by ensuring that data are 

more representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emissions factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. Receiving 

and incorporating data for most 

performance tests will ensure that 

emissions factors, when updated, 

represent accurately the most current 

range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, receiving test data 

already collected and using them in the 

emissions factors development program 

will save industry, state/local/tribal 

agencies, and EPA significant time, 

money, and effort while improving the 

quality of emission inventories and 

related regulatory decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic 

database that will be used is EPA’s 

WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible 

through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE 

Web site was constructed to store 

emissions test data for use in developing 

emission factors. A description of the 

WebFIRE database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?

action=fire.main. The ERT will be able 

to transmit the electronic report through 

EPA’s CDX network for storage in the 

WebFIRE database. Although ERT is not 

the only electronic interface that can be 

used to submit source test data to the 

CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes 

submittal of data very straightforward 

and easy. A description of the ERT can 

be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_

tool.html. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal 

EPA received over 90 public 

comments on the proposed rulemaking. 

Furthermore, we conducted one public 

hearing to allow the public to comment 

on the proposed rulemaking. After 

consideration of public comments 

received, EPA is making several changes 

to the standards. Following are the 

major changes to the standards since the 

proposal. The rationale for these and 

any other significant changes can be 

found in section V of this preamble or 

in the ‘‘Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) 

Rule: Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses’’ in the SSI docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559). 

A. Applicability 

The final rule clarifies that, if any 

amount of sewage sludge is burned in 

an incinerator at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic 

sewage sludge, the incinerator is subject 

to the SSI standards in subparts LLLL 

and MMMM of this part while burning 

sewage sludge. The final rule also 

clarifies that sewage sludge that is not 

burned in a SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge is subject to 

other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), 

the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC 

standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, 

Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) 

or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule 

(40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. Subcategories 

The proposed NSPS did not 

subcategorize new sources. In the final 

NSPS, SSI units at new sources are 

subcategorized into two subcategories: 

MH and FB. 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG 

and NSPS Emission Limits 

At proposal, we used a 99 percent 

UPL calculation to determine 

variability. For the final rule, for 

existing FB units, we are using a 

weighted 99 percent UPL calculation to 

account for the biasing of emissions data 

from one facility. The weighted UPL 

was not used for MH units. 

In the proposed rule, two statistical 

measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used 

to calculate the MACT floor were 

normally or log-normally distributed. If 

both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values 

had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 

indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was 

selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests 

were mixed for the reported values and 

the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the 

reported data values was chosen to be 

conservative. We have modified our 

assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not 

clearly show whether a normal or lognormal distribution better represents the 

data, or when there are not enough data 

to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to 

use the log-normal results for the final 

MACT floor calculation. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed 

setting beyond-the-floor emission 

standards for Hg emissions from 

existing MH units. In the final rule, we 

are establishing MACT floor emission 

limits but are not setting beyond-thefloor standards. Also, we are not 

finalizing the proposed opacity limits. 

At proposal, we set emission limits for 

both PCDD/PCDF TMB and PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ and required SSI units to meet both 

limits. In the final standards, we are 

allowing affected sources to comply 

with either the PCDD/PCDF TMB or 

TEQ emission limits. 

In the proposed rule, we did not 

compare the CO span of the test to the 

measured CO values to determine if the 

values were consistent. For the final 

rule, we reviewed the CO values 

obtained from emission test reports to 

determine whether the span of the test 

used was capable of accurately reading 

the reported value. If the span was 

inconsistent with the reported value, the 

CO levels were adjusted to provide a 

value that was more consistent with the 

span. We revised the CO limits based on 

the results of this analysis. 

The final emission limits resulting 

from the revised MACT floor 

calculations are presented in Tables 3 

through 6 of this preamble, and 

compared to the proposed emission 

limits. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 10
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15381 

TABLE 3—FINAL AND PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING FB SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units Proposed 

emission limit 

Final emission 

limit 

Cd ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0019 0.0016 

CO ..................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 56 64 

HCl .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 0.49 0.51 

Hg ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0033 0.037 

NOX ................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 63 150 

Pb ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0098 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.056 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.61 1.2 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 12 18 

SO2 .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 22 15 

TABLE 4—FINAL AND PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING MH SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units Proposed 

emission limit 

Final emission 

limit 

Cd ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.095 0.095 

CO ..................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 3,900 3,800 

HCl .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 1.0 1.2 

Hg ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.02 0.28 

NOX ................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 210 220 

Pb ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.30 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.32 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 5.0 5.0 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 80 80 

SO2 .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 26 26 

TABLE 5—FINAL AND PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW FB SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units Proposed 

emission limit 

Final emission 

limit 

Cd ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.00051 0.0011 

CO ..................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 7.4 27 

HCl .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 0.12 0.24 

Hg ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0010 0.0010 

NOX ................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 26 30 

Pb ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.00053 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.0022 0.0044 

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.024 0.013 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 4.1 9.6 

SO2 .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 2.0 5.3 

TABLE 6—FINAL AND PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW MH SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units Proposed 

emission limit 

Final emission 

limit 

Cd ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.00051 0.0024 

CO ..................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 7.4 52 

HCl .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 0.12 1.2 

Hg ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.0010 0.15 

NOX ................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 26 210 

Pb ...................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 0.00053 0.0035 

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.0022 0.0022 

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ............................................ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 ........................................................... 0.024 0.045 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm @ 7% O2 .......................................................... 4.1 60 

SO2 .................................................................... ppmvd @ 7% O2 .............................................................. 2.0 26 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and 

Impacts Estimation 

For the final rule, we have revised the 

baseline emissions, costs, and impacts 

to incorporate information provided by 

commenters. A discussion of the 

changes is presented in section V of this 

preamble. The results of these analyses 

are summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. 

E. Compliance Requirements 

For both the standards, the following 

changes have been made: 

• SSI units must submit (at least 60 

days before their initial compliance test 

date) a monitoring plan to establish that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 11
15382 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

their ash handling system will meet the 

visible emissions limit on a continuous 

basis. 

• The alternative to test less 

frequently (every third year) is being 

revised to be the following: 

Æ If SSI units demonstrate emissions 

below a specified threshold during two 

consecutive performance tests, they may 

test every 3 years instead of annually. 

Any year that the emission threshold is 

not met, the SSI must test annually until 

the threshold is met over a consecutive 

2 year period. The alternative in the 

standards no longer requires that SSI 

units establish that they meet the lower 

thresholds for three consecutive years. 

Æ For all pollutants, less frequent 

testing is allowed if emissions are no 

greater than an emissions threshold of 

75 percent of the emission limit. 

Æ For fugitive emissions from ash 

handling, less frequent testing is 

allowed as long as visible emissions of 

combustion ash occur less than or equal 

to two percent of each hourly 

observation period (the standard is five 

percent of each of three hourly 

observation periods). 

• The final rule removes the 

requirements in the standards to 

maintain sludge feed rate and moisture 

content within specified parameters. 

However, sludge feed rate and sludge 

moisture content are still required to be 

monitored during performance test runs, 

and daily records of sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content are required to 

be kept. 

• At proposal, operating limits were 

calculated based on a specified 

percentage of the average parameter 

value recorded during pollutant 

performance tests. In the final 

standards, operating parameter limits 

are determined on a site-specific basis 

as the minimum or maximum operating 

parameter value for the parameter, as 

applicable, recorded during pollutant 

performance tests. 

• The proposed standards schedule 

for conducting annual performance tests 

was each 10–12 months. This has been 

changed to specify that performance 

tests must be conducted on a calendar 

year basis (no less than nine calendar 

months and no more than 15 calendar 

months following the previous 

performance test); and you must 

complete five performance tests for each 

such pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

• The averaging time for 

demonstrating compliance with the CO 

CEMS operating parameters has been 

changed from a 4-hour rolling averaging 

period to a 24-hr block averaging period. 

The averaging times for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber 

liquid pH, has been changed from a 4- 

hour rolling averaging period to a 12- 

hour block averaging period. 

• During each compliance test run, 

SSI units must be operated at a 

minimum of 85 percent of their 

maximum permitted capacity. 

F. Definitions 

The following definitions have been 

revised: 

• 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: 

(1) A change in the process employed 

at the wastewater treatment facility 

associated with the affected SSI unit 

(e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at 

the facility, which changes the method 

used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution 

control devices used to comply with the 

emission limits for the affected SSI unit 

(e.g., change in the sorbent used for 

activated carbon injection). 

• Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) 

unit means an incineration unit 

combusting sewage sludge for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the 

sewage sludge by removing combustible 

matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and 

multiple hearth. A SSI unit also 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary 

fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas 

system, waste heat recovery equipment, 

if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI 

unit includes all ash handling systems 

connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash 

system ends at the truck loading station 

or similar equipment that transfers the 

ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does 

not include air pollution control 

equipment or the stack. 

V. Significant Public Comments and 

Rationale for Changes to the Proposed 

Rule 

This section contains a brief summary 

of major comments and responses. EPA 

received many comments on this 

subpart covering numerous topics. 

EPA’s responses to all comments, 

including those below, can be found in 

the comment response document for SSI 

units in the docket. 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues 

Regulating SSI Under Section 112 vs. 

Section 129 

Comment: Many commenters 

contended that SSI are within the CWA 

definition of POTW; therefore, 

according to CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA 

must regulate SSI units under CAA 

section 112(d), and not CAA section 

129. The commenters emphasized that 

SSI units are located within each 

respective POTW and are wholly 

integrated into the solids handling and 

treatment processes at each POTW. 

Other commenters stated that SSI 

units cannot be regulated under CAA 

section 129 because they are combusting 

material that is generated by the POTW, 

which is neither a commercial or 

industrial establishment nor the general 

public as required in CAA section 

129(g)(1). The commenters added that, 

based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste, even if they had a new 

point of generation within the POTW 

where they were generating solid waste, 

the POTW sewage sludge is from a 

municipal source and does not pass the 

broad applicability for solid waste 

incineration under CAA section 129. 

Another commenter added that CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(B)–(C) also directs EPA 

to set standards for solid waste 

incineration units combusting 

municipal waste, but to qualify as a unit 

combusting municipal waste, the unit 

must first be a solid waste incineration 

unit. The commenters concluded that 

this would not include SSI units. 

Several commenters stated that EPA’s 

determination to regulate SSI units 

under CAA section 129 contradicts 

previous decisions where EPA has 

stated that regulations were being 

developed for SSI under CAA section 

112. Another commenter stated that 

EPA’s revision to the list of source 

categories under CAA section 112 to 

delete SSI units was because there were 

no major sources in the source category. 

One commenter added that EPA’s 

decision to regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 129 is based on an overly 

broad reading of the NRDC case. The 

commenter also claimed that SSI units 

are not within the scope of the 

definition of ‘‘solid waste incineration 

unit’’ in section 129 because sewage 

sludge is not generated by a commercial 

or industrial establishment or by the 

general public. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that regulation of 

SSI units under section 129 is 

inconsistent with past EPA statements. 

As explained in the NPRM, EPA issued 

emissions standards for POTW in 1999 

pursuant to section 112(d), and those 

emissions standards did not include 

standards for SSI units. In the proposed 

POTW emissions standards, EPA stated 

that ‘‘[s]ewage sludge incineration will 

be regulated under section 129 of the 

CAA[.]’’ See 63 FR 66087 (December 1, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 12
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15383 

1998). EPA also explained in the NPRM 

for today’s action that the EPA’s 

statements regarding SSI units during its 

promulgation of emissions standards for 

OSWI units are squarely in conflict with 

the Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007), which 

states in pertinent part that any unit that 

combusts any solid waste at all is 

subject to CAA section 129. The 

commenter does not appear to disagree 

with that conclusion, but instead simply 

argues that EPA cannot regulate SSI 

units under section 129 because it 

previously stated that it would regulate 

them under section 112. However, the 

NRDC decision precludes EPA from 

doing so. Additionally, section 112(c)(6) 

requires that EPA promulgate emission 

standards assuring that sources 

accounting for not less than 90 percent 

of the aggregate emissions of each of the 

HAP identified in section 112(c)(6) are 

subject to emission standards. EPA has 

determined that section 129 source 

categories can be included to meet our 

90 percent obligations. Therefore, EPA 

has included SSI units in the section 

112(c)(6) list of sources because SSI 

units are need to meet our 90 percent 

requirement for mercury. This decision 

is documented in the memorandum 

‘‘Emission Standards for Meeting the 

Ninety Percent Requirement under 

Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act’’ 

in the SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0559) 

Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not 

require EPA to issue emissions 

standards for SSI units under section 

112(d). Rather, it simply governs the 

schedule for the issuance of section 

112(d) emissions standards for POTW. 

Section 112(e), titled ‘‘Schedule for 

Standards and Review,’’ generally 

requires EPA to establish emissions 

standards for initially listed source 

categories as expeditiously as 

practicable, with certain specific 

deadlines in section 112(e)(1). Section 

112(e) further describes how EPA shall 

prioritize source categories for 

regulation, and requires EPA to 

establish a schedule for issuance of 

emissions standards for section 112 

listed source categories. Finally, 

Congress specified a different schedule 

for POTW in section 112(e)(5), stating 

that emissions standards shall be issued 

no later than November 15, 1995. Thus, 

section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA 

to regulate SSI units under section 

112(d), but rather simply identifies the 

date by which EPA must issue 

emissions standards for POTW. 

Additionally, the commenter’s 

interpretation of section 112(e)(5) would 

conflict with section 129(g) and with the 

DC Circuit’s interpretation of section 

129(g) as explained in NRDC v. EPA. 

Section 129(g) defines ‘‘solid waste 

incineration unit’’ to include any unit 

combusting any solid waste, and the 

Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s 

position that it could choose to regulate 

certain units, combusting solid waste, 

under section 112 instead of under 

section 129. Since SSI units do combust 

solid waste, EPA does not have the 

discretion under section 129 to create an 

exemption for SSI units from the 

statutory definition of solid waste. The 

court noted that section 129(g) itself 

specifies certain units that combust 

solid waste but are exempt from the 

definition, and noted that where 

Congress created such enumerated 

exemptions, the EPA lacks discretion to 

create additional ones. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that SSI units do not 

combust waste from the general public. 

Sewage sludge clearly originates from 

the general public, including residential 

and commercial facilities. Simply 

because the waste is treated at a POTW 

prior to combustion does not change the 

original source of the sewage sludge. 

The commenter refers to a statement in 

EPA’s 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda 

to support its argument. However, the 

Regulatory Agenda did not represent an 

Agency interpretation following a notice 

and comment process. Moreover, as 

explained above, EPA’s position 

regarding the section of the Act under 

which SSI units must be regulated has 

changed since 2000, in light of the DC 

Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA. 

Finally, EPA notes that its final action 

on reconsideration of the OSWI rule did 

not refer to the source of sewage sludge 

as a basis for concluding that regulation 

under section 129 was not required. 

Instead, as explained above, it referred 

to discretion the Agency believed it had 

at the time to choose to regulate certain 

solid waste incinerators under section 

112—discretion the Agency no longer 

believes it has. 

The commenter’s reference to 

statements made in other Federal 

Register notices that pre-date the NRDC 

decision similarly fail to support its 

argument that EPA must regulate SSI 

units under section 112. Specifically, 

commenters refer to EPA’s inclusion of 

SSI on the list of area source categories 

listed under section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. See 67 FR 70427 

(Nov. 22, 2002). However, that listing 

does not lead to the conclusion that SSI 

must be regulated under section 112. 

First, as explained above, EPA’s 

interpretation of its authority to regulate 

SSI has changed following the issuance 

of the DC Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. 

EPA, which occurred after the 2002 

listing referred to by the commenter. 

Additionally, that listing included 

source categories that would clearly be 

regulated under section 129, such as 

medical waste incinerators and 

municipal waste combustors, Id. at 

70428, because EPA’s regulation of 

incinerator source categories under 

section 129 serves towards meeting its 

statutory obligations under section 

112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii). Therefore, the 

inclusion of SSI on that list does not 

indicate that such units must be 

regulated under section 112. 

EPA further disagrees that regulation 

of SSI units under section 129 is 

unnecessary because SSI units are 

already regulated under section 405 of 

the CWA and that section 129 regulation 

will therefore provide no public health 

or environmental benefit. As explained 

in section VI of this preamble, today’s 

action will benefit public health and the 

environment by achieving reductions of 

the section 129 pollutants from SSI 

units beyond those required by 

regulations issued pursuant to the CWA. 

Today’s action must be undertaken to 

comply with the Clean Air Act and the 

court decision in NRDC v. EPA. EPA 

further notes that section 405 of the 

CWA expressly provides that nothing in 

that section is intended to waive more 

stringent requirements of any other law. 

Therefore, Congress clearly did not 

intend for regulation of SSI units under 

the CWA to preclude any other 

regulations, including regulation under 

CAA section 129. Overlap with Other 

Standards 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that other types of 

solid waste incineration units could be 

considered SSI units and subject to the 

SSI standards if they combust any 

amount of sewage sludge. Some 

commenters added that the definition of 

a SSI does not have a de minimis level 

of sewage sludge burned. Other 

commenters requested clarification on 

whether SSI units burning non-sludge 

industrial waste would be subject to 

both SSI and CISWI. Some commenters 

suggested that SSI units be consistent 

with the MWC standards and provide an 

exemption for co-fired combustors firing 

30 percent or less by weight of sewage 

sludge. 

Commenters suggested that the SSI 

standards provide exclusions for all 

solid waste incineration units that meet 

the applicability requirements of other 

CAA section 129 standards, including 

MWCs regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, 

Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters 

noted that the CISWI standards 

specifically exempted MWC units and 

other units subject to CAA section 129 

standards. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 13
15384 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Several commenters contended that 

EPA should exempt incineration units 

subject to hazardous waste combustor 

regulations and/or hazardous waste 

management permits under the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act. The commenters 

added that CAA section 129(g)(1) states 

that a solid waste incineration unit does 

not include incinerators or other units 

required to have a permit under section 

3005 of the SWDA. Other commenters 

requested EPA include an exemption for 

hazardous waste combustion units that 

are affected sources under 40 CFR part 

63 subpart EEE. 

Response: Section 129 defines solid 

waste incineration unit to include any 

unit combusting any solid waste. 

Therefore, EPA is not setting de 

minimus levels for solid waste burned 

in incinerators. An incinerator located 

at a wastewater treatment facility 

designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge that combusts any amount of 

sewage sludge is subject to the final SSI 

standards. We have clarified that the 

final standards and guidelines do not 

apply to sewage sludge that is not 

burned in a SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge. Sewage sludge 

that is not burned in a SSI located at a 

wastewater treatment facility designed 

to treat domestic sewage sludge is 

subject to other section 129 standards, 

such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR 

part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR 

part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the 

MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB 

of this part) or the Hazardous Waste 

Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart 

EEE). 

Hazardous waste combustion units 

that are required to have a permit under 

CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act are exempt from CAA 

section 129 standards per CAA section 

129(g)(1), therefore we do not believe an 

exemption is needed for this rule. 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to EPA issuing the proposed 

SSI standards prior to making 

determinations regarding the definition 

of non-hazardous solid waste. 

Response: EPA is not making 

determination in this rule about the 

definition of non-hazardous solid waste. 

Section 129 of the CAA states that ‘‘solid 

waste’’ shall have meaning promulgated 

by the Administrator under RCRA. 

Therefore, today’s action is consistent 

with using the defintion of nonhazardous secondary materials 

promulagted RCRA rule, elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. 

Comment: Several commenters 

contended that sewage sludge is not a 

solid waste, as the CAA defines solid 

waste by referencing the definition of 

solid waste under RCRA. The 

commenters added that RCRA excludes 

sewage sludge in what is commonly 

referred to as the domestic sewage 

exclusion (DSE). The exclusion 

explicitly states that solid waste does 

not include solid or dissolved material 

in domestic sewage. 

Response: This comment is not 

relevant to EPA’s establishment of 

emissions standards for SSI units. 

Rather, it is relevant to EPA’s proposed 

Identification of Non-Hazardous 

Secondary Materials That Are Solid 

Waste rule, and is addressed in EPA’s 

final action on that proposed rule. 

B. Subcategories 

Comment: Many commenters agreed 

with the development of separate EG for 

existing MH and FB units. The 

commenters also requested adding the 

same subcategories for the NSPS. The 

commenters added that it was 

inappropriate to consider the best 

performing FB SSI as the best 

performing similar source for the MH 

SSI new source category. They also 

stated that, as proposed, the NSPS 

standards would discourage a POTW’s 

ability to modify existing MH units, 

including modifications to improve 

combustion efficiency or boost steam 

output for electricity generation. Some 

commenters stated that, by using the 

best performing FB unit as the basis for 

the NSPS for MH units, EPA was 

effectively setting a beyond-the-floor 

MACT limit for SSI units without 

considering any criteria that the statute 

requires. Other commenters agreed with 

the decision to use the best-performing 

FB unit as the best similar source for the 

MH SSI source category. 

Other commenters requested further 

subcategorization based on size of the 

SSI unit, type of sewage sludge 

incinerated, limited use units, and 

distance over which the SSI would need 

to transport its sludge for disposal. 

Response: We have considered the 

commenters’ concerns and are setting 

separate standards for FB and MH units 

at new sources in the final rule. As 

discussed in the NPRM, there are two 

types of incinerators currently used to 

combust sewage sludge: MH and FB 

incinerators. The differences between 

the two combustor designs result in 

significant differences in emissions, size 

of the flue gas stream, ability to handle 

variability in the feeds, control of 

temperature and other process variables, 

auxiliary fuel use and other 

characteristics. To reflect the differences 

in their combustion mechanisms, two 

subcategories, FB and MH, were 

developed in the NPRM for new and 

existing SSI sources. 

At proposal for the MH new source 

subcategory, we considered the bestperforming FB incinerator to be the bestperforming similar source because we 

were not aware of any new MH sources 

that have been constructed in the last 20 

years, and information provided by the 

industry indicates that future units that 

will be constructed are likely to be FB 

incinerators. 

We have re-evaluated our decision. 

Although few MH units have been 

constructed over the last 20 years, there 

is no technical reason that would 

preclude a source from constructing a 

MH unit. The same design differences 

that distinguish existing FB and MH 

units also apply to new units, and 

provide a similar basis for 

subcategorizing between the two types 

of units. Therefore, we are setting 

separate standards for MH units at new 

and reconstructed sources. Such 

subcategorization is appropriate based 

on the differences between FB and MH 

units described above, and will also 

serve to ensure that MH units do not 

avoid making modifications that may 

require them to meet standards based on 

FB units. We are not subcategorizing SSI 

units on any other basis because we do 

not have data to support distinguishing 

units based on class, type, or size. 

Without such information, we do not 

have a basis for concluding that these 

types of units should be placed in a 

different subcategory. 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach 

Comment: Many commenters objected 

to setting the MACT floors using a 

pollutant by pollutant approach because 

none of the facilities in EPA’s database 

can simultaneously meet all the 

proposed standards. One commenter 

stated that EPA’s MACT Floor 

methodology is supposed to involve 

‘‘review of actual emissions data with an 

appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability’’. However, the commenter 

contended that EPA fails to follow this 

guidance in a practical manner in 

establishing MACT Floors for SSI units 

and that this results is unrealistically 

stringent limits that are not achievable 

for any SSI. Several commenters noted 

that this was especially true for the new 

source standards. Several commenters 

added that EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis violates the statute and its own 

views of the statute. One commenter 

stated that if EPA cannot demonstrate 

that the top performers can 

simultaneously meet all standards, EPA 

has improperly circumvented the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 14
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15385 

section 129 for establishing ‘‘beyondthe-floor’’ standards because the ‘‘floor 

standards would force industry-wide 

technological upgrades without 

consideration of the factors (cost and 

energy in particular) which Congress 

mandated for consideration when 

establishing beyond-the-floor 

standards.’’ 

Many commenters specifically 

mentioned that EPA’s pollutant-bypollutant, lowest emission methodology 

for setting the CO and NOX standards is 

flawed because EPA did not take into 

account the inherent conflict in 

complying with two standards. The 

commenters noted that CO and NOX

emissions are inversely proportional. 

The commenters explained that 

decreases in CO tend to elevate NOX

and vice versa. The commenters added 

that high temperature combustion with 

long residence times and high oxygen 

concentration results in very low CO 

emissions, and that those same 

operating conditions favor high NOX

emissions. The commenters added that 

the conditions used to minimize CO 

(i.e., high temperature afterburners) 

consume more fuel and produce more 

CO2 emissions. 

One commenter noted that the SSI 

unit with the most advanced control 

technologies, and those EPA indicated 

were costed in the impacts analysis, 

would not meet the emission limits for 

all of the pollutants all of the time. The 

commenter provided an example 

showing that of 11 of 30 test data points 

from the SSI unit in EPA’s database 

would not comply with the Cd standard, 

28 of 30 data points would not comply 

with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would 

not comply with the HCl standard, six 

of six data points would not comply 

with the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ, 86 

of 105 would not comply with the CO 

standard, and eight of 15 would not 

comply with the NOX standard. The 

commenter concluded that data 

variability has not been appropriately 

accounted for and that EPA’s method of 

establishing the MACT floor based on 

the best performing unit for each 

pollutant is not reasonable. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters who object to setting 

MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant 

basis. EPA previously has explained 

that although CAA section 129 does not 

unambiguously declare that MACT 

floors must be established on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying 

the requirement to set MACT floors 

based on what has been achieved by the 

best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 

is a reasonable interpretation of EPA’s 

obligation under that provision (62 FR 

48363–64). 

EPA interprets the provision in CAA 

section 129(a)(2) to support establishing 

emissions standards based on the actual 

emissions of ‘‘the best controlled similar 

unit’’ or ‘‘best-performing 12 percent of 

units in the category’’ for each covered 

pollutant. Even if we were to conclude 

that the commenters’ interpretation is 

equally reasonable under the statute, 

which we do not, the commenters’ 

interpretation is certainly not compelled 

by the statute. We maintain that our 

interpretation is reasonable under the 

statute and appropriate given the 

problems associated with implementing 

the commenters’ approach. 

The rest of CAA section 129 requires 

EPA to ‘‘establish performance standards 

and other requirements pursuant to 

section [111] of this title and this 

section [129] for each category of solid 

waste incineration units.’’ Pursuant to 

CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards 

‘‘shall reflect the maximum degree of 

reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

listed under section (a)(4)* * *.’’ 

(emphasis added). Subsection (a)(4) 

then states: ‘‘The performance standards 

promulgated under section [111] of this 

title and this section [129] and 

applicable to solid waste incineration 

units shall specify numerical emissions 

limitations for the following substances 

or mixtures: PM (total and fine), opacity 

(as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, 

hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, 

carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, mercury, 

and dioxins and dibenzofurans.’’ Thus, 

the statute requires EPA to set 

individual numeric performance 

standards based on the maximum 

degree of reduction in emissions 

actually achieved for each of nine listed 

pollutants. Based on this, EPA 

believes—and has long believed—the 

statute supports, if not requires, that 

MACT floors be derived for each 

pollutant based on the emission levels 

achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, 

although the provisions do not state 

whether there is to be a separate floor 

for each pollutant, the fact that Congress 

singled out these pollutants suggests 

that the floor level of control need not 

be limited by the performance of 

devices that only control some of these 

pollutants well. 

Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA 

declared in the 1997 rulemaking for 

medical waste incinerators ‘‘The EPA 

does not agree that the MACT floors are 

to be based upon one overall unit’’ (62 

FR 48364). Pointing for instance to 

subsection 129(a)(4), EPA explained: 

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified 

pollutant. Moreover, although the provisions 

do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress 

singled out these pollutants suggests that the 

floor level of control need not be limited by 

the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants well. 

Id. 

Since 1997, the courts have 

consistently repeated that EPA must set 

emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. 

See, e.g., Cement Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 

(DC Cir.) (‘‘[T]he Agency first sets 

emission floors for each pollutant and 

source category * * *.’’). Accordingly, 

EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

has, as outlined above, been in place 

since 1997 for medical waste 

incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under 

section 129. See, e.g., 59 FR 48198 

(September 20, 1994) (municipal waste 

combustors). In addition, such an 

approach has been upheld in other 

contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n 

v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) 

(concluding that basing CWA best 

available technology standards on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis was a 

rational interpretation of EPA’s 

obligations under that similar statute). 

We note that the CAA MACT provisions 

were fashioned on that CWA program. 

S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 

133–34. 

Further, utilizing the single-unit 

theory would likely result in EPA 

setting the standards at levels that 

could, for some pollutants, actually be 

based on emissions limitations achieved 

by the worst-performing unit, rather 

than the best-performing unit, as 

required by the statute. See 61 FR 

173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363– 

64 (September 15, 1997). For example, 

if the best performing 12 percent of 

facilities for metals did not control 

CDD/CDF as well as a different 12 

percent of facilities, the floor for PCDD/ 

PCDF and metals would end up not 

reflecting best performance. Moreover, a 

single-unit approach would require EPA 

to make value judgments as to which 

pollutant reductions are most critical in 

working to identify the single unit that 

reduces emissions of the nine pollutants 

on an overall best-performing basis. 

Such value judgments are antithetical to 

the command of the statute at the MACT 

floor stage. It would essentially require 

EPA to prioritize the nine pollutants 

based on the relative risk to human 

health of each pollutant, a criterion that 

has no place in the establishment of 

MACT floors. Sierra Club v. EPA 

(Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979–80 

(DC Cir. 2004). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 15
15386 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

The fact that the statute does not 

contain the phrase ‘‘for each pollutant’’ 

does not compel any inference that 

Congress was sub silentio mandating a 

different result when it left the 

provision ambiguous on this issue. The 

argument that MACT floors set 

pollutant-by-pollutant are based on the 

performance of a hypothetical facility, 

so that the limitations are not based on 

those achieved in practice, just re-begs 

the question of whether CAA section 

129(a)(2) refers to whole facilities or 

individual pollutants. All of the 

emission limitations in this rule reflect 

actual performance and are achieved in 

practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level 

of control must be limited by the 

performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively 

‘‘guts the standards’’ by including worse 

performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes 

the evident Congressional objective of 

having the floor reflect the average 

performance of best performing sources. 

Since Congress has not spoken to the 

precise question at issue, and EPA’s 

interpretation effectuates statutory goals 

and policies in a reasonable manner, its 

interpretation must be upheld. See 

Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 

Commenters made much of the fact 

that no single facility is presently 

achieving all of the nine pollutant limits 

proposed. However, the available 

information compared to the final 

standards disputes this assertion. For 

the final standards, based on the data 

we have, our estimate of baseline 

emissions, and the revised emission 

limits, we are estimating that 155 of 204 

existing SSI units can meet standards 

for all nine pollutants, without 

installing additional pollution control. 

We cannot make this assessment for 

new sources, because none have been 

constructed. However, we are not aware 

of any technical reason that new units 

could not install the most advanced 

pollution control techniques or reduce 

the pollutant concentrations in the 

sludge to meet the new source 

standards. 

We recognize that the pollutant-bypollutant approach for determining the 

MACT floor can, as it does in this case, 

increase the overall cost of the 

regulation compared to what would 

result under a unit-based methodology. 

We interpret CAA section 129 to require 

that the MACT floor be determined in 

this manner, and we believe that 

Congress did, in fact, intend that 

sources subject to regulations developed 

under CAA section 129 meet emissions 

limits that are achieved by the best 

controlled unit for each pollutant, as 

long as the control systems are 

compatible with each other. To our 

knowledge, there is no technical reason 

why these air pollution control systems 

cannot be combined. 

Regarding the inverse relationship 

between CO and NOX with regard to 

combustion control, it is incumbent 

upon the SSI facility to determine 

whether combustion conditions can be 

adjusted to meet both standards and, if 

not, install NOX controls as necessary 

(e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, FGR, 

or low NOX burners). In the proposed 

rule, we conjectured reasons why SCR 

and SNCR were not used or may not be 

able to be used at SSI units. While we 

are not aware of any SSI unit that 

currently uses SNCR or SCR, we also do 

not know of technical reason why they 

could not be used. Given the limited 

data available on SSI units with FGR, 

we could not definitely determine how 

effective the technology was on SSI 

units. However, we also do not know of 

a technical reason why they could not 

be used, if necessary, to meet NOX

limits, and commenters did not provide 

any reasons they could not be used. 

Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis 

Comment: Many commenters urged 

EPA to collect more information to set 

the standards. Many commenters 

contended that EPA does not have 

sufficient actual emission data from 

enough SSI units to properly set the 

MACT floor. Some commenters 

contended that the floor-setting 

provision in section 129 requires them 

to set the existing floor standards ‘‘based 

on the best performing 12 percent of 

sources in the category’’ and not just 

based on the sources for which they 

have information. The commenters 

contended that EPA did not have 

emissions data from the best-performing 

12 percent of sources or even from 12 

percent of sources. Additionally, the 

commenters stated that there is no 

evidence that the sources for which EPA 

collected data are among the top 12%. 

One commenter added that EPA is using 

actual data from as little as 4.3 percent 

of a subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for 

HCl) to determine how the top 12 

percent perform. 

Some commenters contended that 

EPA chose to limit its ICR to just nine 

entities because collecting information 

from ten or more entities would have 

triggered the PRA obligations and a 

more rigorous OMB review. The 

commenters concluded that EPA’s plan 

to circumvent the PRA and OMB review 

resulted in an inadequate dataset for 

this rulemaking that leaves EPA unable 

to reliably take the first necessary step 

in a section 129 rulemaking: To 

determine which of the SSI units are the 

best performing sources. 

Some commenters also contended 

that EPA targeted its ICR to the nine 

POTW expected to have the lowest 

emissions based on the type of unit and 

the installed air pollution controls. The 

commenters contended that EPA’s 

targeted approach to collecting data 

from expected top performers 

undermines its ability to presume the 

data is a random sample representative 

of the entire source category or 

subcategory. The commenters stated 

that if the data gathered are not 

representative at the outset, then the 

data cannot reliably be used in a 

statistical equation to predict the 

emissions data across the source 

category or subcategory. 

Some commenters noted that in the 

past, EPA has used permit or other 

regulatory limits, emission levels, feed 

rate control, and other information to 

establish MACT standards. Despite this 

flexibility, the commenters stated that 

EPA is proposing to use an ‘‘actual 

emissions’’ method in the SSI rule, even 

though it does not have actual emissions 

for each of the regulated pollutants from 

at least 12% of the units. 

Another commenter stated that EPA 

used emission data from state databases 

for an additional nine MHs. The 

commenter stated that EPA was 

instructed by the Court to collect data 

from the best-performing 12% of 

existing sources, and EPA needs to 

justify that the emissions data from the 

state databases for the additional nine 

MHs were the 12% best performing 

MHs. 

Response: As explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA 

requested several SSI to conduct 

emissions testing and provide the 

results to EPA for purposes of this 

rulemaking. Specifically, EPA collected 

information on the best-performing 

sources to establish MACT floor 

standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent 

emissions tests requests under section 

114 of the CAA to nine entities that own 

and operate SSI units. EPA identified 

SSI units that were expected to be the 

best-controlled sources and the best 

performers for further emissions testing. 

The Agency acknowledges that this 

selection methodology targets 

identifying the best-performing sources 

rather than selecting a representative 

sample of sources. However, given the 

court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue 

the final SSI rule, it was not possible to 

undertake the time-consuming process 

of sending an ICR to all the affected SSI 

units consistent with the requirements 

of the PRA. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 16
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15387 

To select the surveyed owners, EPA 

reviewed the inventory of SSI units for 

the control devices being operated, and 

identified a subset of units expected to 

have the lowest emissions based on the 

type of unit and the installed air 

pollution controls. These controls 

generally achieve the most reductions 

possible for the CAA section 129 

pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to 

identify for each pollutant the units 

with the lowest emissions. For example, 

units were selected that operated more 

than one of the following technologies: 

Activated carbon injection to reduce Hg 

and dioxins/furans; RTOs or 

afterburners to reduce CO and organics; 

wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; high 

efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed 

scrubbers and impingement tray 

scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, 

particulate Hg, and acid gases such as 

HCl and SO2; and units with multiple 

control devices that could reduce PM, 

Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi 

scrubber in combination with 

impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or 

with another particulate control device. 

The 9 owners or operators selected were 

from different states in different regions 

of the country, providing a wide 

spectrum of sources for sludge 

generated. 

Six of the nine ICR recipients operate 

MH units, resulting in 13 MH units 

surveyed. Three of the nine operate FB 

units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. 

Some owners of multiple units at a 

facility provided information for less 

than the total number they operated, e.g. 

1 unit instead of 2, because not all units 

were in operation during the test period. 

Of those 20 units from the nine 

surveyed municipalities, EPA collected 

data from 17 units that were in 

operation (11 MH units and 6 FB units). 

While testing was being undertaken, the 

EPA also collected emission test 

information for 9 MH SSI units 

collected from state environmental 

agencies public databases. For some 

pollutants, the emissions from these 

supplemental test reports were lower 

than those from the nine ICR sources. 

The EPA concluded that it was 

appropriate to use all the emissions 

information from these test reports in 

the MACT floor analysis. The EPA also 

collected many test reports that were 

older than 15 years. The older reports 

were determined to not be appropriate 

for this rulemaking because they were 

unlikely to represent current emissions 

performance, due to their age and 

because they pre-dated required 

compliance with the CWA part 503 

standard. In total, emissions information 

were collected from 6 FB units and 20 

MH units from facilities responding to 

the ICR and additional test reports 

provided by state environmental 

agencies. 

As discussed in the NPRM and 

background documentation, the EPA 

conducted a statistical analysis to verify 

the minimum number of observations 

needed to accurately characterize the 

distribution of the best-performing 12 

percent of units in each subcategory. 

The results showed that the data 

utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the 

number of observations necessary to 

provide an accurate representation of 

that data distributed from the bestperforming 12 percent of the source 

population. The EPA maintains that the 

emissions information that we have 

collected is adequate to determine the 

MACT floor for the best-performing 

sources. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to use 

other types of data, such as permits, 

other regulatory limits, or feed rate 

controls with the emissions information 

to calculate the MACT floor. The other 

types of data mentioned do not 

represent the actual emissions or 

operation of the unit but are potential 

values in their permits or limits. Most 

units are typically operating at lower 

than permitted levels or emission limits. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to 

incorporate such data into the EPA’s 

UPL calculation because the UPL 

calculation is based on emission test 

runs of actual data, rather than limits 

based on permits. The permit or 

emission limits would be on a different 

basis and potentially skew the MACT 

floor UPL calculation. 

The EPA has also updated the 

inventory of sources based on additional 

data provided in the comment letters. 

The inventory now contains 204 SSI 

units, 60 FB units and 144 MH units. 

Given this change in population, 12 

percent of each subcategory are equal to 

8 FB units and 18 MH units. Although 

we do not have any more emissions 

information than at proposal, the change 

in inventory results in more than 12 

percent of MH units with data for PM 

and Hg. For these pollutants, we 

determined the MACT floor based on 

the best-performing 12 percent of 

emissions data, as documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge 

Incinerator Source Category’’ in the SSI 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

EPA solicited additional emission test 

reports in the NPRM. Although many 

commenters summarized the results of 

their most recent emission tests when 

comparing their site-specific emissions 

to EPA’s baseline emissions, none of the 

commenters actually provided the 

emissions test reports. The emission test 

reports are necessary for the EPA to 

review the test methods and procedures 

to ensure consistency with other 

emissions data, and to verify the tests 

represent a valid test result that can be 

used in the MACT floor analysis. 

Additionally, the test reports provide 

information necessary to correct the 

emissions measured into the units used 

for the MACT floor analysis. Therefore, 

these additional test result summaries, 

without background documentation, 

could not be used in the MACT floor 

UPL calculation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

to fill the data gap caused by the lack 

of actual emissions data from the 

required number of units in each 

subcategory, EPA applied statistical 

analysis to single test run results. 

Several commenters contended that, in 

order to enhance the data available for 

MACT development, EPA counted each 

test run as a separate data point. 

Some commenters stated that basing a 

MACT Analysis on test runs, instead of 

tests, is improper. The commenters 

noted that CAA section 129 states that 

MACT standards for existing sources 

must be as stringent as the ‘‘emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of units in, the 

category.’’ The commenters added that, 

assuming that EPA equates the term 

‘‘emissions limitation’’ with the concept 

of emission level (as often stated by 

EPA), this clause means that EPA must 

use the emission levels that have been 

achieved to set the MACT floors. The 

commenters contended that, under the 

MACT program, it takes a ‘‘minimum’’ of 

three test runs to make up a valid 

emissions level test. The commenter 

stated that a test run is not an accurate 

measure of the performance of the unit 

and should not be used as if it were. 

Commenters added that EPA should use 

the results of the test for each unit 

(comprised of at least three test runs) to 

represent what is being achieved by a 

unit. 

Several commenters contended that 

EPA must go back and reset the process 

based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI 

sources (not individual incinerators). 

The commenters added that it is 

important that individual sources, not 

units, be utilized because the 

composition of the sludge varies greatly 

from source to source and utilizing 

multiple units at one source skews the 

data development process and 

ultimately provides the basis for a 

flawed MACT standard at best. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. The 99 percent UPL values 

were calculated for each pollutant and 

for each subcategory using the test run 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 17
15388 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

data for those units in the bestperforming 12 percent. Consistent with 

EPA’s procedures on other MACT 

standards, such as HMIWI, CISWI, and 

boilers, the MACT floor emission limits 

were calculated on a run basis since 

compliance is based on the average of a 

3-run test. The 99 percent UPL 

represents the value which one can 

expect the mean of future 3-run 

performance tests form the bestperforming 12 percent of sources to fall 

below, with 99 percent confidence, 

based upon the results of the 

independent sample observations from 

the same best-performing sources. 

Variability Calculation 

For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we 

are incorporating variability in the 

MACT floor calculation for this source 

category using the 99 percent UPL. We 

are also following the same procedures 

for establishing limits and incorporating 

non-detect values as discussed in the 

NPRM. We have made three revisions to 

the variability calculation for the final 

rule. First, we revised the MACT floor 

variability calculation to incorporate 

weighted UPL’s for existing FB units. 

Second, we selected log-normal results 

when it is not clear that data are 

normally distributed. Lastly, we revised 

the CO limits based on an analysis of 

the span of the test. The weighted UPL’s 

and log-normal results are discussed in 

responses to comments. The revision to 

the CO limits based on reviewing the 

CO span was done to correct errors in 

the CO values provided in test reports 

and to be consistent with the calculation 

methods used in the CISWI and boilers 

rules. 

Carbon monoxide values obtained 

from emission test reports were 

reviewed to determine whether the span 

of the test used was capable of 

accurately reading the reported value. If 

the span was inconsistent with the 

reported value, the CO levels were 

adjusted to provide a value that was 

more consistent with the span. EPA 

Method 10 is structured such that 

measurement data quality relative to the 

calibration span of the instrument can 

be assessed. For a measurement made 

using an instrumental test method, the 

equivalent of the method detection level 

can be assessed using: a square root 

formula, the reported calibration span 

value, and the allowable data quality 

criteria (i.e. the allowable calibration 

error, bias, and drift values). The 

estimated CO measurement error 

resulting from the square root formula 

was adjusted by a factor of three to be 

consistent with the methodology EPA 

applied for non-detect data (where 

limits no less than three times the 

method detection level were 

established). 

In order to develop a basis for 

measurement error, instrument 

calibration spans in available test 

reports were reviewed. Where no span 

values could be found, it was assumed 

that if the test was conducted on or 

before May, 2008, the associated CO 

span would be 1000 ppm, and tests 

conducted after May 2008 would have 

a CO span of 100 ppm. This assumption 

was made because, before revisions 

were made to Method 10 in May of 

2008, it was common that units were 

using the prescriptive span guidance 

that was listed in the old method. The 

current version of EPA Method 10 does 

not include these span requirements but 

instead requires the tester to choose 

calibration ranges that reflect the range 

of expected emission concentrations at 

the unit. In cases where the reported 

emission concentrations were lower 

than their corresponding measurement 

errors, the default measurement errors 

were used in lieu of the reported 

concentration. 

These revisions are further 

documented in the memorandum 

‘‘Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the 

Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source 

Category’’ in the SSI docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559). Table 7 of this 

preamble shows the revised results of 

the MACT floor analysis for existing 

sources, and Table 8 of this preamble 

shows the results for new sources. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units 

MACT floor 

emission limit 

for FB 

incinerators a

MACT floor 

emission limit 

for MH 

incinerators a

Cd ............................................................................. mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 0.0016 0.095 

CO ............................................................................ ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 64 3,800 

HCl ............................................................................ ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... b 0.51 1.2 

Hg ............................................................................. mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 0.037 b 0.28 

NOX .......................................................................... ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 150 220 

Pb ............................................................................. mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 0.0074 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ .................................................... ng/dscm@7% O2 ...................................................... 0.1 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF TMB .................................................... ng/dscm@7% O2 ...................................................... 1.2 5.0 

PM ............................................................................ mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 18 80 

SO2 ........................................................................... ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 15 26 

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR ANALYSIS FOR NEW SSI UNITS

Pollutant Units 

MACT floor 

emission limit 

for FB 

incinerators a

MACT floor 

emission limit 

for MH 

incinerators a

Cd ............................................................................. mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 0.0011 0.0024 

CO ............................................................................ ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 27 52 

HCl ............................................................................ ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 0.24 c 1.2 

Hg ............................................................................. mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 0.0010 b 0.15 

NOX .......................................................................... ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 30 210 

Pb ............................................................................. mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 0.00062 0.0035 

CDD/CDF TEQ ......................................................... ng/dscm@7% O2 ...................................................... 0.0044 0.0022 

CDD/CDF TMB ......................................................... ng/dscm@7% O2 ...................................................... 0.013 0.045 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 18
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15389 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF MACT FLOOR ANALYSIS FOR NEW SSI UNITS—Continued 

Pollutant Units 

MACT floor 

emission limit 

for FB 

incinerators a

MACT floor 

emission limit 

for MH 

incinerators a

PM ............................................................................ mg/dscm@7% O2 ..................................................... 9.6 60 

SO2 ........................................................................... ppmvd@7% O2 ......................................................... 5.3 26c

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less stringent than EG. 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that because CAA section 129 

unambiguously requires EPA to set 

floors reflecting the ‘‘average’’ emission 

level achieved by the best sources, 

setting floors that instead reflect a UPL 

for those sources is unlawful. The 

commenter, added that by claiming that 

it can use the UPL for all sources in the 

top twelve percent, EPA misreads its 

authority to consider variability under 

the CAA and relevant case law. The 

commenter explained that, although 

EPA may consider variability in 

estimating an individual source’s actual 

performance over time, nothing in the 

CAA or the case law even suggests that 

EPA may account for differences in 

performance between sources except as 

section 129 provides, by averaging the 

emission levels achieved by the sources 

in the top twelve percent. 

Response: In assessing sources’ 

performance, EPA may consider 

variability both in identifying which 

performers are ‘‘best’’ and in assessing 

their level of performance. Sierra Club 

v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 875, 

881–82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also 

Mossville Environmental Action Now v. 

EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 (D.C. Cir 

2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant 

factors and available data, to determine 

the level of emissions control that has 

been achieved by the best performing 

sources considering these sources’ 

operating variability). The Brick MACT 

decision indicated that floors for 

existing sources must reflect the average 

emission limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources. The Brick MACT decision also 

reiterated that EPA may account for 

variability in setting floors; however, the 

Court found that EPA erred in assessing 

variability because it relied on data from 

the worst performers to estimate best 

performers’ variability. The Court held 

that ‘‘EPA may not use emission levels 

of the worst performers to estimate 

variability of the best performers 

without a demonstrated relationship 

between the two.’’ 479 F. 3d at 882. 

In determining the MACT floor limits, 

we first determine the floor, which, for 

existing sources, is the emissions 

limitation achieved in practice by the 

average of the top 12 percent of existing 

sources, or the level achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar 

source for new sources. In this rule, EPA 

is using lowest emissions limitation as 

the measure of best performance. We 

then assess variability of the best 

performers by using a statistical formula 

designed to estimate a MACT floor level 

based on the average of the best 

performing sources using the expected 

distribution of future compliance tests. 

We used the UPL to perform this 

calculation, as explained below. 

Variability can be accounted for using 

different statistical methods. For 

example, recent standards have used the 

UL or the UPL to determine the MACT 

floor emission limits. A UL is based on 

the distribution of the available 

emission observations (e.g., test runs), 

and does not embody a predictive 

aspect that a UPL does. A prediction 

interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future 

observation is an interval that will, with 

a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other prespecified) randomly selected 

observation from a population. In other 

words, the prediction interval estimates 

what future values will be, based on 

present or past background samples 

taken. Given this definition, the UPL 

represents the value the mean of three 

future test run observations (three-run 

average) can be expected to fall below, 

based on the results of the independent 

sample of size (n) from the same 

population. Therefore, should a future 

test condition be selected randomly 

from any of these sources (i.e., average 

of three runs), we can be 99 percent 

confident that the reported level will 

fall below a MACT floor emission limit 

calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an 

appropriate statistical tool to use in 

determining variability in the SSI data. 

For this source category, where there is 

a limited sampling of the source 

category and we do not have test data 

from all of the SSI units in the best 

performing 12% for each subcategory, 

the predictive aspect of the UPL 

calculation is especially important. 

Because the UPL represents the value 

which we can expect the mean (i.e., 

average) of three future observations 

(3-run average) to fall below, based 

upon the results of the independent 

sample size from the same population, 

the UPL reflects average emissions. The 

UPL is also consistent with other recent 

rulemakings. 

Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that, in setting MACT standards 

for existing units, EPA pooled and 

utilized data from all available test runs 

for the best performing units without 

regard to the number of data points 

available for each unit. The commenters 

added that, for all pollutants, the 

number of test runs varies from unit to 

unit. One commenter stated that using 

data this way biases the statistical 

results, and ultimately, the standards by 

over-weighting the performance of the 

units that have more data. The 

commenter suggested that EPA should 

employ an alternate methodology which 

determines the emissions limitation 

achieved for each best performing unit 

first, and then averages these limitations 

to determine the least stringent 

standard, or MACT floor. 

Response: The SSI emissions database 

for fluidized bed units contains data 

from six units at four facilities. The 

entities surveyed were requested to 

provide recent (within the previous 

5 years) emissions test reports. Most 

survey recipients provided only the 

most recent report. One facility, with 

three units, provided results of 

emissions test conducted for 

compliance reports spanning a 10-year 

period. This facility also uses the most 

advanced pollution controls on their 

fluidized bed units in the subcategory. 

This facility constitutes 70 percent of 

the Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO 

and Hg data, and 75 percent of the HCl 

data and PM data. As a result, the 

existing source MACT floors calculated 

using the UPL methodology, and all the 

test run data from the one facility, 

effectively result in calculating more 

stringent limits more akin to a new 

source MACT floor than an existing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 19
15390 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

12Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). 

‘‘NIST Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference 

Manual, Volume I: Commands’’, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology Handbook Series, 

June 2003. [Available at http://www.itl.nist.gov/

div898/software/dataplot/document.html] 

source MACT floor, because it is based 

primarily on only the emissions 

performance of the best-performing 

single source, rather than the average of 

the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources. In order to adequately 

incorporate the emissions from the bestperforming SSI units in the fluidized 

bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was 

used for calculating the existing source 

MACT floors for the final rule. The 

weighted UPL is calculated from a 

weighted mean and weighted variance 

as described below. 

There are many different types of 

weighting procedures. We have chosen 

the most straightforward methodology, 

to base it on the number of data points 

(i.e., test runs) from each SSI unit.12

This weighting scheme ensures that no 

facility in the MACT best performers 

pool is over-represented in the 

computation of the MACT floor. The 

first step in weighting procedure is to 

assign a weighting factor to each test run 

by multiplying each observation for 

source i and run j with a weight term, 

wij, as shown in Equation 1 of this 

preamble: 

Where: 

Mi= Number of observations (i.e., runs) for 

source i and 

N= Number of best performing sources in the 

MACT pool. 

The second step is to calculate the 

mean and total variance for the 

weighted data from the weight terms 

using Equations 2 and 3 of this 

preamble: 

Where: is the total number of observations in the 

MACT best performers pool. 

When the weights are equal to one, 

the above equations reduce to those for 

un-weighted data, as expected. As 

shown in Equation 4 of this preamble, 

the weighted mean and weighted 

variance are then used in the UPL 

calculation (discussed in the NPRM) 

instead of the simple (i.e., un-weighted) 

mean and variance. 

For multiple hearth units, there are 

more emissions data from a larger 

number of facilities/units. For example, 

we have data on Cd and Pb from 11 

facilities with 14 units, Hg from 11 

facilities with 18 units. The MACT floor 

calculations are not skewed by one or 

two units or facilities. Consequently, the 

MACT floor for existing multiple hearth 

units does not need to be calculated 

using a weighted UPL. 

The revisions to the MACT floor 

methodology are discussed in detail in 

the memorandum ‘‘Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge 

Incinerator Source Category’’ in the SSI 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that EPA should determine the MACT 

floor emission limits to be consistent 

with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality 

Assessment Manual, which holds that it 

is more likely that environmental data 

are distributed log-normally. The 

commenter considered it reasonable to 

believe that environmental emission 

distributions are non-normal, since 

frequency plots typically show many 

readings approaching zero and fewer 

large readings forming an elongated tail 

to the right. The commenter concluded 

that normal distributions may exist for 

certain pollutants where the entire 

dataset is many standard deviations 

away from zero, and values are 

controlled by an air pollution control 

process with set points and feedback 

and control loops. 

Response: We have reviewed the 

document referenced and agree with the 

commenter that the referenced 

document shows that environmental 

data are more likely to be log-normally 

distributed than normally distributed. In 

the proposed rule, two statistical 

measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER21MR11.014</GPH> ER21MR11.015</GPH> ER21MR11.016</GPH> ER21MR11.017</GPH> ER21MR11.018</GPH>

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 20
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15391 

to calculate the MACT floor were 

normally or log-normally distributed. If 

both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values 

had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 

indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was 

selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests 

were mixed for the reported values and 

the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the 

reported data values was chosen to be 

conservative. 

Based on ‘‘Guidance for Data Quality 

Assessment: Practical Methods for Data 

Analysis’’ EPA/600/R–96/084, July 

2000, we have modified our 

assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not 

clearly show whether a normal or lognormal distribution better represents the 

data, or when there are not enough data 

to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to 

use the log-normal results for the final 

MACT floor calculation. 

Comment: Some commenters 

contended that EPA incorrectly 

presumes that stack test results account 

for the full variability of a SSI’s 

performance. Several commenters stated 

that emissions from SSI units are 

affected not just by control technology 

but also by other factors including the 

contents of the sludge that a unit is 

burning. Many commenters urged EPA 

to determine the MACT floor limits by 

incorporating the variability of the 

sludge contents. The commenters added 

that the methodology in developing the 

proposed standards does not take into 

account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2

emissions are a function of the sludge 

content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and 

sulfur. The commenters expressed 

concern that the limits were based on 

test results obtained with sludge 

containing very low concentration of 

metals, chlorides, and sulfur. The 

commenter explained that if the sludge 

burned during an emissions test was not 

at or near the maximum constituent 

concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal 

variability), a new source emission limit 

based on these data could not be 

achieved over the full range of expected 

normal operating conditions confronted 

by the best performing source. 

The commenters contended that EPA 

must consider all available data 

(including Part 503 data) for the best 

performing source and use that to 

establish a variability factor applied to 

the stack test data. The commenters 

added that EPA’s request for metals data 

during the stack test is insufficient to 

account for the full intra-source 

variability. The commenters added that 

variability for the compounds not 

regulated by Part 503 must also be 

accounted for as well before setting the 

new source limit. 

The commenters explained that 

POTW, and their SSI units, are 

statutorily obligated to manage all of the 

sewage that enters into the sanitary 

sewer system, resulting in highly 

variable and often unpredictable spikes 

in concentrations. The commenters 

continued that POTW inlet 

concentrations also vary based on the 

nature and type of dischargers. The 

commenters explained that POTW treat 

wastewater from residential, 

commercial and industrial dischargers 

in varying degrees, and pretreatment 

opportunities also vary because POTW 

authority to control discharges into the 

sewer system is limited and the way 

that authority is exercised varies. The 

commenters also noted that the nature 

of sewage entering the POTW changes 

over time as the character of a 

community changes, the age of the 

population changes, and commercial 

and industrial dischargers come and go. 

The commenters added that without the 

use of long-term data to support the 

level of emission standards, this 

variability makes numeric technologybased limits impractical and infeasible. 

The commenters also explained that 

POTW also face significant regional and 

seasonal variability that is not captured 

by EPA’s dataset. The commenters 

stated that initial high flow periods in 

the spring often scour the sewers and 

dislodge heavier material that has 

settled in the sewer system during lowflow periods, which often results in a 

spike in metals concentrations (e.g., Hg, 

Cd, Pb) in the sewage sludge. The 

commenters noted that the ICR stack 

tests in January and February that were 

used for the EPA database would not 

have captured these events. The 

commenter also noted that northern 

cities that use salt for de-icing roadways 

experience significant increases in 

chlorides during the winter months, and 

high chloride concentrations are known 

to improve the effectiveness of Hg 

control at existing wet scrubbers. 

Response: The variability analysis is 

based on emissions information 

gathered from nine different facilities 

located in nine different states. The 

facilities we collected emissions 

information from are located in a mix of 

northern, southern, eastern, and western 

states. Each facility has its own unique 

sludge characteristics from different 

residential and commercial populations. 

We agree that the emissions data 

represents a ‘‘point in time’’. However, 

combined together, they represent 

sufficient variation in regions, climates 

and populations that adequately 

incorporates variability in wastewater 

treatment systems across the U.S. We 

have also incorporated variability using 

the UPL. The variability analysis based 

on the emissions data collected 

adequately characterizes the potential 

differences in sludge contents and 

regional differences. Because we have a 

mixture of southern and northern states 

in the emissions database, we believe 

that it also adequately considers 

differences between cold and warm 

weather climates. Additionally, we did 

not have sufficient information at 

proposal to consider if it were 

appropriate to incorporate variability 

based on sludge content. We requested 

additional information in the NPRM, 

but did not receive adequate sampling 

data from the best-performing sources. 

Comment: Some commenters claimed 

that EPA’s identification of the relevant 

best performing units for both existing 

and new unit standards is both unlawful 

and arbitrary, and EPA may not use 

sources’ control technology as a proxy 

for their actual performance unless 

‘‘pollution control technology is the only 

factor determining emission levels.’’ 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 

255 F.3d 855. 863 (DC Cir. 2001). The 

commenters stated that, in Cement Kiln 

Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855 (DC Cir 2001) (‘‘CKRC’’), the Court 

considered Sierra Club’s challenge that 

EPA could not set the floors based 

solely on the performance of one 

method: Add-on technology. The 

commenters added that the Court 

remanded the rule because EPA did not 

consider all of the ways facilities control 

emissions. The commenters stated that 

this requirement is consistent with 

doing a more complete study as 

required by section 111 and is 

antithetical to a methodology based 

solely on emission levels since setting 

the floor in this fashion does not require 

EPA to examine all methods of control. 

The commenters concluded that EPA’s 

performance data approach in this rule 

may violate CKRC because EPA did not 

check for all methods that sources use 

to reduce pollution. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter who alleges that EPA has 

not properly identified the best 

performing SSI units for purposes of 

calculating MACT floor limits. As 

explained above, EPA targeted its 

emissions testing requests to units it 

believed had the lowest emissions, 

while accounting for factors such as 

sludge content and seasonal variation by 

selecting units in different geographic 

areas of the country. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 21
15392 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA further notes that SSI units 

currently employ non-technology 

measures (pollution prevention) to 

reduce emissions to comply with CWA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 503. These 

regulations establish daily average 

concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and 

other metals in sewage sludge that is 

disposed of by incineration. Part 503 

also requires that SSI meet the National 

Emission Standards for Beryllium and 

Hg in subparts C and E, respectively, of 

40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 

CFR part 503 standards, facilities are 

already incorporating management 

practices and measures to reduce waste 

and limit the concentration of pollutants 

in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as 

segregating contaminated and 

uncontaminated wastes and establishing 

discharge limits or pre-treatment 

standards for non-domestic users 

discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus, 

the facilities from which EPA received 

emissions test results are already 

applying non-technology measures to 

reduce emissions. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that if EPA employs the statistical limit 

to set MACT floor emission limits, it 

should use the 99.9 percent limit. The 

commenter stated that the 99.9 percent 

UPL represents a 0.1 percent probability 

of a failure for individual tests, or a one 

percent per unit non-compliance 

probability per annual performance test 

program. The commenter concluded 

that this value better encompasses unit 

emissions variability and represents a 

manageable risk to the responsible 

facility operator. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters. For the final standards, we 

maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is 

appropriate and sufficiently addresses 

variability in the emissions information. 

Our analysis of variability is explained 

in detail in the memorandum ‘‘Revised 

MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage 

Sludge Incinerator Source Category’’ in 

the SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0559). 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed an opacity limit of zero percent 

because opacity is a subjective 

measurement and no unit can meet 

opacity limits of zero at all times. 

Another commenter suggested that 

control and monitoring of PM is 

sufficient. 

Response: We agree that a no visible 

emissions (zero opacity) limit for 

combustion processes is impractical for 

both compliance and enforcement 

purposes. We also believe that a 

measurable opacity may or may not be 

indicative of compliance with a PM 

emissions limit when applied to 

multiple sources within the category. 

That is, an opacity limit applied to one 

facility could very readily correspond to 

a PM emissions level different than that 

same opacity limit applied to another 

facility and one or both may be emitting 

above the PM limit. That opacity limits 

do not apply very well when wet 

control devices are used further 

confounds the benefit of such regulatory 

limits. We also agree that there are both 

CEMS and site-specific parametric 

monitoring approaches applicable to 

various control devices that can be more 

closely aligned with PM control and 

compliance with the PM emissions limit 

than would an opacity limit and opacity 

monitoring. Instead of establishing 

opacity limits that may or may not 

assure compliance with PM emissions 

limits, the final rules include rigorous 

requirements for establishing sitespecific operating limits derived from 

the results of performance testing. The 

rules also include a requirement that 

sources update those enforceable 

operating limits with each repeated 

performance test. Re-establishing 

operating limits periodically will assure 

that the monitoring will continue to 

indicate compliance with the PM 

emissions limits. The rules also provide 

the source the option of apply CEMS to 

monitor directly the pollutant of interest 

in lieu of parametric monitoring. We 

believe that continuous compliance 

with operating limits and periodic stack 

testing to verify the operating limits 

plus the CEMS option will ensure that 

sources demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the PM emission limits 

more effectively than would periodic or 

continuous monitoring of a broadly 

applicable opacity limit. 

Format of the Standards 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA develop emission 

limits for some pollutants in different 

units or to provide a control efficiency 

alternative. The commenters expressed 

concern that the use of concentration 

limits would not reflect the variability 

of the unique sludge characteristics of 

each SSI unit, and may unfairly 

penalize units with very low or very 

high feed concentrations of certain 

pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or Pb. Some 

commenters suggested establishing 

limits similar to the EPA 503 

regulations, which provided emission 

limits based on control efficiencies 

coupled with feed concentration limits. 

Response: We did not have sufficient 

data to set alternative control efficiency 

standards or standards in other units at 

proposal. We requested additional 

information in the proposal. However, 

sufficient data were not provided in 

response to our request for alternative 

formats to be developed. 

D. Baseline Emissions 

Comment: Commenters stated that 

EPA overestimated baseline emissions 

because EPA used incorrect air flow rate 

parameters, pollution control device 

efficiencies, sludge feed rates, and 

operating hours. Many commenters 

provided stack test data, emission 

estimates, and corrections to the EPA’s 

SSI inventory database. Other 

commenters noted that EPA used 

uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow 

rate factors in combination with 

pollutant concentrations corrected to 

seven percent oxygen. 

Response: We have incorporated 

corrections to the inventory and 

calculation inputs provided by the 

commenters where applicable. In some 

cases, commenters did not provide 

information sufficient for us to revise 

the inventory or calculation inputs for 

the commenter’s facility. For example, 

commenters may have provided an 

average concentration for a pollutant, 

but did not provide run-specific 

information that would allow us to 

convert the concentration information 

provided to standardized units (7 

percent oxygen). Other commenters may 

have provided emission rates in pounds 

per hour, but did not provide vent gas 

flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture 

content to convert to concentration 

units. None of the commenters provided 

test reports that would have include this 

information. 

We have also revised the calculation 

of baseline emissions by revising the 

defaults assigned to SSI units where 

information was not available. Defaults 

were necessary to be assigned because, 

even after new data were received in 

comments, a significant number of units 

did not have data on sludge capacity, 

flue gas flow rates, etc. A detailed 

discussion of the methodology used to 

estimate baseline emissions for the final 

standards is presented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Estimation of 

Baseline Emissions from Existing 

Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units’’(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). The 

revisions to the inventory and other 

corrections resulted in the final rule 

baseline emissions shown in Table 9 of 

this preamble. The table shows a range 

of emissions for each pollutant. The 

lower bound represents an estimation of 

actual emissions based on the actual dry 

sludge feed rates commenters indicated 

their units were running. The upper 

bound represents an estimation of 

potential emissions if the sludge feed 

rate was at the dry sludge capacity of 

each unit. We estimated the potential 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 22
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15393 

emissions because the amount of 

wastewater treated (and sludge 

produced) may vary significantly based 

on changes in population or sources of 

wastewater. Facilities have the potential 

to burn up to their units permitted 

capacity although they may not be doing 

so currently. 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED BASELINE EMISSIONS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS

Pollutant 

Range of baseline emissions by 

subcategory (TPY) Range of total 

baseline 

emissions (TPY) FB MH 

Cd .............................................................................................................................. 0.0022–0.0015 0.91–1.2 0.91–1.2 

CO .............................................................................................................................. 73–100 8,400–11,500 8,500–11,600 

HCl ............................................................................................................................. 1.6–2.2 26–41 28–43 

Hg .............................................................................................................................. 0.040–0.058 0.85–1.15 0.9–1.2 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 320–480 2,100–2,800 2,400–3,300 

Pb ............................................................................................................................... 0.0056–0.0077 2.4–3.1 2.4–3.1 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ a ................................................................................................... 0.00012–0.00016 0.00076–0.0010 0.0009–0.0012 

PCDD/PCDF TMBa ................................................................................................... 0.0014–0.0020 0.011–0.015 0.013–0.017 

PM .............................................................................................................................. 25–37 310–410 330–450 

SO2 ............................................................................................................................ 43–57 660–1,020 700–1,100 

aBaseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF. 

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA reconsider the 

beyond-the-floor Hg limit for MH units 

because baseline Hg emissions were 

overstated and costs for Hg control were 

understated. Many of the commenters 

contended that carbon injection is an 

unproven technology for SSI units, and 

is currently used at only one facility 

with FB units. The commenters added 

that the facility is undergoing significant 

issues with the technology. 

Commenters also contended that Hg 

removal using carbon injection cannot 

be accomplished with existing PM 

controls, such as venturi scrubbers, and 

that FFs would be necessary. The 

commenters added that the high 

moisture content in the form of liquid 

droplets from the incinerator will plug 

FFs, and additional equipment may be 

necessary to keep the temperature above 

the dew point, such as an afterburner. 

Response: We have revised the 

beyond-the-floor analysis to incorporate 

changes made to the baseline emissions, 

new facility specific data and inputs 

provided by commenters, and revised 

control options. We analyzed several 

beyond-the-floor controls for the final 

rule. First, we evaluated the use of an 

afterburner for control of CO at MH 

units. We then evaluated whether 

additional control of Hg should be 

required at MH units. We have reviewed 

the commenters concerns regarding Hg 

control technologies and agree that 

applying carbon injection to existing 

scrubbers has not been demonstrated to 

be effective at removing Hg. For 

combustion sources that are not SSI, 

such as boilers, carbon injection in 

combination with a FF has proven to be 

highly effective in removing Hg. 

However, for high moisture flue gas 

streams, such as emitted from SSI units, 

the use of FFs is problematic due to 

plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon 

injection with a FF with high moisture 

streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, or 

afterburner is necessary to maintain a 

high enough temperature to keep the 

stream above the dew point prior to 

sending the stream to the FF. 

Therefore, we next evaluated the 

combination of using an afterburner, 

carbon injection, and FF for additional 

control of Hg at MH units. Additional 

equipment may also be necessary to 

reduce the temperature of the flue gas to 

prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. 

Sufficient information was not collected 

to estimate this cost. Table 10 of this 

preamble summarizes the cost for 

existing SSI units to apply different 

controls that were analyzed. 

TABLE 10—COSTS EXPECTED FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS TO APPLY MACT CONTROLS ANALYZED

[2008$] 

Control analyzed Total capital costs 

(million $) 

Total annualized 

costs 

(million ($/yr) a

1—MACT Floor ........................................................................................................................................ 55 18 

2—MACT Floor + Afterburner for MH units ............................................................................................ 155 46 

3—MACT Floor + Afterburner and Activated carbon injection and FF for MH units .............................. 490 138 

a Calculated using a seven percent discount factor. 

Table 11 of this preamble summarizes 

the emission reductions of each 

pollutant for various controls analyzed. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 23
15394 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING UNITS TO APPLY THE MACT CONTROLS ANALYZED

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions for MACT Controls Analyzed (TPY) 

MACT floor MACT floor + afterburner for MH units 

MACT floor + afterburner + ACI and FF for 

MH units 

Cd ................................................................................................ 0.5–0.6 0.5–0.6 0.87–1.1 

CO ................................................................................................ 0 6,900–9,300 6,900–9,300 

HCl ............................................................................................... 19–30 19–30 19–30 

Hg ................................................................................................ 0.0022–0.0025 0.0022–0.0025 0.67–0.89 

NOX .............................................................................................. 6.8–16 6.8–16 6.8–16 

Pb ................................................................................................. 1.2–1.5 1.2–1.5 2.3–2.9 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ ....................................................................... 0 0 0.0000003–0.0000004 

PCDD/PCDF TMB ....................................................................... 0 0 0.000005–0.000007 

PM ................................................................................................ 58–70 58–70 300–400 

SO2 .............................................................................................. 430–700 430–700 430–700 

The results provided in Tables 10 and 

11 of this preamble were calculated 

using data gathered for each source (e.g., 

emissions, vent gas flow rates, controls 

currently used), as well as default 

values for emissions, sludge capacity, 

and vent gas flow rate for sources where 

data were unavailable. We estimate that 

requiring the use of an afterburner for 

MH units not already having an 

afterburner could require as much as 

1,010 million cubic feet of natural gas a 

year to be burned, resulting in NOX and 

CO emissions of 51 and 43 TPY, 

respectively. We estimate that applying 

activated carbon injection with a FF and 

an afterburner or RTO to all MH units 

to control Hg and PCDD/PCDF would 

result in total annualized costs of $138 

million dollars (using a discount rate of 

seven percent) and would achieve Hg 

reductions of 0.67–0.89 TPY. The 

incremental cost-effectiveness of adding 

afterburners/RTO, activated carbon 

injection, and FFs to all MH units is 

estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per 

pound of Hg removed. Costs would 

increase if equipment necessary to cool 

the flue gas is also necessary. Therefore, 

given these factors, we are not finalizing 

any beyond-the-floor requirements for 

SSI units. 

We also analyzed going beyond-thefloor to require packed bed scrubbers for 

additional HCl and SO2 reduction, a wet 

ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb 

reduction, and SNCR for additional NOX

reduction. We determined that it was 

not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor 

to achieve greater reduction of HCl, SO2, 

PM, Cd, Pb, and NOX considering the 

cost and secondary impacts incurred. 

Our beyond-the-floor analyses for the 

final standards are documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Analysis of 

Beyond the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Controls for Existing SSI Units’’ (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

Comment: Commenters contended 

that EPA had underestimated the cost of 

the proposed rule for the beyond-thefloor option of Hg control as well as for 

the MACT floor for other pollutants 

because it only has information for less 

than 12 percent of the SSI units. The 

commenters added that EPA used 

information from these limited sources 

and applied it to remaining sources for 

which they did not have. The 

commenters contended that this results 

inaccurate determinations of which 

units could meet the proposed emission 

limits and which could not. The 

commenters contended that EPA 

overestimated the number of sources 

that could meet the proposed standards 

resulting in a significant 

underestimation of controls. 

Some commenters also contended 

that EPAs choices of controls to cost for 

compliance with the proposed 

standards were inappropriate for SSI 

units. Many commenters stated that the 

high moisture content of flue gas 

streams in some applications may mean 

that FFs would not be an appropriate 

control for PM, Cd, or Pb. 

Response: EPA is not prescribing a 

specific control technology or method. 

A source is required to meet the final 

emissions limits in these standards, and 

has the flexibility to use the control 

method or technology that is best suited 

for their individual facility. EPA’s costs 

are estimated based on technologies we 

believe may be appropriate for the 

sources to meet the emissions limits. 

At proposal, and for the final 

standards, we estimated costs and 

emissions reductions based on the best 

available information to us. We 

acknowledge that the inventory 

database did not have complete 

information for all 204 SSI units. 

Consequently, we developed defaults 

for flue gas flow rate, hours of operation, 

sludge capacity, and other inputs for the 

proposed rule. We have updated our 

analyses using data provided by the 

commenters as summarized in section 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal and the 

memorandum titled, ‘‘Post-Proposal SSI 

Database Revisions and Data Gap Filling 

Methodology’’ in the docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559). However, for a 

number of inputs, we are still assigning 

default values where data were not 

available for each SSI. For the final rule, 

we have correlated some of the defaults 

to populations served by the facilities in 

order to better estimate costs and 

emission reductions more specifically to 

each facility. Sources will have the best 

idea of the costs of controls for their site 

specific conditions. For some sources, 

the costs and emission reductions 

estimated by EPA may be higher than 

what the source estimates, and for 

others they will be less. EPA’s estimates 

are estimates based on the best 

information available to us. We also 

note that the MACT floor costs and 

emission reductions, and determination 

of the number of sources estimated to 

require control, estimated for the final 

rule are also based on the revised MACT 

floor limits. 

For the final standards we have also 

revised the types of controls costed to 

meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI that 

we estimate will need further control of 

PM, Cd, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, 

we have costed out wet ESP as a more 

appropriate PM control for high 

moisture streams. We have also costed 

out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will 

need further control of NOX to meet the 

MACT floor limits. As at proposal, we 

have costed out packed scrubbers for 

SSI that we estimate will need further 

control of HCl or SO2. At the MACT 

floor level, we do not estimate that any 

SSI will need to add control for Hg, 

PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A detailed 

discussion of the costs and emissions 

reductions estimates for the final 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 24
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15395 

standards is provided in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Cost and 

Emission Reduction of the MACT Floor 

Level of Control’’ in the SSI docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

Comment: Commenters contended 

that EPA had incorrectly calculated the 

costs of the landfilling alternative 

because it used dry tons of sewage 

sludge instead of wet tons. The 

commenters added that wet tons is the 

appropriate basis of the sludge because 

even after the dewatering process, the 

sludge contains 70 to 80 percent 

moisture. Many of the commenters 

provided estimates for landfilling sludge 

from their specific unit. The 

commenters added that because of the 

error, EPA has significantly 

underestimated the impacts from 

transporting sludge by truck. Other 

commenters added that EPA had not 

evaluated the negative social impact of 

hauling sludge to a landfill. Some 

commenters added that EPA did not 

consider the additional costs for specific 

state landfilling regulations. 

Several commenters contended that 

EPA incorrectly estimated the on-site 

sludge storage requirements because 

calculations were not done on a wet 

basis. Commenters added that the cost 

of the storage units would be significant 

and would need to include odor control 

as well as a settling basin. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

regarding the availability of landfills to 

POTW needing disposal sites. The 

commenters contended there was 

insufficient landfill capacity to handle 

the influx of sewage sludge. 

Response: We have revised our costs 

and impacts of the landfill alternative 

based on comments received on the 

proposal and corrections made to the 

analysis. Table 14 of this preamble 

summarizes the revised costs and 

impacts of this alternative if small 

entities choose to landfill rather than 

incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed 

discussion of the landfilling alternative 

analysis is provided in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Cost and 

Emission Reduction of the MACT Floor 

Level of Control’’ in the SSI docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is 

unlikely that many sources will find 

landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

The selection of a management option 

for sewage sludge is often a local 

decision that is based on environmental 

protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic 

conditions. Given a full evaluation of 

these factors, for some sources, 

landfilling or land treatment may be a 

better management option than 

incineration. 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

disagreed with EPA’s proposed language 

requiring facilities to meet the proposed 

SSI standards ‘‘at all times’’ because it 

would be difficult to comply with 

certain proposed emission limits during 

startup and shutdown. Many of these 

commenters were specifically 

concerned about not being able to meet 

the proposed CO concentration limit 

upon startup of a SSI because when a 

heat up burner system is fired into a 

cold vessel, the flame tip is quenched 

before the combustion is completed 

creating a small flow of CO. One 

commenter contended that EPA is 

proposing a new source CO standard 

without any evidence that it can be 

achieved during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction. This commenter provided 

an example of CO data from one 

hazardous waste combustor that 

averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal 

operations but averaged 48.6 ppmv 

during startup, 40.5 ppmv during 

shutdown, and 815.5 during 

malfunctions. The commenters stated 

that absolute pollutant levels tend to 

increase during startup and shutdown 

due to incomplete combustion that is 

unavoidable at lower temperatures, and 

noted that the influence of unstable 

combustion may be more pronounced 

during shutdowns as the incinerator 

combusts the remaining sewage sludge 

for 30 minutes or more. The 

commenters recommended that EPA 

account for situations where higher 

emissions occur during the time it takes 

to bring control equipment from startup 

to steady-state operations. 

Response: At this time, we are not 

promulgating a separate emission 

standard for the source category that 

applies during periods of startup and 

shutdown. We do not have data that 

would allow us to set a separate 

standard during periods of startup and 

shutdown. We requested information in 

the NPRM. However, no data were 

provided. Based on the information 

available at this time, we believe that 

SSI units will be able to meet the 

emission limits during periods of 

startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate 

oil to start the unit and add waste once 

the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning 

natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel 

oil are expected to generally be lower 

than from burning solid wastes. 

Emissions during periods of shutdown 

are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the 

materials in the incinerator would be 

almost fully combusted before 

shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors 

for SSI units ranked individual SSI 

units based on actual performance for 

each pollutant and subcategory, with an 

appropriate accounting of emissions 

variability. Because we accounted for 

emissions variability, we believe we 

have adequately addressed any minor 

variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, EPA has 

determined that malfunctions should 

not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that 

occur at such times were not needed to 

be factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times. We note 

that continuous compliance is 

demonstrated using continuous 

parametric monitoring, except for CO 

from new sources. CO CEMS are 

required for new source using a 24-hour 

block average. 

Comment: Some commenters argued 

that EPA incorrectly claims that its 

authority to prescribe unique standards 

for SSM periods is constrained by Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008). These commenters stated that 

EPA has failed to account adequately for 

emissions that occur during SSM 

periods. One commenter contended that 

the Sierra Club decision interpreted 

CAA section 112, not CAA section 129 

(which incorporates, by reference, CAA 

section 111), and pointed out that this 

interpretation is not merely a technical 

distinction. The commenter pointed out 

that since 1977, EPA has exempted 

emissions during SSM events from 

compliance with NSPS under CAA 

section 111 (referenced 40 CFR 60.8(c)). 

The commenter argued that Congress 

enacted the continuous basis language 

in section 302(k) knowing that EPA‘s 

emissions standards under section 111 

exempted SSM periods, and pointed out 

that there is nothing in the legislative 

history of the 1977 amendments to the 

CAA that suggests congress intended to 

overturn that practice. 

Response: As explained above, EPA 

believes the reasoning in the DC 

Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 

applies equally to section 129. 

Additionally, EPA explains above the 

reasons it is not establishing different 

emissions standards for periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

H. Compliance Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters 

indicated that the proposed operating 

parameter ranges for minimum pressure 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 25
15396 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum 

scrubber liquid flow rate, minimum 

scrubber liquid pH, and minimum 

combustion temperature (or minimum 

afterburner temperature) would not be 

achievable. They explained that these 

ranges are too narrow and that they will 

be inconsistent with the operating 

standards already required by 40 CFR 

part 60 subpart O, 40 CFR part 503, and 

state permits. Two commenters agreed 

with the proposed operating parameter 

ranges. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the 

information provided by the 

commenters and determined that 

proposed procedure for establishing the 

operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the 

average of three test runs and as 90 

percent of the minimum value recorded 

during the applicable performance tests) 

may be too restrictive on control device 

operations in terms of energy or other 

operating needs. We determined that the 

operating limits should be more 

appropriately based on values recorded 

during the performance test runs. The 

final rule requires that operating limits 

be established on a site-specific basis as 

the minimum (or maximum, as 

appropriate) operating parameter value 

measured during the performance test. 

This approach has been incorporated 

into the final rule for all operating 

parameters and will result in achievable 

operating ranges that will ensure that 

the control devices used for compliance 

will be operated to achieve continuous 

compliance with the emissions limits. 

Comment: Many commenters argued 

that the proposed operating range for 

sludge feed rate would not be 

achievable, that it results in the EPA 

changing the current state-permitted 

maximum sludge feed rate, and that it 

could force SSI units to conduct 

performance tests at maximum rated 

capacity. They explained that the 

proposed approach fails to take into 

account the normal feed condition and 

rate variation that occur on a daily and 

seasonal basis. A few commenters 

suggested that charging a SSI at 75 

percent to 90 percent of its rated 

capacity results in a steadier state of 

control and more efficient combustion 

of the sludge. 

Many commenters indicated that the 

proposed operating range for sludge 

moisture content would not be 

achievable and that EPA does not need 

sludge moisture content to determine 

whether SSI units are in compliance 

with their emission limits. They 

explained that sludge moisture is very 

sensitive to the type of dewatering 

equipment used, seasonal changes in 

the sewage or sludge received by a SSI, 

temperature changes, the biological 

systems that treat the sewage, and to 

operational changes, and that these 

changes cannot always be anticipated 

and are not always immediately 

correctable. 

Response: The EPA reviewed its 

decision at proposal to require that SSI 

units maintain the sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content of the 

incinerated sludge within specified 

ranges. We determined that the 

operating limit for temperature of the 

combustion chamber (or afterburner 

temperature) is sufficient to ensure good 

combustion practice, and that moisture 

content is not needed to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. If a SSI has a higher 

moisture content, the SSI will need to 

use more fuel to comply with their 

operating limit for temperature of the 

combustion chamber. We are no longer 

requiring that SSI units maintain sludge 

moisture content within specified 

ranges. We are also no longer requiring 

SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates 

within specified ranges due to the 

seasonal variability at wastewater 

treatment plants. Sludge feed rate 

information is necessary during 

performance test runs to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with the 

new requirement that they conduct 

performance tests at 85 percent 

capacity. We are retaining the 

requirement to keep daily records of 

sludge feed rates and moisture contents, 

as SSI units should already be keeping 

records of these parameters, and this 

information will be useful in 

establishing representative operating 

limitations for a SSI unit. 

EPA added a requirement that 

performance tests be conducted at 85 

percent of the permitted maximum 

capacity. This level has been selected 

based on the performance test operating 

information provided by the 

commenters and previous EPA 

standards. 

Comment: A few commenters 

indicated that the 4-hour rolling 

averaging period selected in the 

proposed rule for determining 

compliance with the operating 

parameters and CO limit was more 

burdensome and difficult to achieve. 

They explained that the recordkeeping 

and compliance burden is less if the 

averaging period for CEMS and CPMS 

are both based on a 24-hour block 

average. They also explained that the 

proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling 

average basis would be unachievable 

with MH incinerators and difficult to 

achieve with FB incinerators. 

Response: The EPA has determined 

that a 24-hour block averaging period 

for compliance with the CO CEMS 

requirement for new sources will 

provide a sufficient indication of 

compliance and will allow more 

flexibility for facilities. Additionally, 

the proposed CO emission guidelines 

limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized 

bed SSI units has changed in the final 

guidelines to 27 ppm, and this change 

is discussed in Section IV of this 

preamble. We have also revised the 

averaging periods for all other operating 

parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, 

to be on a 12-hour block average instead 

of a 4-hour rolling average basis in order 

to relate the averaging time for operating 

limits to the duration of the 

performance tests (e.g., a three run test 

of 4 hour test runs would equal a 12- 

hour averaging time). For scrubber 

liquid pH, we chose 3-hour averages to 

be consistent with the performance test 

duration for acid gas scrubbers. 

In the final rule, we are also not 

incorporating the alternative THC 

compliance requirement. Section 129 

requires that limits be set for each of the 

9 regulated pollutants. Surrogates, such 

as THC, cannot be used in place of the 

regulated pollutants. 

Comment: Many commenters 

disagreed with the requirement in the 

proposed rule for annual testing, and 

argued that annual testing of each SSI is 

not needed to demonstrate compliance, 

too costly, and inconsistent with current 

Title V permits. They also argued that 

Method 22 compliance testing for 

fugitive ash emissions is not feasible or 

difficult to conduct due to space 

constraints, and that many FB 

incinerators utilize wet ash removal 

systems that do not require annual 

testing. They explained that the cost for 

emissions testing may be significantly 

higher than the proposed cost of 

$61,000 per unit. They further 

explained that Title V permits require 

facilities to test each of its SSI units 

once per 5 years. They pointed out that 

current management practices and strict 

health-based sludge content limits 

under the CWA section 405 and the 

CAA 40 CFR part 503 regulations will 

help ensure that SSI units are in 

compliance with their emission limits. 

One commenter pointed out that the 

proposed compliance schedule of every 

10 to 12 months will essentially shorten 

the testing year by one month each year. 

Response: The proposed standards 

included provisions for less frequent 

testing. In the final standards, EPA has 

revised these provisions, making it 

easier for facilities to qualify for less 

frequent testing, allowing less frequent 

testing for more pollutants, and 

ensuring that facilities that do less 

frequent testing are well below their 

emission limits. In the final standards, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 26
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15397 

owners or operators are required to 

establish that emissions of a given 

pollutant are under a specified 

threshold for two consecutive years, 

rather than 3 years as proposed, to 

qualify for less frequent testing for that 

pollutant. We have also extended the 

option to do less frequent testing to 

PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions 

testing. The threshold is 75 percent of 

the emission limit for each of the nine 

regulated pollutants. In order to allow a 

decrease in testing frequency, EPA must 

have assurance that SSI units can meet 

a more stringent threshold than the 

limits. This is particularly necessary 

because of the variability in sludge that 

may occur at wastewater treatment 

facilities. Additionally, in the final 

standards we are also providing 

assurance that the SSI unit is being 

operated properly and emission limits 

are being met continuously by requiring 

stringent parametric monitoring 

requirements. Specifically, exceedances 

of the minimum or maximum values 

established during the performance tests 

are considered deviations. For fugitive 

emissions from ash handling, owners or 

operators must demonstrate that visible 

emissions occur no more than 2 percent 

of the time during each Method 22 1- 

hour observation period. This allowance 

for fugitive ash emissions has been 

included in the final standards with a 

new requirement that all facilities must 

submit a monitoring plan at least 60 

days before their initial compliance test 

to establish that their ash handling 

system will continuously meet the 

visible emissions limit. 

Additionally, to allow facilities more 

flexibility regarding their test dates, to 

ensure that facilities are not forced to 

test at intervals less than 12 months, 

and to ensure that facilities are testing 

once per year, we have revised the 

testing schedule provisions. In the final 

standards, performance tests (except for 

pollutants that qualify for less frequent 

testing) must be conducted on a 

calendar year basis (no less than nine 

calendar months and no more than 15 

calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and facilities must 

complete five performance tests per 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that the definition of ‘‘process 

change’’ be revised to exclude the 

provision that a process change include 

an increase in the allowable wastewater 

received from an industrial source. They 

pointed out that any such increase 

would trigger a performance test, as 

required by the proposed standards, and 

that such increases did not warrant a retest. They explained that industrial 

discharges often constitute only a small 

percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 

3.5 percent, four to eight percent), that 

such discharges are sometimes from 

sources that do not discharge the 

pollutants regulated by the proposed 

NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food 

processing facilities), that some 

merchant SSI facilities regularly receive 

variable amounts of sludge from other 

regional wastewater treatment plants 

and POTW, and that it is difficult for 

impossible to anticipate some industrial 

load changes ahead of time. Several 

commenters argued that this proposed 

requirement would be redundant to the 

National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 

CFR part 403, which are incorporated 

into their SSI’s National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit, which require them to establish 

local limits on industrial discharges to 

prevent interference with sludge 

processes, use, and disposal. The 

commenters anticipate that they would 

establish similar limits to prevent 

noncompliance with the final emission 

limits. A few commenters suggested that 

the proposed provision for industrial 

discharges is vague and open to 

interpretation. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the 

definition of ‘‘process change’’ and 

agrees with the commenters that there 

are some situations where an increase in 

the allowable wastewater received from 

an industrial source should not trigger 

a performance test. We have revised the 

definition of ‘‘process change’’ to more 

specifically and clearly identify the type 

of process change that will trigger a 

performance test. The revised definition 

identifies a ‘‘process change’’ as 

pollutant-specific and as including only 

situations where the SSI has undergone 

a significant permit revision. This 

revision will ensure that facilities retest 

whenever they have a significant change 

in the process that could trigger higher 

emissions of a given pollutant. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested EPA clarify what equipment 

are included as part of the SSI unit. The 

commenters stated that the proposed 

rules do not specify the equipment and 

without clarification, a SSI unit could 

be interpreted inconsistently or overbroadly. Commenters requested 

clarification regarding whether the 

‘‘modification’’ (which refers to an ‘‘SSI 

unit’’) applies to the multiple hearth or 

fluid bed ‘‘reactor’’ or whether it 

includes the entire system including all 

air emission controls and auxiliary 

equipment. 

Response: We agree that the definition 

of the SSI unit in the proposed rule was 

unclear as to what equipment 

constitutes the SSI unit. We have 

revised the definition of SSI unit in the 

final rule. A SSI unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage 

sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter. Sewage 

sludge incineration unit designs include 

fluidized bed and multiple hearth. We 

have clarified that a SSI unit also 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary 

fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas 

system, waste heat recovery equipment, 

if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI 

unit includes all ash handling systems 

connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash 

system ends at the truck loading station 

or similar equipment that transfers the 

ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does 

not include air pollution control 

equipment or the stack. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

As discussed in sections IV and V of 

this preamble, we have made several 

revisions to the impacts analyses for the 

final rules. We have incorporated 

revisions to the variability calculation. 

These revisions include: incorporating 

weighted UPL’s for existing FB units, 

selecting log-normal results when it is 

not clear that data are normally 

distributed, and revising CO limits 

based on an analysis of the span of the 

test. The result of these changes 

increased UPL values for most 

pollutants. 

Additionally, we have incorporated 

corrections to the inventory and 

calculation inputs provided by the 

commenters where applicable. We have 

also revised the calculation of baseline 

emissions by revising the defaults 

assigned to SSI units where information 

was not available. These changes 

resulted in decreasing the baseline 

emissions for each of the pollutants. The 

combination of increase UPL and 

decreased baseline emissions resulted in 

less SSI units estimated to need 

additional control to meet the MACT 

floor limits. 

For the final rules, we also selected 

the MACT floor level of control for both 

subcategories instead of selecting a 

beyond-the-floor requirement. 

For the final rules we have also 

revised the types of controls costed to 

meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI that 

we estimate will need further control of 

PM, Cd, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, 

we have costed out wet ESP as a more 

appropriate PM control for high 

moisture streams. We have also costed 

out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will 

need further control of NOX to meet the 

MACT floor limits. As at proposal, we 

have costed out packed-bed scrubbers 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 27
15398 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

for SSI that we estimate will need 

further control of HCl or SO2. 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for 

Existing Units 

1. What are the primary air impacts? 

We have estimated the potential 

emission reductions that may be 

realized through implementation of the 

final emission limits. As discussed in 

section V of this preamble, we have 

revised the estimation of baseline 

emissions and emission reductions to 

present a range to show the variability 

in the emission calculations between 

estimated actual and estimated potential 

sludge feed rates. Table 12 of this 

preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions for MACT compliance for 

each pollutant. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum 

‘‘Revised Analysis of Beyond the 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for 

Existing SSI Units’’ in the SSI docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

TABLE 12—PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR EXISTING SSI UNITS COMPLYING WITH THE PROPOSED EMISSION

LIMITS

Pollutant 

Range of reductions achieved through 

meeting MACT by subcategory (TPY) Range of total 

reductions (TPY) 

FB MH 

Cd .............................................................................................................................. 0 0.5–0.6 0.5–0.6 

CO .............................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

HCl ............................................................................................................................. 0.73–0.94 18–29 19–30 

Hg .............................................................................................................................. 0.0005–0.0006 0.0017–0.0019 0.0022–0.0025 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 6.8–16 0 6.8–16 

Pb ............................................................................................................................... 0 1.2–1.5 1.2–1.5 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ ..................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

PCDD/PCDF TMB ..................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

PM .............................................................................................................................. 0 58–70 58–70 

SO2 ............................................................................................................................ 17–21 420–680 430–700 

2. What are the water and solid waste 

impacts? 

We anticipate affected sources will 

need to apply additional controls to 

meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such 

as wet scrubbers, which would need to 

be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 234 million gallons per 

year of additional wastewater will be 

generated as a result of operating 

additional controls or increased 

sorbents. 

The analysis is documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Secondary 

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category’’ in the SSI 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

3. What are the energy impacts? 

The energy impacts associated with 

meeting the proposed emission limits 

consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or 

improved air pollution control devices. 

For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases 

in electricity consumption; sorbent 

injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and 

motors. We anticipate that an additional 

5,420 megawatt-hours per year will be 

required for the additional and 

improved control devices. The analysis 

is documented in the memorandum 

‘‘Revised Secondary Impacts for the 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 

Category’’ in the SSI docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts? 

For SSI units adding controls to meet 

the final emission limits, we anticipate 

very minor secondary air impacts. The 

combustion of fuel needed to generate 

additional electricity will 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. 

5. What are the cost and economic 

impacts? 

We have estimated compliance costs 

for all existing units to add the 

necessary controls, monitoring 

equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements to comply 

with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI 

standards). Based on this analysis, we 

anticipate an overall total capital 

investment of $55 million with an 

associated total annualized cost of $18 

million, in 2008 dollars (and using a 

discount rate of seven percent), as 

shown in Table 13 of this preamble. We 

anticipate that owner/operators will 

need to install one or more air pollution 

control devices for 43 of the 204 affected 

units to meet the final emission limits. 

The analysis is documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Analysis of 

Beyond the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Controls for Existing SSI Units’’ in the 

SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR

EXISTING SSI IF ALL ENTITIES COMPLY WITH PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS

[Millions of 2008$] 

Subcategory Capital cost 

($million) 

Annualized cost 

($million/yr) a

FB ......... 10.1 3.1 

MH ........ 45.0 14.7 

Total 55.0 17.8 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven 

percent. 

Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge 

Disposal. At proposal, we evaluated 

landfilling as an alternative disposal 

method. We have revised our costs and 

impacts of this alternative based on 

comments received on the proposal and 

corrections made to the analysis. Table 

14 of this preamble summarizes the 

revised costs and impacts of this 

alternative if small entities choose to 

landfill rather than incinerate sewage 

sludge. A detailed discussion of the 

landfilling alternative analysis is 

provided in the memorandum ‘‘Revised 

Cost and Emission Reduction of the 

MACT Floor Level of Control’’ in the SSI 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is 

unlikely that many sources will find 

landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

However, the selection of a management 

option for sewage sludge is often a local 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 28
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15399 

13 In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred 

to as Option 1 (MACT floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, 

plus afterburner for MH units), and Option 3 

(MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated carbon 

injection and fabric filter for MH units). 

decision that is based on environmental 

protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic 

conditions. Given a full evaluation of 

these factors, for some sources, 

landfilling or land treatment may be a 

better management option than 

incineration. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF REVISED

COSTS FOR SMALL ENTITIES THAT

LANDFILL IN LIEU OF INCINERATION

[Millions of 2008$] 

Subcategory Capital cost 

($million) 

Annualized cost 

($million/yr) a

FB ......... 278 38 

MH ........ 313 42.7 

Total 591 80.7 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven 

percent. 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New 

Units 

As discussed in the proposal, based 

on trends of SSI units constructed and 

replaced, technical advantages of FB 

incinerators, and information provided 

by the industry on likely units 

constructed, we believe that new SSI 

units constructed are likely to be FB 

incinerators. 

1. What are the primary air impacts? 

We have estimated the potential 

emission reductions that may be 

realized through implementation of the 

final emission limits on two new FB 

incinerators potentially being 

constructed in the next 5 years. Table 15 

of this preamble summarizes these 

emission reductions for MACT 

compliance for each pollutant from two 

new FB incinerators. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum 

‘‘Revised Estimation of Impacts for New 

Units Constructed Within 5 Years After 

Promulgation of the SSI NSPS’’ in the 

SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559). 

TABLE 15—EMISSION REDUCTIONS

FOR TWO NEW SSI UNITS (I.E., FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATORS) CONSTRUCTED

Pollutant Emission 

reduction (TPY) 

Cd ..................................... 0 

CDD/CDF, TEQ ................ 0.0000000033 

CDD/CDF, TMB ................ 0.000000051 

CO .................................... 0.26 

HCl .................................... 0 

Hg ..................................... 0.0026 

NOX .................................. 14 

Pb ..................................... 0.00053 

PM .................................... 0 

PM2.5 ................................. 0 

SO2 ................................... 0 

2. What are the water and solid waste 

impacts? 

We anticipate affected sources would 

need to apply controls in addition to 

what they would have planned to 

include in the absence of this rule to 

meet the final emission limits. These 

controls may utilize water, such as wet 

scrubbers, which would need to be 

treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 8.6 million gallons per 

year of additional wastewater will be 

generated as a result of operating 

additional controls or increased 

sorbents for the two new units expected 

to come on-line in the next 5 years. The 

analysis is documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Analysis of 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category’’ in 

the SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0559). 

Likewise, the application of PM 

controls results in particulate collected 

that would require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection 

may be used by some sources, which 

would result in solid waste needing 

disposal. The annual amounts of solid 

waste that will require disposal are 

anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY 

from activated carbon injection for the 

two units. 

3. What are the energy impacts? 

The energy impacts associated with 

meeting the final emission limits would 

consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or 

improved air pollution control devices. 

For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases 

in electricity consumption. Sorbent 

injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and 

motors. By our estimate, we anticipate 

that an additional 300 megawatt-hours 

per year will be required for the 

additional and improved control 

devices for the two new units modeled 

to come on-line in the next 5 years. The 

analysis is documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Analysis of 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category 

Analysis of New Units for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category’’ in 

the SSI docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts? 

For SSI units adding controls to meet 

the final emission limits, we anticipate 

very minor secondary air impacts. The 

analysis is documented in the 

memorandum ‘‘Revised Analysis of 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category.’’ 

5. What are the cost impacts? 

We have estimated compliance costs 

for new SSI units coming on-line in the 

next 5 years. This analysis is based on 

a model plant, the assumption that two 

new units will come on-line and will 

add the necessary controls, monitoring 

equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements to comply 

with the final SSI standards. Based on 

this analysis, we anticipate an overall 

total capital investment of $8 million 

(2008$) with an associated total 

annualized cost of $2 million (2008$ 

and using a seven percent discount 

rate). This analysis assumes that new 

SSI units constructed are only FB 

incinerators. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and EO 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

this action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it was likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more based on the proposed 

standards. However, the cost of the final 

standards are no longer likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. Despite the change in 

costs, EPA submitted this action to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under EOs 12866 and 

13563 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. Although EPA prepared a 

RIA of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with the proposed standards 

we are simply updating the RIA rather 

than revising it. 

A RIA was prepared in September of 

2010 for the proposed Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources 

and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units. However, based on the lower 

costs associated with the selected 

alternative in this final action we are 

providing an update of the RIA rather 

than completely revising the RIA. 

Within this update, we are providing 

updated costs and benefits of the 

controls analyzed and have provided a 

comparison of the selected controls with 

the alternatives.13 While the 

characteristics of the controls analyzed 

have changed, we have also provided a 

comparison of the costs and benefits of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 29
15400 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the proposed controls analyzed with the 

selected alternative in this final action. 

A summary of the differences are 

presented below. 

• Costs for the selected controls 

analyzed for promulgation are 80% 

lower and benefits are 81% lower than 

they were for the selected controls 

analyzed for proposal. 

• Because the regulated sewage 

sludge incineration is a government 

provided service that does not involve 

a market, no price, quantity, or 

employment impacts were estimated for 

the proposal RIA. The economic impact 

analysis focused on the comparison of 

control cost to total governmental 

revenue. Because the costs are 80% 

lower for the selected controls analyzed 

for promulgation compared to the 

proposed controls analyzed, the control 

costs are expected to be a smaller 

portion of government revenues for the 

selected controls for promulgation than 

they were for the proposed controls. 

• Because of insufficient information, 

employment changes due to the 

requirements for operating and 

maintaining control equipment were not 

estimated. Also, we did not have the 

information needed to estimate any 

labor changes related to governmental 

decisions to switch from incineration to 

landfilling. 

• Monetized benefits are greater than 

costs for the selected option by $3 

million to $34 million at three percent 

and $1 million to $29 million at seven 

percent. The benefits from reducing 

exposure to HAP, direct exposure to 

NOX and SO2, ecosystem effects, and 

visibility impairment have not been 

monetized, including reducing 19 tons 

of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds 

of Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd. 

NET BENEFITS FOR FINAL SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS NSPS AND EG 

[Millions of $2008] 

MACT floor (selected) 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Monetized Benefits ............................................................................................................................................ $21 to $52 ........ $19 to $47. 

Costs .................................................................................................................................................................. $18 to $18 ........ $18 to $18. 

Net Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................... $3 to $34 .......... $1 to $29. 

MONETIZED BENEFITS FOR FINAL SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS NSPS AND EG 

Total monetized benefits for final controls analyzed (millions of 2008$) 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

MACT Floor (Selected) ...................................................................................................................................... $21 to $52 ........ $19 to $47. 

MACT Floor + Afterburner for MH units ............................................................................................................ $20 to $50 ........ $18 to $45. 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and Activated carbon injection and fabric filter for MH units ................................. $55 to $140 ...... $50 to $130. 

Monetized benefits changes for MACT floor (millions of 2008$) 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all comply) ................................................................................................................... $110 to $270 .... $100 to $250. 

Final (MACT Floor) ............................................................................................................................................ $21 to $52 ........ $19 to $47. 

% Change .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥81% ............... ¥81%. 

Monetized benefits changes for selected controls analyzed (millions of 2008$) 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all comply) ................................................................................................................. $110 to $270 .... $100 to $250. 

Final (MACT Floor) ............................................................................................................................................ $21 to $52 ........ $19 to $47. 

% Change .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥81% ............... ¥81%. 

COSTS FOR FINAL SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS NSPS AND EG 

Total costs for final controls analyzed (millions of 2008$) 3% or 7% 

Discount rate 

MACT Floor (selected) ........................................................................................................................................................................ $18 

MACT Floor + Afterburner for MH units .............................................................................................................................................. 46 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and activated carbon injection + fabric filter for MH units ....................................................................... 138 

Costs changes for MACT floor (millions of 2008$) 3% or 7% 

Discount rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all comply) ..................................................................................................................................................... $63 

Final (MACT Floor) .............................................................................................................................................................................. $18 

% Change ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ¥71% 

Cost changes for selected controls analyzed (millions of 2008$) 3% or 7% 

Discount rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all comply) ................................................................................................................................................... $92 

Final (MACT Floor) .............................................................................................................................................................................. $18 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 30
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15401 

Cost changes for selected controls analyzed (millions of 2008$) 3% or 7% 

Discount rate 

% Change ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ¥80% 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The ICR documents prepared by EPA 

have been assigned EPA ICR number 

2369.02 for subpart LLLL, and 2403.02 

for subpart MMMM. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in this rule are based on 

the information collection requirements 

in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart A). The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the General 

Provisions are mandatory pursuant to 

CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information other than emissions data 

submitted to EPA pursuant to the 

information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made 

is safeguarded according to CAA section 

114(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The requirements in this action result 

in industry recordkeeping and reporting 

burden associated with review of the 

amendments for all SSI and initial and 

annual compliance with the emission 

limits using EPA approved emissions 

test methods. The burden also includes 

continuous parameter monitoring and 

annual inspections of air pollution 

control devices that may be used to 

meet the emission limits. Operators are 

required to obtain qualification and 

complete annual training. New units are 

also required to submit a report prior to 

construction, including a siting analysis. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources 

must report them according to the 

applicable reporting requirements of 

Subparts LLLL and MMMM. An 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a 

source if it can demonstrate that certain 

criteria and requirements are satisfied. 

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 reasonably 

preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance and or careless operation) 

and where the source took necessary 

actions to minimize emissions. In 

addition, the source must meet certain 

notification and reporting requirements. 

For example, the source must prepare a 

written root cause analysis and submit 

a written report to the Administrator 

documenting that it has met the 

conditions and requirements for 

assertion of the affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an 

estimate of the relative magnitude of the 

burden associated with an assertion of 

the affirmative defense position adopted 

by a source, EPA provides an 

administrative adjustment to this ICR 

that shows what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records, including the root cause 

analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on 

the time and effort required of a source 

to review relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emission 

limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to EPA. EPA 

provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only 

incurred if there has been a violation 

and a source chooses to take advantage 

of the affirmative defense. 

The annual average burden associated 

with the emission guidelines over the 

first 3 years following promulgation is 

estimated to be $9.6 million. This 

includes 39,350 hours at a total annual 

labor cost of $2.2 million and total 

annualized capital/startup and 

operation and maintenance costs of $7.4 

million per year, associated with the 

monitoring requirements, storage of data 

and reports and photocopying and 

postage over the 3-year period of the 

ICR. The annual inspection costs are 

included under the recordkeeping and 

reporting labor costs 

The annual average burden associated 

with the NSPS over the first 3 years 

following promulgation is estimated to 

involve 701 hours at a total annual labor 

cost of $40,000. The total annualized 

capital/startup costs are estimated at 

$232,000 per year. This gives a 

cumulative annual burden of $272,000 

per year for the NSPS. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedures 

Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the 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 this action on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as follows: (1) A small 

business as defined by the SBA 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independentlyowned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

In the proposal, we certified that there 

would not be a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The economic analysis 

conducted at proposal identified 18 

small entities none of which had costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. 

The cost analysis for the final standards 

showed a significant decrease (35 to 98 

percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 

small entities. The cost-revenue-ratios 

were again estimated using the costs for 

the final rule and the same revenue 

estimates used in the proposal screening 

analysis. The revenue estimates were 

obtained using census average per 

capita revenue numbers ($1,696 for 

entities with populations between 10 

thousand and 25 thousand and $1,677 

for entities with populations between 25 

thousand and 50 thousand) The 

resulting cost-revenue-ratios ranged 

between 0.04% and 0.5. Thus all costrevenue-ratios were well below 1%. 

Therefore, we consider the final rule to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 31
15402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

have no significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. 

Thus, this is not considered to be a 

significant impact. 

Although the final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities by 

allowing optional CEMS instead of 

requiring them, allowing information 

from tests conducted in recent years to 

show compliance rather than require all 

new testing and allowing reduced 

testing with continued compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This 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 1 year. Thus, 

this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

At proposal, EPA prepared under 

section 202 of the UMRA a written 

statement that is summarized in section 

VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 

63260, October 14, 2010). A copy of the 

UMRA written statement can be found 

in the docket. 

At proposal, the estimated costs were 

higher than the estimated costs of the 

final rule. At proposal, EPA prepared an 

RIA, including EPA’s assessment of 

costs and benefits, which is detailed in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units’’ in the 

docket. Based on estimated compliance 

costs associated with the final rule and 

the predicted change in prices and 

production in the affected industries, 

the estimated social costs of the final 

rule are $55 million ($). 

At proposal, EPA consulted with 

governmental entities expected to be 

affected by the proposed rule, consistent 

with the intergovernmental consultation 

provisions of section 204 of the UMRA. 

Those consultations are discussed in 

section VIII.D of the proposal preamble 

(75 FR 63260). 

This final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Because this final rule’s requirements 

apply equally to SSI units owned and/ 

or operated by governments or SSI units 

owned and/or operated by private 

entities, there would be no requirements 

that uniquely apply to such government 

or impose any disproportionate impacts 

on them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA 

may not issue an action that has 

federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by state and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated 

expenditures of greater than $100 

million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the 

Executive Order, EPA consulted with 

elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national 

organizations, when developing 

regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state 

and local governments. Pursuant to 

Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the ‘‘Big 10’’ 

intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local 

government officials, as discussed in 

section VIII.D of the proposal preamble 

(75 FR 63260) to formally request their 

comments and input on the action. The 

Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on 

the proposed standards and EG for SSI 

units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule 

will not have federalism implications, 

as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due 

to the final rule’s direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than 

$100 million. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

During proposal EPA was not aware 

of any SSI owned or operated by an 

Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, 

Executive Order 13175 did not appear to 

have implications. However as specified 

in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted 

to outreach and discuss possible SSI 

implications with tribal contacts. 

EPA presented information on the SSI 

proposal and specifically solicited 

additional comment on the proposed 

action from tribal contacts in the 

proposal period via the NTAA 

conference calls. 

EPA has received coordinated 

comments from the NTAA; those 

comments can be reviewed in the public 

docket, document number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559–0130.1. Commenters 

expressed that SSI units located in 

proximity to Indian country units, 

obtaining Title V permits, may trigger 

tribal consultation with regard to 

potential impact from the SSI unit. 

Commenters are dismayed, as they 

believe EPA failed to consult with 

Indian tribes regarding the standards 

and have failed to fully assess the 

potential impacts of SSI units on tribal 

communities. Lastly, commenters 

recommended that EPA provide a map 

overlay that accounts for both SSI units 

and tribal lands so tribes can acquire a 

better understanding on how they might 

be affected by such sites and these 

standards in general. 

EPA participated on two NTAA 

conference calls to discuss the rule 

development process, first to provide 

general information on the development 

of the SSI standards and second 

providing more specific background 

information on the purpose of the 

rulemaking, number and locations of 

units, and unit types. EPA allowed time 

for clarifying questions and requested 

information if any NTAA members were 

aware of any type of incinerator burning 

sewage sludge in Indian Country. EPA 

will provide a map overlay for the SSI 

docket so that tribes can acquire a better 

understanding on how they might be 

affected by SSI sites and the standards 

in general. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Executive Order has the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 32
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15403 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This final action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. We note however, that 

reductions in air emissions by these 

facilities will improve air quality, with 

expected positive impacts for children’s 

health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563. 

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 EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units’’ through the 

Enhanced National Standards Service 

Network Database managed by the 

ANSI. We also contacted VCS 

organizations, accessed, and searched 

their data bases. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. EPA has decided to use 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual 

methods of measuring the oxygen or 

carbon dioxide content of the exhaust 

gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA 

Methods 6, 7. This standard is available 

from the ASME, Three Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10016–5990. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated From Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)’’ is an 

acceptable alternative to Method 29 and 

30B. EPA has also decided to use EPA 

Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 

22, 23, 26A, 29 and 30B. No VCS were 

found for EPA Method 9 and 22. 

During the search, if the title or 

abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

EPA’s reference method, EPA ordered a 

copy of the standard and reviewed it as 

a potential equivalent method. All 

potential standards were reviewed to 

determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires 

significant method validation data that 

meet the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or 

scientific, engineering and policy 

equivalence to procedures in EPA 

reference methods. EPA may reconsider 

determinations of impracticality when 

additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

The search identified other VCS that 

were potentially applicable for this rule 

in lieu of EPA reference methods. After 

reviewing the available standards, EPA 

determined that candidate VCS (ASME 

B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 

(2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC–38–1980 

(1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M–98 

(2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1–M1977, 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ISO 

10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, 

ASTM D5835–95 (2007), ASTM D6522– 

00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 

(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, 

ASTM D1608–98 (2003), ISO 

I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24–MI983, 

CAN/CSA Z223.21–MI978, ASTM 

D3162–94 (2005), EN 1948–3 (1996), EN 

1911–1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735–01, EN 

13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26–MI987) 

identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would 

not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation 

data, and other important technical and 

policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS 

General Provisions, a source may apply 

to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final 

rule and any amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice 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. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income populations. Additionally, 

the Agency has reviewed this final rule 

to determine if there was existing 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

that could be mitigated by this 

rulemaking. An analysis of demographic 

data showed that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the 

sources, and thus most likely to be 

effected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national 

averages. The results of the 

demographic analysis are presented in 

‘‘Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts,’’ June 2010, a copy of which is 

available in the SSI docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0559). 

This final action establishes national 

emission standards for new and existing 

SSI units. The EPA estimates that there 

are approximately 204 such units 

covered by this rule. The final rule will 

reduce emissions of many of the listed 

HAP emitted from this source. This 

includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and 

Hg. Adverse health effects from these 

pollutants include cancer, irritation of 

the lungs, skin and mucus membranes, 

effects on the central nervous system 

and damage to the kidneys and acute 

health disorders. The rule will also 

result in substantial reductions of 

criteria pollutants such as CO, NOX, PM 

and PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and 

NOX are precursors for the formation of 

PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these 

emissions will reduce ozone and PM2.5

formation and associated health effects, 

such as adult premature mortality, 

chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma 

and other respiratory and cardiovascular 

diseases. For additional information, 

please refer to the RIA contained in the 

docket for this rulemaking. In EPA’s 

July 2010 ‘‘Interim Guidance on 

Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Development of an Action,’’ 

EPA defines ‘‘environmental justice’’ as 

the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 33
15404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. 

To help achieve EPA’s goal for 

Environmental Justice (i.e., the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people), EPA places particular 

emphasis on the public health of and 

environmental conditions affecting 

minority, low-income, and indigenous 

populations. In recognizing that these 

populations frequently bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, EPA 

works to protect them from adverse 

public health and environmental effects 

of its programs. EPA looks at the 

vulnerabilities of these populations 

because they have historically been 

exposed to a combination of physical, 

chemical, biological, social, and cultural 

factors that have imposed greater 

environmental burdens on them than 

those imposed on the general 

population. 

To promote meaningful involvement, 

EPA has developed a communication 

and outreach strategy to ensure that 

interested communities have access to 

this final rule, are aware of its content 

and have an opportunity to comment 

during the comment period. During the 

comment period, EPA publicized the 

rulemaking via environmental 

newsletters, tribal newsletters, 

environmental justice listservs, and the 

Internet, including the OPEI 

Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://

yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). 

EPA will also provide general 

rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this 

important for my community) for 

environmental justice community 

groups and conduct conference calls 

with interested communities. In 

addition, state and Federal permitting 

requirements will provide state and 

local governments and members of 

affected communities the opportunity to 

provide comments on the permit 

conditions associated with permitting 

the sources affected by this rulemaking. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective May 20, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 21, 2011. 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

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); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 §§ 60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 

6 and 8 to subpart CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, 

and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§ 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 § 60.56c(b)(4), § 60.63(f)(2) 

and (f)(4), § 60.106(e)(2), 

§§ 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), § 60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), 

(g)(2), and (g)(4), § 60.106a(a)(1)(iii), 

(a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), 

and (a)(3)(v), and § 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, §§ 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 §§ 60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 

60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B). 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 3. Part 60 is amended by adding 

subparts LLLL and MMMM to read as 

follows: 

Subpart LLLL—Standards of 

Performance for New Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

60.4765 When does this subpart become 

effective? 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my 

sewage sludge incineration unit? 

60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration 

units are exempt from this subpart? 

60.4785 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

60.4790 How are these new source 

performance standards structured? 

60.4795 Do all nine components of these 

new source performance standards apply 

at the same time? 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting 

analysis? 

60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

Operator Training and Qualification 

60.4810 What are the operator training and 

qualification requirements? 

60.4815 When must the operator training 

course be completed? 

60.4820 How do I obtain my operator 

qualification? 

60.4825 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed 

operator qualification? 

60.4835 What if all the qualified operators 

are temporarily not accessible? 

60.4840 What site-specific documentation 

is required and how often must it be 

reviewed by qualified operators and 

plant personnel? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 34
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15405 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

60.4845 What emission limits and 

standards must I meet and by when? 

60.4850 What operating limits and 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

60.4855 How do I establish operating limits 

if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to 

comply with the emission limits? 

60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits apply 

during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

60.4861 How do I establish affirmative 

defense for exceedance of an emission 

limit or standard during malfunction? 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.4870 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

60.4875 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan for my continuous 

monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash 

handling systems, and by what date must 

I conduct an initial performance 

evaluation? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limits and standards? 

60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with my operating limits? 

60.4895 By what date must I conduct 

annual air pollution control device 

inspections and make any necessary 

repairs? 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and 

Calibration Requirements 

60.4900 What are the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements 

for compliance with the emission limits 

and standards? 

60.4905 What are the monitoring and 

calibration requirements for compliance 

with my operating limits? 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.4910 What records must I keep? 

60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

Title V Operating Permits 

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a Title V operating permit for my 

unit? 

60.4925 When must I submit a title V 

permit application for my new SSI unit? 

Definitions 

60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Tables 

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60— 

Emission Limits and Standards for 

Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60— 

Emission Limits and Standards for New 

Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60— 

Operating Parameters for New Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60— 

Summary of Reporting Requirements for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Introduction 

§ 60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

This subpart establishes new source 

performance standards for sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the 

extent any requirement of this subpart is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

subpart A of this part, the requirements 

of this subpart will apply. 

§ 60.4765 When does this subpart become 

effective? 

This subpart takes effect on 

September 21, 2011. Some of the 

requirements in this subpart apply to 

planning a SSI unit and must be 

completed even before construction is 

initiated on a SSI unit (i.e., the 

preconstruction requirements in 

§§ 60.4800 and 60.4805). Other 

requirements such as the emission 

limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of 

Authority 

§ 60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my 

sewage sludge incineration unit? 

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected 

source if it meets all the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit for 

which construction commenced after 

October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after 

September 21, 2011. 

(b) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit as 

defined in § 60.4930. 

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under 

§ 60.4780. 

§ 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

(a) A new SSI unit is a SSI unit that 

meets either of the two criteria specified 

in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(1) Commenced construction after 

October 14, 2010. 

(2) Commenced modification after 

September 21, 2011. 

(b) Physical or operational changes 

made to your SSI unit to comply with 

the emission guidelines in subpart 

MMMM of this part (Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units) do not qualify as a modification 

under this subpart. 

§ 60.4780 What sewage sludge 

incineration units are exempt from this 

subpart? 

This subpart exempts combustion 

units that incinerate sewage sludge and 

are not located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge. These units 

may be subject to another subpart of this 

part (e.g., subpart CCCC of this part). 

The owner or operator of such a 

combustion unit must notify the 

Administrator of an exemption claim 

under this section. 

§ 60.4785 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the Administrator, as 

defined in § 60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or 

tribal agency. If the Administrator has 

delegated authority to your state, local, 

or tribal agency, then that agency (as 

well as the Administrator) has the 

authority to implement and enforce this 

subpart. You should contact your EPA 

Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to your state, local, 

or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency, the 

authorities contained in paragraph (c) of 

this section are retained by the 

Administrator and are not transferred to 

the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

emission limits and standards in Tables 

1 and 2 to this subpart and operating 

limits established under § 60.4850. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

(5) The requirements in § 60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in 

§ 60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in 

§ 60.4800 and § 60.4805. 

§ 60.4790 How are these new source 

performance standards structured? 

These new source performance 

standards contain the nine major 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 35
15406 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

components listed in paragraphs (a) 

through (i) of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and 

qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance 

requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, 

and calibration requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§ 60.4795 Do all nine components of these 

new source performance standards apply at 

the same time? 

No. You must meet the 

preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence 

construction of the SSI unit. The 

operator training and qualification, 

emission limits, emission standards, 

operating limits, performance testing, 

and compliance, monitoring, and most 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§ 60.4800 Who must prepare a siting 

analysis? 

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you plan to commence construction of 

a SSI unit after October 14, 2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis 

if you are required to submit an initial 

application for a construction permit 

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the 

modification of your SSI unit. 

§ 60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

(a) The siting analysis must consider 

air pollution control alternatives that 

minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the 

maximum extent practicable, potential 

risks to public health or the 

environment, including impacts of the 

affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, 

visibility, soils, and vegetation. In 

considering such alternatives, the 

analysis may consider costs, energy 

impacts, nonair environmental impacts, 

or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s 

impacts that are prepared to comply 

with state, local, or other Federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to 

satisfy the requirements of this section, 

provided they include the consideration 

of air pollution control alternatives 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the 

siting requirements of this section as 

required under § 60.4915(a)(3) prior to 

commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§ 60.4810 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated 

unless a fully trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator is accessible, either at the 

facility or can be at the facility within 

1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator may operate the SSI unit 

directly or be the direct supervisor of 

one or more other plant personnel who 

operate the unit. If all qualified SSI unit 

operators are temporarily not accessible, 

you must follow the procedures in 

§ 60.4835. 

(b) Operator training and qualification 

must be obtained through a stateapproved program or by completing the 

requirements included in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by 

completing an incinerator operator 

training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed 

in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) 

of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including 

types of emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, 

including products of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of 

incinerator to be used by the operator, 

including proper startup, sewage sludge 

feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and 

monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control 

equipment and factors affecting 

performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of 

the incinerator and air pollution control 

devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions 

or to prevent conditions that may lead 

to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash 

characteristics and handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and 

local regulations, including 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and 

administered by the state-approved 

program. 

(3) Written material covering the 

training course topics that may serve as 

reference material following completion 

of the course. 

§ 60.4815 When must the operator training 

course be completed? 

The operator training course must be 

completed by the later of the two dates 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Six months after your SSI unit 

startup. 

(b) The date before an employee 

assumes responsibility for operating the 

SSI unit or assumes responsibility for 

supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§ 60.4820 How do I obtain my operator 

qualification? 

(a) You must obtain operator 

qualification by completing a training 

course that satisfies the criteria under 

§ 60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date 

on which the training course is 

completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under 

§ 60.4810(c)(2). 

§ 60.4825 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

To maintain qualification, you must 

complete an annual review or refresher 

course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including 

startup and shutdown procedures, 

sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or 

conditions that may lead to 

malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems 

encountered by attendees. 

§ 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed 

operator qualification? 

You must renew a lapsed operator 

qualification before you begin operation 

of a SSI unit by one of the two methods 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, 

you must complete a standard annual 

refresher course described in § 60.4825. 

(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you 

must repeat the initial qualification 

requirements in § 60.4820(a). 

§ 60.4835 What if all the qualified 

operators are temporarily not accessible? 

If a qualified operator is not at the 

facility and cannot be at the facility 

within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section, depending on the 

length of time that a qualified operator 

is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for more than 8 hours, the SSI 

unit may be operated for less than 2 

weeks by other plant personnel who are 

familiar with the operation of the SSI 

unit and who have completed a review 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 36
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15407 

of the information specified in § 60.4840 

within the past 12 months. However, 

you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible 

and include this deviation in the annual 

report as specified under § 60.4915(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more, you 

must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this 

deviation in writing within 10 days. In 

the notice, state what caused this 

deviation, what you are doing to ensure 

that a qualified operator is accessible, 

and when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the 

Administrator every 4 weeks outlining 

what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating 

when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible, and 

requesting approval from the 

Administrator to continue operation of 

the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify 

the Administrator of the deviation 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(i) If the Administrator notifies you 

that your request to continue operation 

of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI 

unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume 

if a qualified operator is accessible as 

required under § 60.4810(a). You must 

notify the Administrator within 5 days 

of having resumed operations and of 

having a qualified operator accessible. 

§ 60.4840 What site-specific 

documentation is required and how often 

must it be reviewed by qualified operators 

and plant personnel? 

(a) You must maintain at the facility 

the documentation of the operator 

training procedures specified under 

§ 60.4910(c)(1) and make the 

documentation readily accessible to all 

SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for 

reviewing the information listed in 

§ 60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of 

§ 60.4835(a), according to the following 

schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the 

information listed in § 60.4910(c)(1) 

must be conducted within 6 months 

after the effective date of this subpart or 

prior to an employee’s assumption of 

responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the 

information listed in § 60.4910(c)(1) 

must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, 

and Operating Limits and 

Requirements 

§ 60.4845 What emission limits and 

standards must I meet and by when? 

You must meet the emission limits 

and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart within 60 days after your 

SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which 

it will operate or within 180 days after 

its initial startup, whichever comes first. 

The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating, 

and during periods of malfunction. The 

emission limits and standards apply to 

emissions from a bypass stack or vent 

while sewage sludge is in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., until the 

sewage sludge feed to the combustor has 

been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§ 60.4850 What operating limits and 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

You must meet, as applicable, the 

operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

and (h) of this section, according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating 

limits for a wet scrubber, fabric filter, 

electrostatic precipitator, or activated 

carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to 

this subpart. You must comply with the 

operating requirements in paragraph (f) 

of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting 

any new operating limits, re-established 

in § 60.4890. The operating limits apply 

at all times that sewage sludge is in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., until the 

sewage sludge feed to the combustor has 

been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific 

operating limit for minimum operating 

temperature of the combustion chamber 

(or afterburner combustion chamber) 

that you establish in § 60.4890(a)(2)(i). 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, 

electrostatic precipitator, or activated 

carbon injection to comply with an 

emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you 

establish in § 60.4870 for each operating 

parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply 

with the emission limits, you must 

install the bag leak detection system 

specified in §§ 60.4880(b) and 

60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag leak 

detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month 

period. You must calculate the alarm 

time as specified in § 60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating 

requirements in your site-specific 

fugitive emission monitoring plan, 

submitted as specified in § 60.4880(d) to 

ensure that your ash handling system 

will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits 

and requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section 

60 days after your SSI unit reaches the 

feed rate at which it will operate, or 

within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and 

moisture content of the sewage sludge 

fed to the sewage sludge incinerator, as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage 

sludge feed rate and calculate a daily 

average for all hours of operation during 

each 24-hour period. Keep a record of 

the daily average feed rate, as specified 

in § 60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per 

day of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator. If you take 

more than one grab sample in a day, 

calculate the daily average for the grab 

samples. Keep a record of the daily 

average moisture content, as specified in 

§ 60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) and (h) of this section, you 

must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, re-established according 

to § 60.4890(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection to comply 

with the emission limits in Table 1 or 

2 to this subpart, you must meet any 

site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as 

required in § 60.4855. 

§ 60.4855 How do I establish operating 

limits if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated 

carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in 

some other manner, to comply with the 

emission limits? 

If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., 

materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in § 60.4845, you must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating 

limits and requirements in § 60.4850, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 37
15408 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

and establish applicable operating limits 

according to § 60.4870. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for 

specific operating parameters, operating 

limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial 

performance test and to be monitored 

continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting 

any supporting information in a timely 

manner to enable the Administrator to 

consider the application prior to the 

performance test. You must not conduct 

the initial performance test until after 

the petition has been approved by the 

Administrator, and you must comply 

with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor 

the Administrator’s failure to approve or 

disapprove the application relieves you 

of the responsibility to comply with any 

provision of this subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the 

five items listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific 

parameters you propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship 

between these parameters and emissions 

of regulated pollutants, identifying how 

emissions of regulated pollutants 

change with changes in these 

parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions 

of regulated pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will 

establish the upper and/or lower values 

for these parameters that will establish 

the operating limits on these 

parameters, including a discussion of 

the averaging periods associated with 

those parameters for determining 

compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the 

methods you will use to measure and 

the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative 

accuracy and precision of these methods 

and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§ 60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits apply 

during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times and during periods of 

malfunction. The operating limits apply 

at all times that sewage sludge is in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., until the 

sewage sludge feed to the combustor has 

been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§ 60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative 

defense for exceedance of an emission limit 

or standard during malfunction? 

In response to an action to enforce the 

numerical emission standards set forth 

in paragraph § 60.4845, you may assert 

an affirmative defense to a claim for 

civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined in § 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 the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(9) of this section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet: 

(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 

limits 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 monitoring and 

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 affected 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) The owner or operator of the SSI 

unit 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 2 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 § 60.4845 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. 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§ 60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emission limits 

and standards? 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive 

emissions from ash handling, and 

follow the procedures specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section for carbon 

monoxide. In lieu of using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section, you also have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section for particulate matter, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 38
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15409 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must 

meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

or (b) of this section, as applicable, and 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 

according to the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration 

requirements in § 60.4900(a) and (b). 

Except as provided in paragraph (e) of 

this section, within 60 days after your 

SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which 

it will operate, or within 180 days after 

its initial startup, whichever comes first, 

you must demonstrate that your SSI unit 

meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance 

using the performance test required in 

§ 60.8. You must demonstrate that your 

SSI unit meets the emission limits and 

standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive 

emissions from ash handling using the 

performance test. The initial 

performance test must be conducted 

using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 

1 or 2 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in § 60.4900(a). 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance 

using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option 

to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or 

lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for dioxins/furans takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

for such a continuous automated 

sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as 

specified in § 60.4900(b)(6) and use the 

following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the carbon monoxide emission 

limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.4900(b). For determining 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7 

percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon monoxide 

concentration without correcting for 

oxygen concentration in averaging with 

other carbon monoxide concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and 

lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of 

conducting the initial performance test 

required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system for any pollutant specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section in lieu of 

conducting the initial performance test 

for that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of 

conducting the initial mercury or 

dioxin/furan performance test in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 

this section, you must use the 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements 

specified in § 60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to § 60.13 

to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide). You must demonstrate initial 

compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, 

calculated using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour block 

averages to determine compliance with 

the mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 

2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week block 

averages to determine compliance with 

the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or 

toxic equivalency basis) emission limits 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in 

§ 60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring 

plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must 

use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, you must complete 

your initial performance evaluations 

required under your monitoring plan for 

any continuous emissions monitoring 

system and continuous automated 

sampling systems according to the 

provisions of § 60.4880. Your 

performance evaluation must be 

conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in 

§ 60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency emission limit in Table 1 or 

2 to this subpart, determine dioxins/ 

furans toxic equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra- through 

octachlorinated-isomer emitted using 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer by its corresponding 

toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section to obtain the total concentration 

of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of 

toxic equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance 

report, as specified in § 60.4915(c). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial 

compliance using the performance test 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.4915(g). You must 

conduct the initial performance test as 

soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the initial performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 39
15410 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 60.4870 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

(a) You must establish the sitespecific operating limits specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in § 60.4855, as 

applicable, during your initial 

performance tests required in § 60.4865. 

You must meet the requirements in 

§ 60.4890(d) to confirm these operating 

limits or re-establish new operating 

limits using operating data recorded 

during any performance tests or 

performance evaluations required in 

§ 60.4885. You must follow the data 

measurement and recording frequencies 

and data averaging times specified in 

Table 3 to this subpart or as established 

in § 60.4855, and you must follow the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §§ 60.4900 

and 60.4905 or established in § 60.4855. 

You are not required to establish 

operating limits for the operating 

parameters listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart for a control device if you use 

a continuous monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for the applicable pollutants, as 

follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control 

emissions of hydrogen chloride or sulfur 

dioxide, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and 

monitor, scrubber liquid flow rate or 

scrubber liquid pH if you use the 

continuous monitoring system specified 

in §§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limit for hydrogen chloride or 

sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control 

emissions of particulate matter, 

cadmium, and lead, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit 

and monitor pressure drop across the 

scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if 

you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for particulate 

matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator 

designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an 

operating limit and monitor secondary 

voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection 

plates, or effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the electrostatic precipitator if 

you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for particulate 

matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection 

system designed to control emissions of 

mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas 

flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) 

if you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection 

system designed to control emissions of 

dioxins/furans, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas 

flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) 

if you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for dioxins/ 

furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across 

each wet scrubber used to meet the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate 

(measured at the inlet to each wet 

scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for 

each wet scrubber used to meet the 

sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, equal to the lowest 1-hour 

average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber 

operating temperature (or minimum 

afterburner temperature), equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average combustion 

chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(f) Minimum power input to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average power measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits. Power input must be 

calculated as the product of the 

secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates. Both the 

secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage must be recorded during the 

performance test. 

(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate 

at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the electrostatic precipitator 

measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(h) For activated carbon injection, 

establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent 

injection rate, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the mercury emission 

limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average dioxin/furan sorbent injection 

rate measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or 

minimum carrier gas pressure drop, as 

follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average 

carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable emission limit. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure 

drop, equal to the lowest 4-hour average 

carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable emission limit. 

§ 60.4875 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device inspection 

and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an air pollution 

control device inspection according to 

§ 60.4900(c) within 60 days of installing 

an air pollution control device or within 

180 days of startup of the SSI unit using 

the air pollution control device, 

whichever comes first. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following the air pollution control 

device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must 

be completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the SSI unit must be 

completed. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 40
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15411 

§ 60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan for my continuous 

monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash 

handling systems, and by what date must 

I conduct an initial performance evaluation? 

You must develop and submit to the 

Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required 

under this subpart, according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 60.13(i) and 

paragraph (e) of this section. If you use 

a continuous automated sampling 

system to comply with the mercury or 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limit, you 

must develop your monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.58b(q), and you are not 

required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

You must also submit a site-specific 

monitoring plan for your ash handling 

system, as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section. You must submit and 

update your monitoring plans as 

specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of 

this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring 

system, your monitoring plan must 

address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(8) of this section. You must operate 

and maintain the continuous monitoring 

system in continuous operation 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(1) Installation of the continuous 

monitoring system sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement 

location relative to each affected process 

unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 

emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the 

last control device). 

(2) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions 

monitoring systems, your performance 

evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems specified in § 60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance 

specifications (e.g., relative accuracy 

tests) in appendix B of this part. 

(C) The applicable procedures (e.g., 

quarterly accuracy determinations and 

daily calibration drift tests) in appendix 

F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the 

occurrence and duration of out-ofcontrol periods will affect the suitability 

of CEMS data, where out-of-control has 

the meaning given in section (a)(7)(i) of 

this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter 

monitoring systems, your performance 

evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to the 

following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow monitoring 

system, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(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. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(B)(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., 

particulate matter 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. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a pH monitoring system, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(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. 

(D) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a temperature 

measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and 

other necessary equipment in a position 

that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, 

whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic 

temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, 

whichever is larger, for a cryogenic 

temperature range. 

(4) Conduct a temperature 

measurement device performance 

evaluation at the time of each 

performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(E) 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 

(a)(3)(ii)(E)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure 

(secondary) voltage and current to the 

electrostatic 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 41
15412 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(F) 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 

(a)(3)(ii)(F)(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. 

(4) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

(c), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f) and (g). 

(7) Provisions for periods when the 

continuous monitoring system is out of 

control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is 

out of control if the conditions of 

paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) of 

this section are met. 

(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable), or high-level calibration 

drift exceeds two times the applicable 

calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or 

in the relevant standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system 

fails a performance test audit (e.g., 

cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy 

audit, relative accuracy test audit, or 

linearity test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring 

system is out of control as specified in 

paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you 

must take the necessary corrective 

action and must repeat all necessary 

tests that indicate that the system is out 

of control. You must take corrective 

action and conduct retesting until the 

performance requirements are below the 

applicable limits. The beginning of the 

out-of-control period is the hour you 

conduct a performance check (e.g., 

calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance 

requirements established under this 

part. The end of the out-of-control 

period is the hour following the 

completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the 

system is within the allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial 

and periodic performance evaluations. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is 

used, your monitoring plan must 

include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak 

detection system in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Install the 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. 

(ii) 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. 

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the bag leak detection system, including 

how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a system that will 

sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter 

emissions over a preset level. The alarm 

must be located where it is observed 

readily and any alert is detected and 

recognized easily by plant operating 

personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of 

the bag leak detection system, 

performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the 

guidance provided in Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection 

system, including quality assurance 

procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak 

detection system, including a routine 

maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record 

retention) of the bag leak detection 

system data. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. 

(c) You must conduct an initial 

performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

and § 60.13(c). For the purposes of this 

subpart, the provisions of § 60.13(c) also 

apply to the bag leak detection system. 

You must conduct the initial 

performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system within 

60 days of installation of the monitoring 

system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring 

plan specifying the ash handling system 

operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that you meet the 

fugitive emissions limit specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to 

the Administrator for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards of this subpart, subject to the 

provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not 

approve averaging periods other than 

those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or 

information, that the longer averaging 

period will ensure that emissions do not 

exceed levels achieved over the 

duration of three performance test runs. 

(2) If the application to use an 

alternate monitoring requirement is 

approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until 

approval is received to use another 

monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application 

for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The 

application must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iii) of this section: 

(i) Data or information justifying the 

request, such as the technical or 

economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required 

approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed 

alternative monitoring requirement, 

including the operating parameter to be 

monitored, the monitoring approach 

and technique, the averaging period for 

the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting 

that the alternative monitoring 

requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with 

the relevant emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you 

of the approval or denial of the 

application within 90 calendar days 

after receipt of the original request, or 

within 60 calendar days of the receipt 

of any supplementary information, 

whichever is later. The Administrator 

will not approve an alternate monitoring 

application unless it would provide 

equivalent or better assurance of 

compliance with the relevant emission 

standard. Before disapproving any 

alternate monitoring application, the 

Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and 

findings upon which the intended 

disapproval is based. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 42
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15413 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to 

present additional supporting 

information before final action is taken 

on the application. This notice will 

specify how much additional time is 

allowed for you to provide additional 

supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting 

any supporting information in a timely 

manner to enable the Administrator to 

consider the application prior to the 

performance test. Neither submittal of 

an application, nor the Administrator’s 

failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any 

provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at 

any time, on a case-by-case basis, that 

additional or alternative operating 

limits, or alternative approaches to 

establishing operating limits, are 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this 

subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring 

plans required in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section at least 60 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring 

plan for your ash handling system, as 

required in paragraph (d) of this section, 

at least 60 days before your initial 

compliance test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit 

your monitoring plan if there are any 

changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a 

process change, as defined in § 60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§ 60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits 

and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart, use the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for particulate matter, hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis), 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive 

emissions from ash handling, and 

follow the procedures specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section for carbon 

monoxide. In lieu of using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section, you also have the option to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

using the procedures specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and 

lead. You must meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as 

applicable, and paragraphs (c) through 

(e) of this section, according to the 

performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in § 60.4900(a) 

and (b). You may also petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in paragraph (f) 

of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a performance test. 

Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the 

date that the initial performance test for 

each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart except carbon monoxide is 

completed, you must conduct a 

performance test for each such pollutant 

on an annual basis (between 11 and 13 

calendar months following the previous 

performance test). The performance test 

must be conducted using the test 

methods, averaging methods, and 

minimum sampling volumes or 

durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart and according to the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in § 60.4900(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The 

Administrator may request a repeat 

performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance 

test within 60 days of a process change, 

as defined in § 60.4930. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section, you can 

conduct performance tests less often for 

a given pollutant, as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests 

less often if your performance tests for 

the pollutant for at least 2 consecutive 

years show that your emissions are at or 

below 75 percent of the emission limit 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, 

and there are no changes in the 

operation of the affected source or air 

pollution control equipment that could 

increase emissions. In this case, you do 

not have to conduct a performance test 

for that pollutant for the next 2 years. 

You must conduct a performance test 

during the third year and no more than 

37 months after the previous 

performance test. 

(ii) If your SSI unit continues to meet 

the emission limit for the pollutant, you 

may choose to conduct performance 

tests for the pollutant every third year 

if your emissions are at or below 75 

percent of the emission limit, and if 

there are no changes in the operation of 

the affected source or air pollution 

control equipment that could increase 

emissions, but each such performance 

test must be conducted no more than 37 

months after the previous performance 

test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows 

emissions exceeded 75 percent of the 

emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for 

that pollutant until all performance tests 

over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or 

continuous automated sampling system. 

The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is 

published in the Federal Register. The 

option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans 

takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system 

is published in the Federal Register. 

Collect data as specified in 

§ 60.4900(b)(6) and use the following 

procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system specified in 

§ 60.4900(b). For determining 

compliance with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7 

percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon monoxide 

concentration without correcting for 

oxygen concentration in averaging with 

other carbon monoxide concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and 

lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of 

conducting the annual performance test 

required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system for any pollutant specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section in lieu of 

conducting the annual performance test 

for that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 43
15414 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

conducting the annual mercury or 

dioxin/furan performance test in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) 

of this section, you must use the 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements 

specified in § 60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to § 60.13 

to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide). You must demonstrate initial 

compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, 

calculated using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, 

you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour averages 

to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages 

to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.4880(e). For mercury 

continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 

75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of 

this part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, you must complete 

your periodic performance evaluations 

required under your monitoring plan for 

any continuous emissions monitoring 

system and continuous automated 

sampling systems, according to the 

schedule specified in your monitoring 

plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting 

an annual performance test (or 

according to the less frequent testing for 

a pollutant as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section), you must 

complete the initial performance 

evaluation required in your monitoring 

plan in § 60.4880 for the continuous 

monitoring system prior to using the 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. 

Your performance evaluation must be 

conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in 

§ 60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with 

the dioxins/furans toxic equivalency 

emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of 

this section, you must determine 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as 

follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra- through octachlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octa-chlorinated) isomer 

measured in accordance with paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, multiply the 

isomer concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section to obtain the total concentration 

of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of 

toxic equivalency. 

(d) You must submit the annual 

compliance report specified in 

§ 60.4915(d). You must submit the 

deviation report specified in 

§ 60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a performance test, as 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.4915(g). You must 

conduct the performance test as soon as 

practicable after the force majeure 

occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in 

§ 60.4880 for alternative monitoring 

requirements for initial compliance, you 

may subsequently petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in §§ 60.13(i) 

and 60.4880(e). 

§ 60.4890 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with my operating 

limits? 

You must continuously monitor your 

operating parameters as specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section and meet 

the requirements of paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section, according to the 

monitoring and calibration requirements 

in § 60.4905. You must confirm and reestablish your operating limits as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor 

the operating parameters specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section using the continuous monitoring 

equipment and according to the 

procedures specified in § 60.4905 or 

established in § 60.4855. To determine 

compliance, you must use the data 

averaging period specified in Table 3 to 

this subpart (except for alarm time of 

the baghouse leak detection system) 

unless a different averaging period is 

established under § 60.4855. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI 

unit meets the operating limits 

established according to §§ 60.4855 and 

60.4870 and paragraph (d) of this 

section for each applicable operating 

parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI 

unit meets the operating limit for bag 

leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, 

you must calculate the alarm time as 

follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective action is 

required, no alarm time is counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, 

each alarm time shall be counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, each alarm 

time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken by you to initiate corrective 

action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is 

equal to 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§ 60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established 

maximum, below the established 

minimum, or outside the allowable 

range of the operating limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section constitutes 

a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except 

during performance tests conducted to 

determine compliance with the 

emission and operating limits or to 

establish new operating limits. You 

must submit the deviation report 

specified in § 60.4915(e) for each 

instance that you did not meet one of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 44
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15415 

your operating limits established under 

this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual 

compliance report specified in 

§ 60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating 

limits according to paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section or re-establish operating 

limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. Your operating limits must 

be established so as to assure ongoing 

compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your 

operating requirements in your fugitive 

emissions monitoring plan specified in 

§ 60.4850(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be 

based on operating data recorded during 

any performance test required in 

§ 60.4885(a) or any performance 

evaluation required in § 60.4885(b)(5). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§ 60.4895 By what date must I conduct 

annual air pollution control device 

inspections and make any necessary 

repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual 

inspection of each air pollution control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limits, according to 

§ 60.4900(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air 

pollution control device inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit 

must be completed. 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and 

Calibration Requirements 

§ 60.4900 What are the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements for compliance with the 

emission limits and standards? 

You must meet, as applicable, the 

performance testing requirements 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the monitoring requirements 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the air pollution control device 

inspections requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, and the 

bypass stack provisions specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist 

of a minimum of three test runs 

conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as 

specified in § 60.8(c). Emissions in 

excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction are 

considered deviations from the 

applicable emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry 

sludge burned during the performance 

test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating 

conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of 

sewage sludge burned during the 

performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average 

hourly rate that sewage sludge is fed to 

the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture 

content of the sewage sludge burned 

during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed 

to the incinerator for each 8 hour period 

that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be 

conducted using the test methods, 

minimum sampling volume, observation 

period, and averaging methods specified 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 must be used to select the 

sampling location and number of 

traverse points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2 must be used for gas 

composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. 

Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2 must be used 

simultaneously with each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must 

be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using 

Equation 1 of this section: 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 

percent oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on 

a dry basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen¥7 percent 

oxygen (defined oxygen correction 

basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a 

dry basis, percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be 

conducted and data reduced in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures contained in this subpart 

unless the Administrator does one of the 

following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific 

cases, the use of a method with minor 

changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent 

method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative 

method the results of which he has 

determined to be adequate for indicating 

whether a specific source is in 

compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for 

performance tests because you have 

demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that the 

affected SSI unit is in compliance with 

the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times 

and smaller sample volumes when 

necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph 

is construed to abrogate the 

Administrator’s authority to require 

testing under section 114 of the Clean 

Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the 

Administrator at least 30 days prior 

notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford 

the Administrator the opportunity to 

have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled 

performance test, there is a delay (due 

to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance 

test, you must notify the Administrator 

as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at 

least 7 days prior notice of the 

rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date 

with the Administrator by mutual 

agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be 

provided, performance testing facilities 

as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the 

test methods applicable to the SSI unit, 

as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution 

control system such that volumetric 

flow rates and pollutant emission rates 

can be accurately determined by 

applicable test methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of 

cyclonic flow during performance tests, 

as demonstrated by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling 

platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing 

equipment. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER21MR11.019</GPH>

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 45
15416 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this 

subpart, each performance test must 

consist of three separate runs using the 

applicable test method. Each run must 

be conducted for the time and under the 

conditions specified in the applicable 

standard. Compliance with each 

emission limit must be determined by 

calculating the arithmetic mean of the 

three runs. In the event that a sample is 

accidentally lost or conditions occur in 

which one of the three runs must be 

discontinued because of forced 

shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable 

portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other 

circumstances, beyond your control, 

compliance may, upon the 

Administrator’s approval, be 

determined using the arithmetic mean 

of the results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you 

must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent 

of your maximum permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. 

You must meet the following 

requirements, as applicable, when using 

a continuous monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is 

published in the Federal Register. If you 

elect to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this 

section. If you elect to use a continuous 

automated sampling system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The 

option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans 

takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system 

is published in the Federal Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 

one month before starting use of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 

one month before stopping use of the 

continuous monitoring system, in which 

case you must also conduct a 

performance test prior to ceasing 

operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the 

atmosphere in accordance with the 

following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this 

part. 

(ii) The following performance 

specifications of appendix B of this part, 

as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, 

Performance Specification 11 of 

appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, 

Performance Specification 15 of 

appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, 

Performance Specification 4B of 

appendix B of this part with the 

modifications shown in Tables 1 and 2 

to this subpart. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance 

Specification 12A of appendix B of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions 

monitoring systems, the quality 

assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly 

accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests) of appendix F of 

this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this 

section. For each pollutant, the span 

value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the 

applicable emission limit, expressed as 

a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 

2 in appendix F of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 

1 in appendix F of this part except that 

the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be 

replaced with the validation 

requirements and criteria of sections 

11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance 

Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 

in appendix F of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a 

malfunction or out-of-control period, 

you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as 

expeditiously as possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data 

for each regulated pollutant and oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide as established in 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section) must be 

collected concurrently (or within a 

30- to 60-minute period) by both the 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems and the test methods specified 

in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through 

(b)(4)(viii) of this section. Relative 

accuracy testing must be at 

representative operating conditions 

while the SSI unit is charging sewage 

sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or 

Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 

or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8, shall be used as specified in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 

10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, shall be 

used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, 

Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8 shall be used. Alternatively for 

mercury, Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 or ASTM D6784–02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 

7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, 

shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 

6C at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, or 

as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 60.17) must be used. For sources 

that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, 

the relative accuracy criterion for inlet 

sulfur dioxide continuous emissions 

monitoring system should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the 

method test data in terms of the units of 

the emission standard, or 5 parts per 

million dry volume absolute value of 

the mean difference between the 

method and the continuous emissions 

monitoring system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as 

established in (b)(5) of this section), 

Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), 

as applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance 

with the emission limits 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 46
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15417 

dioxide levels must be established 

during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and 

methods specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) 

through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. This 

relationship may be re-established 

during subsequent performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2 

must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 

30 minutes in each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent 

a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be 

performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous 

monitoring system and collect data with 

the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the 

continuous monitoring system at all 

times the affected SSI unit is operating 

and at the intervals specified in 

paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, 

except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality 

control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). 

Any such periods that you do not 

collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring 

requirements and must be reported in a 

deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous 

emissions monitoring system data in 

accordance with § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be 

included in calculations used to report 

emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i), 

repairs associated with periods when 

the monitoring system is out of control, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities 

conducted during out-of-control periods 

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction constitute a deviation from 

the monitoring requirements and must 

be reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected 

during all periods except those periods 

specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and 

(b)(6)(iv) of this section in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous 

automated sampling system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous automated 

sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in 

§ 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), 

(p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to 

§ 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph (b)(6) of 

this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device 

inspections. You must conduct air 

pollution control device inspections 

that include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation. 

(2) Generally observe that the 

equipment is maintained in good 

operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring 

plan according to the requirements in 

§ 60.4880. This requirement also applies 

to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 60.13(i). 

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass 

stack at any time that sewage sludge is 

being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all 

pollutants listed in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates 

the performance test. 

§ 60.4905 What are the monitoring and 

calibration requirements for compliance 

with my operating limits? 

(a) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general 

requirements for flow, pressure, pH, and 

operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the 

continuous monitoring system at all 

times the affected SSI unit is operating 

and at the intervals specified in 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, 

except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality 

control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). 

Any such periods that you do not 

collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring 

requirements and must be reported in a 

deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous 

parameter monitoring system data in 

accordance with § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be 

included in calculations used to report 

emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in your annual 

deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i), 

repairs associated with periods when 

the monitoring system is out of control, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities 

conducted during out-of-control periods 

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction, as defined in § 60.4930, 

constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected 

during all periods except those periods 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and 

(a)(1)(iv) of this section in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(vi) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(2) Operate and maintain your 

continuous monitoring system 

according to your monitoring plan 

required under § 60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors 

(for activated carbon injection), during 

the performance test conducted 

pursuant to § 60.4885, you must 

demonstrate that the system is 

maintained within +/¥5 percent 

accuracy, according to the procedures in 

appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop 

monitors (for activated carbon 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 47
15418 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to § 60.4885, you 

must demonstrate that the system is 

maintained within +/¥5 percent 

accuracy. 

(b) You must operate and maintain 

your bag leak detection system in 

continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under 

§ 60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter 

systems that do not duct all 

compartments of cells to a common 

stack, a bag leak detection system must 

be installed in each baghouse 

compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors 

are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be 

shared among detectors. 

(3) You must initiate procedures to 

determine the cause of every alarm 

within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm 

within 24 hours of the alarm by taking 

whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may 

include, but are not limited to the 

following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in particulate matter 

emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise repairing the control 

device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate matter 

emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems specified in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section in continuous 

operation according to your monitoring 

plan required under § 60.4880. 

(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, 

you must install, calibrate 

(to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or 

method for measuring the use of the 

bypass stack including date, time, and 

duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§ 60.4910 What records must I keep? 

You must maintain the items 

(as applicable) specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (n) of this section for a 

period of at least 5 years. All records 

must be available on site in either paper 

copy or computer-readable format that 

can be printed upon request, unless an 

alternative format is approved by the 

Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation 

produced as a result of the siting 

requirements of §§ 60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation 

of the operator training procedures and 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(4) of this section. You must 

make available and readily accessible at 

the facility at all times for all SSI unit 

operators the documentation specified 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(1) Documentation of the following 

operator training procedures and 

information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable 

standards under this subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, 

handling, and feeding sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction preventative and 

corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper 

combustion air supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the 

incinerator and associated air pollution 

control systems within the standards 

established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping 

procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned 

during the performance test, if in 

addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and 

other plant personnel who may operate 

the unit according to the provisions of 

§ 60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager 

number at which they can be reached 

during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who may operate the unit according to 

the provisions of § 60.4835(a), as 

follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section as required by § 60.4840(b), 

including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the 

SSI operators who have completed the 

operator training requirements under 

§ 60.4810, met the criteria for 

qualification under § 60.4820, and 

maintained or renewed their 

qualification under § 60.4825 or 

§ 60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including 

the dates of their initial qualification 

and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 

weeks, as required in § 60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for 2 weeks or more along with copies 

of reports submitted as required in 

§ 60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device 

inspections. Records of the results of 

initial and annual air pollution control 

device inspections conducted as 

specified in §§ 60.4875 and 60.4900(c), 

including any required maintenance 

and any repairs not completed within 

10 days of an inspection or the 

timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, 

and any subsequent performance tests 

conducted to determine compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

and/or to establish operating limits, as 

applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete 

performance test report, including 

calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry 

sludge feed rate measured during 

performance test runs, as specified in 

§ 60.4900(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to 

demonstrate that the performance test 

was conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, 

including a record of the moisture 

content measured as required in 

§ 60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample 

taken of the sewage sludge burned 

during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. 

Records of the following data, as 

applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions 

monitoring systems, all 1-hour average 

concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans total mass basis, 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated 

sampling systems, all average 

concentrations measured for mercury 

and dioxins/furans total mass basis at 

the frequencies specified in your 

monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter 

monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded 

for the following operating parameters, 

as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating 

temperature (or afterburner 

temperature). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 48
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15419 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply 

with the rule, pressure drop across each 

wet scrubber system, liquid flow rate to 

each wet scrubber used to comply with 

the emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for particulate matter, cadmium, 

or lead, and scrubber liquid flow rate 

and scrubber liquid pH for each wet 

scrubber used to comply with an 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen 

chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is 

used to comply with the rule, secondary 

voltage and secondary amperage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at 

the outlet of the wet electrostatic 

precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is 

used to comply with the rule, sorbent 

flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or 

pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded 

for the feed rate and moisture content of 

the sewage sludge fed to the sewage 

sludge incinerator, monitored and 

calculated as specified in § 60.4850(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply 

with the rule, the date, time, and 

duration of each alarm and the time 

corrective action was initiated and 

completed, and a brief description of the 

cause of the alarm and the corrective 

action taken. You must also record the 

percent of operating time during each 

6-month period that the alarm sounds, 

calculated as specified in § 60.4890. 

(iv) For other control devices for 

which you must establish operating 

limits under § 60.4855, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating 

parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits, at 

the frequencies specified in your 

monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous 

monitoring systems. You must keep the 

following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications 

to the Administrator in § 60.4915(h)(1) 

of starting or stopping use of a 

continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under 

§ 60.4900(b)(5) that compliance with the 

emission limits be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is 

used to comply with the rule, the type 

of sorbent used and any changes in the 

type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any 

deviation reports submitted under 

§ 60.4915(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and 

operation and maintenance 

requirements. Equipment specifications 

and related operation and maintenance 

requirements received from vendors for 

the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and 

validation checks of monitoring devices. 

Records of inspections, calibrations, and 

validations checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§ 60.4900 

and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance 

evaluations for continuous monitoring 

systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under § 60.4880, and 

records of performance evaluations 

required under § 60.4885(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. If, consistent 

with 60.4885(a)(3), you elect to conduct 

performance tests less frequently than 

annually, you must keep annual records 

that document that your emissions in 

the 2 previous consecutive years were at 

or below 75 percent of the applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, and document that there were 

no changes in source operations or air 

pollution control equipment that would 

cause emissions of the relevant 

pollutant to increase within the past 2 

years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records 

indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times, and durations as 

required under § 60.4905(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must 

keep a record of the information 

submitted in your annual report in 

§ 60.4915(d)(16). 

§ 60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

You must submit the reports specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this 

section. See Table 5 to this subpart for 

a summary of these reports. 

(a) Notification of construction. You 

must submit a notification prior to 

commencing construction that includes 

the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of this section: 

(1) A statement of intent to construct. 

(2) The anticipated date of 

commencement of construction. 

(3) All documentation produced as a 

result of the siting requirements of 

§ 60.4805. 

(4) Anticipated date of initial startup. 

(b) Notification of initial startup. You 

must submit the information specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of 

this section prior to initial startup: 

(1) The maximum design dry sludge 

burning capacity. 

(2) The anticipated and permitted 

maximum dry sludge feed rate. 

(3) If applicable, the petition for sitespecific operating limits specified in 

§ 60.4855. 

(4) The anticipated date of initial 

startup. 

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan 

required under § 60.4880, at least 60 

days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous 

monitoring system. 

(6) The site-specific monitoring plan 

for your ash handling system required 

under § 60.4880, at least 60 days before 

your initial performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with your 

fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Initial compliance report. You 

must submit the following information 

no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the 

initial performance test results obtained 

by using the test methods specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance 

evaluation of a continuous monitoring 

system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific 

operating limits established pursuant to 

§§ 60.4850 and 60.4855 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, 

used to establish each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to 

comply with the emission limits, 

documentation that a bag leak detection 

system has been installed and is being 

operated, calibrated, and maintained as 

required by § 60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air 

pollution control device inspection 

required in § 60.4875, including a 

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You 

must submit an annual compliance 

report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(16) of this 

section for the reporting period 

specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first 

annual compliance report no later than 

12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in 

paragraph (c) of this section. You must 

submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months 

following the previous annual 

compliance report. (You may be 

required to submit these reports (or 

additional compliance information) 

more frequently by the title V operating 

permit required in § 60.4920.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, 

with that official’s name, title, and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 49
15420 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was 

conducted during the reporting period, 

the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established 

during the performance test, include the 

value for each operating limit and, as 

applicable, the method used to establish 

each operating limit, including 

calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during 

the performance test, include the type of 

activated carbon used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating 

parameter recorded using a continuous 

monitoring system, the highest average 

value and lowest average value recorded 

during the reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission 

monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, report the 

highest and lowest 24-hour average 

emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter 

monitoring systems, report the 

following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters 

except scrubber liquid pH, the highest 

and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the 

highest and lowest 3-hour average 

values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during 

the reporting period from any emission 

limit, emission standard, or operating 

limit that applies to you, a statement 

that there were no deviations from the 

emission limits, emission standard, or 

operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection 

systems recorded under 

§ 60.4910(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was 

conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new 

operating limits were established during 

the performance evaluation, include 

your calculations for establishing those 

operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct 

performance tests less frequently as 

allowed in § 60.4885(a)(3) and did not 

conduct a performance test during the 

reporting period, you must include the 

dates of the last two performance tests, 

a comparison of the emission level you 

achieved in the last two performance 

tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in § 60.4885(a)(3), 

and a statement as to whether there 

have been any process changes and 

whether the process change resulted in 

an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when 

all qualified SSI unit operators were 

unavailable for more than 8 hours, but 

less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution 

control device inspections recorded 

under § 60.4910(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of 

repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during 

the reporting period when your 

continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were 

no periods during which your 

continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during 

the reporting period when a continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which your continuous 

monitoring system was out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training 

deviations, a statement that there were 

no such deviations during the reporting 

period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to 

your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that you did not make any revisions to 

your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period. If you made 

revisions to your site-specific 

monitoring plan during the reporting 

period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction that occurred 

during the reporting period and that 

caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

(e) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation 

report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter 

level, based on the averaging time 

specified in Table 3 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or 

below the minimum operating limit 

established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

alarm sounds for more than 5 percent of 

the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block 

average emissions level is above the 

emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply 

with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of 

combustion ash from an ash conveying 

system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted 

that deviated from any emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system 

was out of control. 

(vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., 

continuous monitoring system 

malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to 

be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be 

submitted by August 1 of that year for 

data collected during the first half of the 

calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and 

by February 1 of the following year for 

data you collected during the second 

half of the calendar year (July 1 to 

December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are 

using a continuous monitoring system 

to comply with an associated emission 

limit or operating limit, report the items 

described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through 

(e)(3)(viii) of this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with that official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the accuracy of 

the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times 

your unit deviated from the emission 

limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data 

for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each 

deviation from the following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission 

standards, operating limits, and your 

corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective 

actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for 

monitor downtime incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating 

parameter monitoring data during each 

deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following 

information for each deviation from an 

emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

inoperative, except for zero (low-level) 

and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out of control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(D) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 50
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15421 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction, during a period 

when the system as out of control, or 

during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration 

of continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

SSI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are 

not using a continuous monitoring 

system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report 

the following items: 

(i) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each 

affected SSI during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your 

unit deviated from the emission limits, 

emission standards, or operating limits 

requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data 

for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each 

deviation from the following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission 

standard, and operating limits, and your 

corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective 

actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test 

report that showed a deviation from the 

emission limits or standard. 

(viii) A brief description of any 

malfunction reported in paragraph 

(e)(1)(vii) of this section, including a 

description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 60.11(d) and to correct 

the malfunction. 

(f) Qualified operator deviation. 

(1) If all qualified operators are not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more, you 

must take the two actions in paragraphs 

(f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the 

deviation within 10 days that includes 

the three items in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) 

through (f)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the 

deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to 

ensure that a qualified operator is 

accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that 

a qualified operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the 

Administrator every 4 weeks that 

includes the three items in paragraphs 

(f)(1)(ii)(A) through (f)(1)(ii)(C) of this 

section. 

(A) A description of actions taken to 

ensure that a qualified operator is 

accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that 

a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the 

Administrator to continue operation of 

the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the 

Administrator, under the provisions of 

§ 60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to 

provide an accessible qualified operator, 

you must notify the Administrator 

within 5 days of meeting 

§ 60.4835(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming 

operation. 

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If 

a force majeure is about to occur, 

occurs, or has occurred for which you 

intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the 

Administrator, in writing as soon as 

practicable following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known that the event may cause or 

caused a delay in conducting a 

performance test beyond the regulatory 

deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test 

deadline unless the initial force majeure 

or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the 

notification must occur as soon as 

practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of 

the force majeure event and a rationale 

for attributing the delay in conducting 

the performance test beyond the 

regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be 

taken to minimize the delay; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

conduct the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports 

required. You must submit other 

notifications as provided by § 60.7 and 

as follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 

1 month before starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 

at least 30 days prior to any 

performance test conducted to comply 

with the provisions of this subpart, to 

afford the Administrator the 

opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in § 60.4900(a)(8), you 

must notify the Administrator at least 7 

days prior to the date of a rescheduled 

performance test for which notification 

was previously made in paragraph (h)(2) 

of this section. 

(i) Report submission form. 

(1) Submit initial, annual, and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, as defined in 

§ 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/ert_

tool.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. 

(j) Changing report dates. If the 

Administrator agrees, you may change 

the semi-annual or annual reporting 

dates. See § 60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting 

date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§ 60.4920 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a title V operating permit for my 

unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, 

you are required to apply for and obtain 

a Title V operating permit unless you 

meet the relevant requirements for an 

exemption specified in § 60.4780. 

§ 60.4925 When must I submit a title V 

permit application for my new SSI unit? 

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this 

subpart is not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, a complete 

Title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before one of the dates 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 51
15422 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

this section. (See section 503(c) of the 

Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)). 

(1) For a SSI unit that commenced 

operation as a new SSI unit as of March 

21, 2011, then a complete title V permit 

application must be submitted not later 

than March 21, 2012. 

(2) For a SSI unit that does not 

commence operation as a new SSI unit 

until after March 21, 2011, then a 

complete title V permit application 

must be submitted not later than 12 

months after the date the unit 

commences operation as a new source. 

(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this 

subpart is subject to title V as a result 

of some triggering requirement(s) other 

than this subpart (for example, a unit 

subject to this subpart may be a major 

source or part of a major source), then 

your unit may be required to apply for 

a title V permit prior to the deadlines 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. If more than one requirement 

triggers a source’s obligation to apply for 

a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe 

for filing a title V permit application is 

triggered by the requirement that first 

causes the source to be subject to title 

V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 

70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 

40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).) 

(c) A ‘‘complete’’ title V permit 

application is one that has been 

determined or deemed complete by the 

relevant permitting authority under 

section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 

40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). 

You must submit a complete permit 

application by the relevant application 

deadline in order to operate after this 

date in compliance with Federal law. 

(See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the 

Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 

40 CFR 71.7(b).) 

Definitions 

§ 60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Terms used but not defined in this 

subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act 

and § 60.2. 

Affected source means a sewage 

sludge incineration unit as defined in 

§ 60.4930. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, 

liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, or 

diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an 

instrument that is capable of monitoring 

particulate matter loadings in the 

exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) 

in order to detect bag failures. A bag 

leak detection system includes, but is 

not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, light 

scattering, light transmittance, or other 

principle to monitor relative particulate 

matter loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive 

days starting on January 1 and ending 

on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling 

system means the total equipment and 

procedures for automated sample 

collection and sample recovery/analysis 

to determine a pollutant concentration 

or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple 

integrated sample(s) of the pollutant (or 

diluent gas) for subsequent on- or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) 

collected are representative of the 

emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring 

system means a monitoring system for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an 

affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

means a continuous emissions 

monitoring system, continuous 

automated sampling system, continuous 

parameter monitoring system, or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is 

used for demonstrating compliance with 

an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this 

subpart. The term refers to the total 

equipment used to sample and 

condition (if applicable), to analyze, and 

to provide a permanent record of 

emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring 

system means a monitoring system for 

continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air 

pollution control device systems (e.g., 

operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emission limit, operating limit, or 

operator qualification and accessibility 

requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet 

electrostatic precipitator means an air 

pollution control device that uses both 

electrical forces and, if applicable, water 

to remove pollutants in the exit gas from 

a sewage sludge incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration 

unit means a sewage sludge incineration 

unit the construction of which is 

commenced on or before October 14, 

2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air 

pollution control device used to capture 

particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also 

known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an 

enclosed device in which organic matter 

and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles 

suspended in the combustion chamber 

gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, 

infrequent, and not reasonably 

preventable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. 

Failures that are caused, in part, by poor 

maintenance or careless operation are 

not malfunctions. 

Modification means a change to an 

existing SSI unit later than September 

21, 2011 and that meets one of two 

criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes 

over the life of the unit exceeds 50 

percent of the original cost of building 

and installing the SSI unit (not 

including the cost of land) updated to 

current costs (current dollars). To 

determine what systems are within the 

boundary of the SSI unit used to 

calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI 

unit or change in the method of 

operating it that increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted for which 

section 129 or section 111 of the Clean 

Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration 

(SSI) unit means an existing SSI unit 

that undergoes a modification, as 

defined in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a 

circular steel furnace that contains a 

number of solid refractory hearths and 

a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that 

are designed to slowly rake the sludge 

on the hearth are attached to the rotating 

shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top 

and proceeds downward through the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 52
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15423 

furnace from hearth to hearth, pushed 

along by the rabble arms. 

New sewage sludge incineration unit 

means a SSI unit the construction of 

which is commenced after October 14, 

2010 which would be applicable to such 

unit or a modified solid waste 

incineration unit. 

Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12:00 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

amount of sewage sludge is combusted 

at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable 

particulate matter emitted from SSI 

units as measured by Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Methods 

26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8. 

Power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator means the product of the 

test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage 

to the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates. 

Process change means 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: 

(1) A change in the process employed 

at the wastewater treatment facility 

associated with the affected SSI unit 

(e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at 

the facility, which changes the method 

used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution 

control devices used to comply with the 

emission limits for the affected SSI unit 

(e.g., change in the sorbent used for 

activated carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during 

the treatment of domestic sewage in a 

treatment works. Sewage sludge 

includes, but is not limited to, domestic 

septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced 

wastewater treatment processes; and a 

material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash 

generated during the firing of sewage 

sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated 

during preliminary treatment of 

domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the 

rate at which sewage sludge is fed into 

the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit 

means an incineration unit combusting 

sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incineration unit designs 

include fluidized bed and multiple 

hearth. A SSI unit also includes, but is 

not limited to, the sewage sludge feed 

system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat 

recovery equipment, if any, and bottom 

ash system. The SSI unit includes all 

ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. The 

combustion unit bottom ash system 

ends at the truck loading station or 

similar equipment that transfers the ash 

to final disposal. The SSI unit does not 

include air pollution control equipment 

or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time 

after all sewage sludge has been 

combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, 

refuse, sewage sludge from a waste 

treatment plant, water supply treatment 

plant, or air pollution control facility 

and other discarded material, including 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from 

industrial, commercial, mining, 

agricultural operations, and from 

community activities, but does not 

include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or 

industrial discharges which are point 

sources subject to permits under section 

402 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 

1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring 

to units of measure, means a 

temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 

kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time 

between the activation, including the 

firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or 

distillate oil), of the system and the first 

feed to the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product 

of the concentration of an individual 

dioxin isomer in an environmental 

mixture and the corresponding estimate 

of the compound-specific toxicity 

relative to tetrachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin, referred to as the toxic 

equivalency factor for that compound. 

Table 4 to this subpart lists the toxic 

equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air 

pollution control device that utilizes an 

aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquid to 

collect particulate matter (including 

nonvaporous metals and condensed 

organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of 

a SSI unit that meets the criteria in 

§ 60.4770. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR NEW FLUIDIZED BED SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these 

averaging methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or durations 

And determining 

compliance using this method 

Particulate matter ........................... 9.6 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; 

Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 0.24 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 26A at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 53
15424 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR NEW FLUIDIZED BED SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these 

averaging methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or durations 

And determining 

compliance using this method 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 27 parts per million by dry volume 24-hour block average (using 1- 

hour averages of data). For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration 

limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or 

shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration 

without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with 

other carbon monoxide concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine the 

24-hour average value.

Continuous emissions monitoring 

system. (Performance Specification 4B of this part, using a 

low-range span of 100 ppm and 

a high-range span of 1000 

ppm, and a RA of 0.5 ppm instead of 5 ppm specified in section 13.2. For the cylinder gas 

audit of Procedure 1, +/¥ 15% 

or 0.5 whichever is greater). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis); 

or 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis) b

0.013 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass 

basis); or 

0.0044 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (toxic equivalency basis).

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Mercury .......................................... 0.0010 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008),c collect a minimum volume of 3 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum 

sample as specified in Method 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8; or ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008).c

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 30 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (Collect sample for 

a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 5.3 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 6, collect a minimum volume of 100 

liters per run. For Method 6C, 

sample for a minimum duration 

of one hour per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 40, appendix A– 

4; or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981.c

Cadmium ........................................ 0.0011 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use GFAAS or ICP/MS for the 

analytical finish. 

Lead ............................................... 0.00062 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. 

Use GFAAS or ICP/MS for the 

analytical finish. 

Fugitive emissions from ash handling.Visible emissions of combustion 

ash from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer 

points) for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation 

period.

Three 1-hour observation periods Visible emission test (Method 22 

of appendix A–7 of this part). 

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic 

equivalency basis. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 54
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15425 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR NEW MULTIPLE HEARTH SEWAGE

SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission 

limit a

Using these averaging methods 

and minimum sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining compliance 

using this method 

Particulate matter ........................... 60 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 0.75 dry standard 

cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; 

Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride .......................... 1.2 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (For Method 26, 

collect a minimum volume of 

200 liters per run. For Method 

26A, collect a minimum volume 

of 1 dry standard cubic meters 

per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 

26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon monoxide .......................... 52 parts per million by dry volume 24-hour block average (using 1- 

hour averages of data).

Continuous emissions monitoring 

system. (Performance Specification 4B of this part, using a 

low-range span of 100 ppm and 

a high-range span of 1000 

ppm, and a relative accuracy of 

0.5 ppm instead of 5 ppm specified in section 13.2. For the 

cylinder gas audit of Procedure 

1, +/¥ 15% or 0.5 whichever is 

greater). 

Dioxins/furans (total mass basis); 

or 

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency 

basis) b

0.045 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass 

basis); or 

0.0022 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (toxic equivalency basis).

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Mercury .......................................... 0.15 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008),c collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard 

cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum 

sample as specified in Method 

30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8; or ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008).c

Oxides of nitrogen ......................... 210 parts per million by dry volume.3-run average (Collect sample for 

a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

4). 

Sulfur dioxide ................................. 26 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (For Method 6, collect a minimum volume of 200 

liters per run. For Method 6C, 

collect sample for a minimum 

duration of one hour per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 40, appendix A– 

4; or ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981.c

Cadmium ........................................ 0.0024 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Use GFAAS or ICP/MS for the 

analytical finish. 

Lead ............................................... 0.0035 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8. 

Use GFAAS or ICP/MS for the 

analytical finish. 

Fugitive emissions from ash handling.Visible emissions of combustion 

ash from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer 

points) for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation 

period.

Three 1-hour observation periods Visible emission test (Method 22 

of appendix A–7 of this part). 

aAll emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic 

equivalency basis. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 55
15426 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS A

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data 

recording b

Data 

averaging period for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Combustion chamber operating temperature or afterburner temperature.Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature or afterburner 

temperature.

Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Fugitive emissions from ash handling Site-specific operating requirements Not applicable ........ Not applicable ........ Not applicable. 

Scrubber 

Pressure drop across each wet 

scrubber.

Minimum pressure drop ..................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Scrubber liquid flow rate .................... Minimum flow rate ............................. Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Scrubber liquid pH .............................. Minimum pH ...................................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 3-hour block. 

Fabric Filter 

Alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm.

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in § 60.4850 

and is not established on a site-specific basis). 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary voltage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates.

Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.Continuous ............. Hourly .................... 12-hour block. 

Secondary amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.

Effluent water flow rate at the outlet 

of the electrostatic precipitator.

Minimum effluent water flow rate at 

the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.

Hourly .................... Hourly ..................... 12-hour block. 

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury sorbent injection rate ............ Minimum mercury sorbent injection 

rate.

Hourly .................... Hourly .................... 12-hour block. 

Dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate ..... Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate.

Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas 

pressure drop.

Minimum carrier gas flow rate or 

minimum carrier gas pressure drop.

Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

aAs specified in § 60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data 

recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour 

or 3-hour block average specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic 

equivalency 

factor 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .......................................................................................................................................... 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.3 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.03 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0003 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 56
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15427 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS A

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of construction ..... Prior to commencing construction.1. Statement of intent to construct .....................................

2. Anticipated date of commencement of construction. 

3. Documentation for siting requirements. 

4. Anticipated date of initial startup. 

§ 60.4915(a). 

Notification of initial startup .... Prior to initial startup ............ 1. Maximum design dry sewage sludge burning capacity

2. Anticipated and permitted maximum feed rate. 

3. If applicable, the petition for site-specific operating limits. 

4. Anticipated date of initial startup. 

5. Site-specific monitoring plan. 

6. The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling 

system. 

§ 60.4915(b). 

Initial compliance report ......... No later than 60 days following the initial performance test.1. Company name and address .........................................

2. Statement by a responsible official, with that official’s 

name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of 

the content of the report. 

3. Date of report. 

4. Complete test report for the initial performance test. 

5. Results of CMSb performance evaluation. 

6. The values for the site-specific operating limits and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish each operating limit. 

7. Documentation of installation of bag leak detection 

system for fabric filter. 

8. Results of initial air pollution control device inspection, 

including a description of repairs. 

§ 60.4915(c). 

Annual compliance report ...... No later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report; subsequent reports 

are to be submitted no 

more than 12 months following the previous report.

1. Company name and address .........................................

2. Statement and signature by responsible official. 

3. Date and beginning and ending dates of report. 

4. If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the test, including any new 

operating limits and associated calculations and the 

type of activated carbon used, if applicable. 

5. For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded 

using a CMS, the highest recorded 3-hour average and 

the lowest recorded 3-hour average, as applicable. 

6. If no deviations from emission limits, emission standards, or operating limits occurred, a statement that no 

deviations occurred. 

7. If a fabric filter is used, the date, time, and duration of 

alarms. 

8. If a performance evaluation of a CMS was conducted, 

the results, including any new operating limits and their 

associated calculations. 

9. If you met the requirements of § 60.4885(a)(3) and did 

not conduct a performance test, include the dates of 

the last three performance tests, a comparison to the 

50 percent emission limit threshold of the emission 

level achieved in the last three performance tests, and 

a statement as to whether there have been any process changes. 

10. Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI unit 

operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but 

less than 2 weeks. 

11. Results of annual pollutions control device inspections, including description of repairs. 

12. If there were no periods during which your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a statement that there were no periods 

during which your CMSs had malfunctions. 

13. If there were no periods during which your CMSs 

were out of control, a statement that there were no periods during which your CMSs were out of control. 

14. If there were no operator training deviations, a statement that there were no such deviations. 

15. Information on monitoring plan revisions, including a 

copy of any revised monitoring plan. 

§§ 60.4915(d). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 57
15428 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART LLLL OF PART 60—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS A—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Deviation report (deviations 

from emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits, as specified in 

§ 60.4915(e)(1)).

By August 1 of a calendar 

year for data collected 

during the first half of the 

calendar year; by February 1 of a calendar year 

for data collected during 

the second half of the calendar year.

If using a CMS: 1. Company name and address ..............

2. Statement by a responsible official. 

3. The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from 

the emission limits or operating limits. 

4. The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

5. Duration and cause of each deviation. 

6. Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents. 

7. A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during each deviation and any test report that documents 

the emission levels. 

8. For periods of CMS malfunction or when a CMS was 

out of control, you must include the information specified in § 60.4915(e)(3)(viii). 

If not using a CMS: ............................................................

1. Company name and address .........................................

2. Statement by a responsible official. 

3. The total operating time of each affected SSI. 

4. The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from 

the emission limits, emission standard, or operating 

limits. 

5. The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

6. Duration and cause of each deviation. 

7. A copy of any performance test report that showed a 

deviation from the emission limits or standards. 

8. A brief description of any malfunction, a description of 

actions taken during the malfunction to minimize emissions, and corrective action taken. 

§ 60.4915(e). 

Notification of qualified operator deviation (if all qualified 

operators are not accessible 

for 2 weeks or more).

Within 10 days of deviation 1. Statement of cause of deviation ....................................

2. Description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified 

operator will be available.

3. The date when a qualified operator will be accessible. 

§ 60.4915(f). 

Notification of status of qualified operator deviation.Every 4 weeks following notification of deviation.1. Description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified 

operator is accessible.

2. The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator 

will be accessible. 

3. Request for approval to continue operation. 

§ 60.4915(f). 

Notification of resumed operation following shutdown 

(due to qualified operator 

deviation and as specified 

in § 60.4835(b)(2)(i).

Within 5 days of obtaining a 

qualified operator and resuming operation.

1. Notification that you have obtained a qualified operator 

and are resuming operation.

§ 60.4915(f). 

Notification of a force majeure As soon as practicable following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence should have known 

that the event may cause 

or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory 

deadline; the notification 

must occur before the performance test deadline unless the initial force 

majeure or a subsequent 

force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in 

such cases, the notification must occur as soon 

as practicable.

1. Description of the force majeure event ..........................

2. Rationale for attributing the delay in conducting the 

performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the 

force majeure. 

3. Description of the measures taken or to be taken to 

minimize the delay. 

4. Identification of the date by which you propose to conduct the performance test. 

§ 60.4915(g). 

Notification of intent to start or 

stop use of a CMS.

1 month before starting or 

stopping use of a CMS.

1. Intent to start or stop use of a CMS .............................. § 60.4915(h). 

Notification of intent to conduct a performance test.At least 30 days prior to the 

performance test.

1. Intent to conduct a performance test to comply with 

this subpart.

Notification of intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test.At least 7 days prior to the 

date of a rescheduled performance test.

1. Intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test to 

comply with this subpart.

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements. 

b CMS means continuous monitoring system. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 58
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15429 

Subpart MMMM—Emission Guidelines 

and Compliance Times for Existing 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5010 Is a state plan required for all 

states? 

60.5015 What must I include in my state 

plan? 

60.5020 Is there an approval process for my 

state plan? 

60.5025 What if my state plan is not 

approvable? 

60.5030 Is there an approval process for a 

negative declaration letter? 

60.5035 What compliance schedule must I 

include in my state plan? 

60.5040 Are there any state plan 

requirements for this subpart that apply 

instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are 

there other acceptable option(s) for a 

state to meet its section 111(d)/129 (b)(2) 

obligations? 

60.5050 What authorities will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies? 

60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI 

unit owners and operators in my state? 

Applicability of State Plans 

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in 

my state plan? 

60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my 

state plan? 

Use of Model Rule 

60.5070 What is the ‘‘model rule’’ in this 

subpart? 

60.5075 How does the model rule relate to 

the required elements of my state plan? 

60.5080 What are the principal components 

of the model rule? 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

60.5085 What are my requirements for 

meeting increments of progress and 

achieving final compliance? 

60.5090 When must I complete each 

increment of progress? 

60.5095 What must I include in the 

notifications of achievement of 

increments of progress? 

60.5100 When must I submit the 

notifications of achievement of 

increments of progress? 

60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment 

of progress? 

60.5110 How do I comply with the 

increment of progress for submittal of a 

control plan? 

60.5115 How do I comply with the 

increment of progress for achieving final 

compliance? 

60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI 

unit and then restart it? 

60.5125 What must I do if I plan to 

permanently close my SSI unit and not 

restart it? 

Model Rule—Operator Training and 

Qualification 

60.5130 What are the operator training and 

qualification requirements? 

60.5135 When must the operator training 

course be completed? 

60.5140 How do I obtain my operator 

qualification? 

60.5145 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed 

operator qualification? 

60.5155 What if all the qualified operators 

are temporarily not accessible? 

60.5160 What site-specific documentation 

is required and how often must it be 

reviewed by qualified operators and 

plant personnel? 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission 

Standards, and Operating Limits and 

Requirements 

60.5165 What emission limits and 

standards must I meet and by when? 

60.5170 What operating limits and 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

60.5175 How do I establish operating limits 

if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated 

carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I 

limit emissions in some other manner, to 

comply with the emission limits? 

60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits apply 

during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

60.5181 How do I establish affirmative 

defense for exceedance of an emission 

limit or standard during malfunction? 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.5190 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

60.5195 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan for my continuous 

monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash 

handling systems, and by what date must 

I conduct an initial performance 

evaluation? 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance 

Requirements 

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

emission limits and standards? 

60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with my operating limits? 

60.5215 By what date must I conduct 

annual air pollution control device 

inspections and make any necessary 

repairs? 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, 

Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements 

60.5220 What are the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements 

for compliance with the emission limits 

and standards? 

60.5225 What are the monitoring and 

calibration requirements for compliance 

with my operating limits? 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.5230 What records must I keep? 

60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a title V operating permit for my 

existing SSI unit? 

60.5245 When must I submit a title V 

permit application for my existing SSI 

unit? 

Model Rule—Definitions 

60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

Tables 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60— 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress and 

Compliance Schedules for Existing 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60— 

Model Rule—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60— 

Model Rule—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60— 

Model Rule—Operating Parameters for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60— 

Model Rule—Toxic Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60— 

Model Rule—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this 

subpart? 

This subpart establishes emission 

guidelines and compliance schedules 

for the control of emissions from sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) units. The 

pollutants addressed by these emission 

guidelines are listed in Tables 2 and 3 

to this subpart. These emission 

guidelines are developed in accordance 

with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. 

To the extent any requirement of this 

subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, 

the requirements of this subpart will 

apply. 

§ 60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an 

air quality program in a state or United 

States protectorate with one or more SSI 

units that commenced construction on 

or before October 14, 2010, you must 

submit a state plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

that implements the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the state plan to 

EPA by March 21, 2012. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 59
15430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 60.5010 Is a state plan required for all 

states? 

No. You are not required to submit a 

state plan if there are no SSI units for 

which construction commenced on or 

before October 14, 2010 in your state, 

and you submit a negative declaration 

letter in place of the state plan. 

§ 60.5015 What must I include in my state 

plan? 

(a) You must include the nine items 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(9) of this section in your state plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, 

including those that have ceased 

operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from 

affected SSI units in your state. 

(3) Compliance schedules for each 

affected SSI unit. 

(4) Emission limits, emission 

standards, operator training and 

qualification requirements, and 

operating limits for affected SSI units 

that are at least as protective as the 

emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on 

the state plan was held, a list of 

witnesses and their organizational 

affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of 

each presentation or written 

submission. 

(7) Provision for state progress reports 

to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable state 

mechanisms that you selected for 

implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your state’s legal 

authority to carry out the sections 

111(d) and 129 state plan. 

(b) Your state plan may deviate from 

the format and content of the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart. 

However, if your state plan does deviate 

in content, you must demonstrate that 

your state plan is at least as protective 

as the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. Your state plan must 

address regulatory applicability, 

increments of progress for retrofit, 

operator training and qualification, 

emission limits and standards, 

performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and 

reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements 

of subpart B of this part (Adoption and 

Submittal of state plans for Designated 

Facilities) in your state plan. 

§ 60.5020 Is there an approval process for 

my state plan? 

Yes. The EPA will review your state 

plan according to § 60.27. 

§ 60.5025 What if my state plan is not 

approvable? 

If you do not submit an approvable 

state plan (or a negative declaration 

letter) by March 21, 2013, EPA will 

develop a Federal plan according to 

§ 60.27 to implement the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart. 

Owners and operators of SSI units not 

covered by an approved state plan must 

comply with the Federal plan. The 

Federal plan is an interim action and 

will be automatically withdrawn when 

your state plan is approved. 

§ 60.5030 Is there an approval process for 

a negative declaration letter? 

No. The EPA has no formal review 

process for negative declaration letters. 

Once your negative declaration letter 

has been received, EPA will place a 

copy in the public docket and publish 

a notice in the Federal Register. If, at a 

later date, a SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before 

October 14, 2010 is found in your state, 

the Federal plan implementing the 

emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart would automatically apply to 

that SSI unit until your state plan is 

approved. 

§ 60.5035 What compliance schedule must 

I include in my state plan? 

(a) For SSI units that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 

2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require SSI 

units to achieve final compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later 

than the earlier of the two dates 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) March 21, 2016. 

(2) Three years after the effective date 

of state plan approval. 

(b) For compliance schedules that 

extend more than 1 year following the 

effective date of state plan approval, 

state plans must include dates for 

enforceable increments of progress as 

specified in § 60.5090. 

§ 60.5040 Are there any state plan 

requirements for this subpart that apply 

instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

Yes. Subpart B establishes general 

requirements for developing and 

processing section 111(d) state plans. 

This subpart applies instead of the 

requirements in subpart B of this part, 

as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section: 

(a) State plans developed to 

implement this subpart must be as 

protective as the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. State plans 

must require all SSI units to comply by 

the dates specified in § 60.5035. This 

applies instead of the option for case-bycase less stringent emission standards 

and longer compliance schedules in 

§ 60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to 

implement this subpart are required to 

include two increments of progress for 

the affected SSI units. These two 

minimum increments are the final 

control plan submittal date and final 

compliance date in § 60.21(h)(1) and (5). 

This applies instead of the requirement 

of § 60.24(e)(1) that would require a 

state plan to include all five increments 

of progress for all SSI units. 

§ 60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, 

are there other acceptable option(s) for a 

state to meet its section 111(d)/129 (b)(2) 

obligations? 

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 obligations by 

submitting an acceptable written request 

for delegation of the Federal plan that 

meets the requirements of this section. 

This is the only other option for a state 

to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable Federal plan 

delegation request must include the 

following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate 

resources and legal authority to 

administer and enforce the Federal plan. 

(2) The items under § 60.5015(a)(1), 

(a)(2), and (a)(7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on 

the state delegation request, similar to 

the hearing for a state plan submittal, 

was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, 

appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or 

written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date 

of the delegation and that serves as the 

mechanism for the transfer of authority. 

Additional guidance and information is 

given in EPA’s Delegation Manual, Item 

7–139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/ 

129 (b)(3) Federal plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved 

SSI Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation 

request for the revised Federal plan, 

provided the requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section are met, and at the 

time of the delegation request, the state 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 60
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15431 

also requests withdrawal of EPA’s 

previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations are separate from 

its obligations under title V of the Clean 

Air Act. 

§ 60.5050 What authorities will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal agencies? 

The authorities that will not be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the 

emission limits and standards in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart and operating 

limits established under § 60.5175 or 

§ 60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods. 

(c) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in § 60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in 

§ 60.5155(b)(2). 

(g) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 60.8(b). 

§ 60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect 

SSI unit owners and operators in my state? 

(a) No. This subpart does not directly 

affect SSI unit owners and operators in 

your state. However, SSI unit owners 

and operators must comply with the 

state plan you develop to implement the 

emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. States may choose to 

incorporate the model rule text directly 

in their state plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable 

plan to implement and enforce the 

guidelines contained in this subpart by 

March 21, 2012, EPA will implement 

and enforce a Federal plan, as provided 

in § 60.5025, to ensure that each unit 

within your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 

2010 reaches compliance with all the 

provisions of this subpart by the dates 

specified in § 60.5035. 

Applicability of State Plans 

§ 60.5060 What SSI units must I address in 

my state plan? 

(a) Your state plan must address SSI 

units that meet all three criteria 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your state that 

commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition 

of a SSI unit as defined in § 60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under 

§ 60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of a SSI 

unit makes changes that meet the 

definition of modification after 

September 21, 2011, the SSI unit 

becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this 

part and the state plan no longer applies 

to that unit. 

(c) If the owner or operator of a SSI 

unit makes physical or operational 

changes to a SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before 

September 21, 2011 primarily to comply 

with your state plan, subpart LLLL of 

this part does not apply to that unit. 

Such changes do not qualify as 

modifications under subpart LLLL of 

this part. 

§ 60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from 

my state plan? 

This subpart exempts combustion 

units that incinerate sewage sludge and 

are not located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge. These units 

may be subject to another subpart of this 

part (e.g., subpart CCCC of this part). 

The owner or operator of such a 

combustion unit must notify the 

Administrator of an exemption claim 

under this section. 

Use of Model Rule 

§ 60.5070 What is the ‘‘model rule’’ in this 

subpart? 

(a) The model rule is the portion of 

these emission guidelines (§§ 60.5085 

through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to 

SSI units. The model rule provides 

these requirements in regulation format. 

You must develop a state plan that is at 

least as protective as the model rule. 

You may use the model rule language as 

part of your state plan. Alternative 

language may be used in your state plan 

if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the 

model rule contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§ 60.5085 

through 60.5250, ‘‘you’’ and 

‘‘Administrator’’ have the meaning 

specified in § 60.5250. 

§ 60.5075 How does the model rule relate 

to the required elements of my state plan? 

Use the model rule to satisfy the state 

plan requirements specified in 

§ 60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5). 

§ 60.5080 What are the principal 

components of the model rule? 

The model rule contains the nine 

major components listed in paragraphs 

(a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward 

compliance. 

(b) Operator training and 

qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance 

requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, 

and calibration requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§ 60.5085 What are my requirements for 

meeting increments of progress and 

achieving final compliance? 

If you plan to achieve compliance 

more than 1 year following the effective 

date of state plan approval, you must 

meet the two increments of progress 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§ 60.5090 When must I complete each 

increment of progress? 

Table 1 to this subpart specifies 

compliance dates for each increment of 

progress. 

§ 60.5095 What must I include in the 

notifications of achievement of increments 

of progress? 

Your notification of achievement of 

increments of progress must include the 

three items specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of 

progress has been achieved. 

(b) Any items required to be 

submitted with each increment of 

progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator 

of the SSI unit. 

§ 60.5100 When must I submit the 

notifications of achievement of increments 

of progress? 

Notifications for achieving increments 

of progress must be postmarked no later 

than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§ 60.5105 What if I do not meet an 

increment of progress? 

If you fail to meet an increment of 

progress, you must submit a notification 

to the Administrator postmarked within 

10 business days after the date for that 

increment of progress in Table 1 to this 

subpart. You must inform the 

Administrator that you did not meet the 

increment, and you must continue to 

submit reports each subsequent 

calendar month until the increment of 

progress is met. 

§ 60.5110 How do I comply with the 

increment of progress for submittal of a 

control plan? 

For your control plan increment of 

progress, you must satisfy the two 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 61
15432 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Submit the final control plan that 

includes the four items described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 

section. 

(1) A description of the devices for air 

pollution control and process changes 

that you will use to comply with the 

emission limits and standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2) The type(s) of waste to be burned, 

if waste other than sewage sludge is 

burned in the unit. 

(3) The maximum design sewage 

sludge burning capacity. 

(4) If applicable, the petition for sitespecific operating limits under 

§ 60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the 

final control plan. 

§ 60.5115 How do I comply with the 

increment of progress for achieving final 

compliance? 

For the final compliance increment of 

progress, you must complete all process 

changes and retrofit construction of 

control devices, as specified in the final 

control plan, so that, if the affected SSI 

unit is brought online, all necessary 

process changes and air pollution 

control devices would operate as 

designed. 

§ 60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI 

unit and then restart it? 

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will 

restart it prior to the final compliance 

date in your state plan, you must meet 

the increments of progress specified in 

§ 60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will 

restart it after your final compliance 

date, you must complete emission 

control retrofits and meet the emission 

limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits on the date your unit 

restarts operation. 

§ 60.5125 What must I do if I plan to 

permanently close my SSI unit and not 

restart it? 

If you plan to close your SSI unit 

rather than comply with the state plan, 

submit a closure notification, including 

the date of closure, to the Administrator 

by the date your final control plan is 

due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and 

Qualification 

§ 60.5130 What are the operator training 

and qualification requirements? 

(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated 

unless a fully trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator is accessible, either at the 

facility or can be at the facility within 

1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI 

unit operator may operate the SSI unit 

directly or be the direct supervisor of 

one or more other plant personnel who 

operate the unit. If all qualified SSI unit 

operators are temporarily not accessible, 

you must follow the procedures in 

§ 60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification 

must be obtained through a stateapproved program or by completing the 

requirements included in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by 

completing an incinerator operator 

training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed 

in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) 

of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including 

types of emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, 

including products of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of 

incinerator to be used by the operator, 

including proper startup, sewage sludge 

feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and 

monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control 

equipment and factors affecting 

performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of 

the incinerator and air pollution control 

devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions 

or to prevent conditions that may lead 

to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash 

characteristics and handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable Federal, State, and 

local regulations, including 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and 

administered by the state-approved 

program. 

(3) Written material covering the 

training course topics that may serve as 

reference material following completion 

of the course. 

§ 60.5135 When must the operator training 

course be completed? 

The operator training course must be 

completed by the later of the three dates 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) The final compliance date 

(Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit 

startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee 

assumes responsibility for operating the 

SSI unit or assumes responsibility for 

supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§ 60.5140 How do I obtain my operator 

qualification? 

(a) You must obtain operator 

qualification by completing a training 

course that satisfies the criteria under 

§ 60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date 

on which the training course is 

completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under 

§ 60.5130(c)(2). 

§ 60.5145 How do I maintain my operator 

qualification? 

To maintain qualification, you must 

complete an annual review or refresher 

course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including 

startup and shutdown procedures, 

sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or 

conditions that may lead to 

malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems 

encountered by attendees. 

§ 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed 

operator qualification? 

You must renew a lapsed operator 

qualification before you begin operation 

of a SSI unit by one of the two methods 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. 

(a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, 

you must complete a standard annual 

refresher course described in § 60.5145. 

(b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you 

must repeat the initial qualification 

requirements in § 60.5140(a). 

§ 60.5155 What if all the qualified 

operators are temporarily not accessible? 

If a qualified operator is not at the 

facility and cannot be at the facility 

within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section, depending on the 

length of time that a qualified operator 

is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for more than 8 hours, the SSI 

unit may be operated for less than 2 

weeks by other plant personnel who are 

familiar with the operation of the SSI 

unit and who have completed a review 

of the information specified in § 60.5160 

within the past 12 months. However, 

you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible 

and include this deviation in the annual 

report as specified under § 60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more, you 

must take the two actions that are 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 62
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15433 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this 

deviation in writing within 10 days. In 

the notice, state what caused this 

deviation, what you are doing to ensure 

that a qualified operator is accessible, 

and when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the 

Administrator every 4 weeks outlining 

what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating 

when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible, and 

requesting approval from the 

Administrator to continue operation of 

the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify 

the Administrator of the deviation 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(i) If the Administrator notifies you 

that your request to continue operation 

of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI 

unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume 

if a qualified operator is accessible as 

required under § 60.5130(a). You must 

notify the Administrator within 5 days 

of having resumed operations and of 

having a qualified operator accessible. 

§ 60.5160 What site-specific 

documentation is required and how often 

must it be reviewed by qualified operators 

and plant personnel? 

(a) You must maintain at the facility 

the documentation of the operator 

training procedures specified under 

§ 60.5230(c)(1) and make the 

documentation readily accessible to all 

SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for 

reviewing the information listed in 

§ 60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of 

§ 60.5155(a), according to the following 

schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the 

information listed in § 60.5230(c)(1) 

must be conducted within 6 months 

after the effective date of this subpart or 

prior to an employee’s assumption of 

responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the 

information listed in § 60.5230(c)(1) 

must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission 

Standards, and Operating Limits and 

Requirements 

§ 60.5165 What emission limits and 

standards must I meet and by when? 

You must meet the emission limits 

and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, 

Federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. The emission limits and 

standards apply at all times the unit is 

operating and during periods of 

malfunction. The emission limits and 

standards apply to emissions from a 

bypass stack or vent while sewage 

sludge is in the combustion chamber 

(i.e., until the sewage sludge feed to the 

combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge 

incineration residence time). 

§ 60.5170 What operating limits and 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

You must meet, as applicable, the 

operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

and (h) of this section, according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating 

limits for a wet scrubber, fabric filter, 

electrostatic precipitator, or activated 

carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to 

this subpart. You must comply with the 

operating requirements in paragraph (f) 

of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting 

any new operating limits, re-established 

in § 60.5210. The operating limits apply 

at all times that sewage sludge is in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., until the 

sewage sludge feed to the combustor has 

been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific 

operating limit for minimum operating 

temperature of the combustion chamber 

(or afterburner combustion chamber) 

that you establish in § 60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, 

electrostatic precipitator, activated 

carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you 

must meet the site-specific operating 

limits that you establish in § 60.5190 for 

each operating parameter associated 

with each air pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply 

with the emission limits, you must 

install the bag leak detection system 

specified in §§ 60.5200(b) and 

60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag leak 

detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month 

period. You must calculate the alarm 

time as specified in § 60.5210(a)(2)(i). 

(d) You must meet the operating 

requirements in your site-specific 

fugitive emission monitoring plan, 

submitted as specified in § 60.5200(d) to 

ensure that your ash handling system 

will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits 

and requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section 

by the final compliance date under the 

approved state plan, Federal plan, or 

delegation, as applicable. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and 

moisture content of the sewage sludge 

fed to the sewage sludge incinerator, as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage 

sludge feed rate and calculate a daily 

average for all hours of operation during 

each 24-hour period. Keep a record of 

the daily average feed rate, as specified 

in § 60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per 

day of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator. If you take 

more than one grab sample in a day, 

calculate the daily average for the grab 

samples. Keep a record of the daily 

average moisture content, as specified in 

§ 60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) and (h) of this section, you 

must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, re-established according 

to § 60.5210(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection to comply 

with the emission limits in Table 2 or 

3 to this subpart, you must meet any 

site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as 

required in § 60.5175. 

§ 60.5175 How do I establish operating 

limits if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated 

carbon injection, or afterburner, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits? 

If you use an air pollution control 

device other than a wet scrubber, fabric 

filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

activated carbon injection, or 

afterburner, or limit emissions in some 

other manner (e.g., materials balance) to 

comply with the emission limits in 

§ 60.5165, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating 

limits and requirements in § 60.4850, 

and establish applicable operating limits 

according to § 60.5190. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 63
15434 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Petition the Administrator for 

specific operating parameters, operating 

limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial 

performance test and to be monitored 

continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting 

any supporting information in a timely 

manner to enable the Administrator to 

consider the application prior to the 

performance test. You must not conduct 

the initial performance test until after 

the petition has been approved by the 

Administrator, and you must comply 

with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor 

the Administrator’s failure to approve or 

disapprove the application relieves you 

of the responsibility to comply with any 

provision of this subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the 

five items listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific 

parameters you propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship 

between these parameters and emissions 

of regulated pollutants, identifying how 

emissions of regulated pollutants 

change with changes in these 

parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions 

of regulated pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will 

establish the upper and/or lower values 

for these parameters that will establish 

the operating limits on these 

parameters, including a discussion of 

the averaging periods associated with 

those parameters for determining 

compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the 

methods you will use to measure and 

the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative 

accuracy and precision of these methods 

and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the 

frequency and methods for recalibrating 

the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§ 60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits apply 

during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction? 

The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times and during periods of 

malfunction. The operating limits apply 

at all times that sewage sludge is in the 

combustion chamber (i.e., until the 

sewage sludge feed to the combustor has 

been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). For determining 

compliance with the CO concentration 

limit using CO CEMS, the correction to 

7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured CO concentration without 

correcting for oxygen concentration in 

averaging with other CO concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent O2) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

§ 60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative 

defense for exceedance of an emission limit 

or standard during malfunction? 

In response to an action to enforce the 

numerical emission standards set forth 

in paragraph § 60.5165, you may assert 

an affirmative defense to a claim for 

civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined in § 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 the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(9) of this section are met. 

(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 limits 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 monitoring and 

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 affected 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) The owner or operator of the SSI 

unit 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 2 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 § 60.5165 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. 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate 

initial compliance with the emission limits 

and standards? 

To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 64
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15435 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, 

and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 

section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements in § 60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance 

using the performance test required in 

§ 60.8. You must demonstrate that your 

SSI unit meets the emission limits and 

standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, 

and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling using the performance test. 

The initial performance test must be 

conducted using the test methods, 

averaging methods, and minimum 

sampling volumes or durations 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

and according to the testing, monitoring, 

and calibration requirements specified 

in § 60.5220(a). 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, you must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart by your final 

compliance date (see Table 1 to this 

subpart). 

(2) You may use the results from a 

performance test conducted within the 

2 previous years that was conducted 

under the same conditions and 

demonstrated compliance with the 

emission limits and standards in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart, provided no 

process changes have been made since 

you conducted that performance test. 

However, you must continue to meet the 

operating limits established during the 

most recent performance test that 

demonstrated compliance with the 

emission limits and standards in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance 

test must have used the test methods 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance 

using a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option 

to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or 

lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for dioxins/furans takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

for such a continuous automated 

sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as 

specified in § 60.5220(b)(6) and use the 

following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 

substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting 

the initial performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system for any pollutant specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section in lieu of 

conducting the initial performance test 

for that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this 

section. For determining compliance 

with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7 

percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon monoxide 

concentration without correcting for 

oxygen concentration in averaging with 

other carbon monoxide concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of 

conducting the annual mercury or 

dioxin/furan performance test in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, you must use the continuous 

emissions monitoring system and follow 

the requirements specified in 

§ 60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions according to § 60.13 to 

calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide). You must demonstrate initial 

compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, 

calculated using Equation 19–19 in 

section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour block 

averages to determine compliance with 

the mercury emission limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week block 

averages to determine compliance with 

the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or 

toxic equivalency basis) emission limit 

in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in 

§ 60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring 

plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must 

use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, you must complete 

your initial performance evaluations 

required under your monitoring plan for 

any continuous emissions monitoring 

systems and continuous automated 

sampling systems by your final 

compliance date (see Table 1 to this 

subpart). Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures 

and acceptance criteria specified in 

§ 60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency emission limit in Table 2 or 

3 to this subpart, determine dioxins/ 

furans toxic equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra- through 

octachlorinated-isomer emitted using 

EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer by its corresponding 

toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 5 to this subpart. (3) Sum the 

products calculated in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section to obtain 

the total concentration of dioxins/furans 

emitted in terms of toxic equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance 

report, as specified in § 60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial 

compliance using the performance test 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.5235(g). You must 

conduct the initial performance test as 

soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the initial performance test 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 65
15436 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

§ 60.5190 How do I establish my operating 

limits? 

(a) You must establish the sitespecific operating limits specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in § 60.5175, as 

applicable, during your initial 

performance tests required in § 60.5185. 

You must meet the requirements in 

§ 60.5210(d) to confirm these operating 

limits or re-establishre-establish new 

operating limits using operating data 

recorded during any performance tests 

or performance evaluations required in 

§ 60.5205. You must follow the data 

measurement and recording frequencies 

and data averaging times specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart or as established 

in § 60.5175, and you must follow the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §§ 60.5220 

and 60.5225 or established in § 60.5175. 

You are not required to establish 

operating limits for the operating 

parameters listed in Table 4 to this 

subpart for a control device if you use 

a continuous monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart for the applicable pollutants, as 

follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control 

emissions of hydrogen chloride or sulfur 

dioxide, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor 

scrubber liquid flow rate or scrubber 

liquid pH if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in 

§§ 60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limit for hydrogen chloride or 

sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control 

emissions of particulate matter, 

cadmium, and lead, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit 

and monitor pressure drop across the 

scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if 

you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for particulate 

matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator 

designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an 

operating limit and monitor secondary 

voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection 

plates, or effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the electrostatic precipitator if 

you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for particulate 

matter, lead, and cadmium. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection 

system designed to control emissions of 

mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas 

flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) 

if you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection 

system designed to control emissions of 

dioxins/furans, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas 

flow rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) 

if you use the continuous monitoring 

system specified in §§ 60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for dioxins/ 

furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across 

each wet scrubber used to meet the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate 

(measured at the inlet to each wet 

scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. (d) 

Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each 

wet scrubber used to meet the sulfur 

dioxide or hydrogen chloride emission 

limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, 

equal to the lowest 1-hour average 

scrubber liquid pH measured during the 

most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber 

operating temperature (or minimum 

afterburner temperature), equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average combustion 

chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured 

during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(f) Minimum power input to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average secondary electric power 

measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

Power input must be calculated as the 

product of the secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates. Both the 

secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage must be recorded during the 

performance test. (g) Minimum effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average effluent water 

flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. (h) 

For activated carbon injection, establish 

the site-specific operating limits 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through 

(h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent 

injection rate, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the mercury emission 

limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average dioxin/furan sorbent injection 

rate measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or 

minimum carrier gas pressure drop, as 

follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average 

carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable emission limit. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure 

drop, equal to the lowest 4-hour average 

carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable emission limit. 

§ 60.5195 By what date must I conduct the 

initial air pollution control device inspection 

and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an air pollution 

control device inspection according to 

§ 60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, 

Federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final 

compliance date, you must conduct the 

air pollution control device inspection 

within 60 days after installation of the 

control device. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 66
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15437 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following the air pollution control 

device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must 

be completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the SSI unit must be 

completed. 

§ 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan for my continuous 

monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash 

handling systems, and by what date must 

I conduct an initial performance evaluation? 

You must develop and submit to the 

Administrator for approval a sitespecific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required 

under this subpart, according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 60.13(i) and 

paragraph (e) of this section. If you use 

a continuous automated sampling 

system to comply with the mercury or 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limits, you 

must develop your monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.58b(q), and you are not 

required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

You must also submit a site-specific 

monitoring plan for your ash handling 

system, as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section. You must submit and 

update your monitoring plans as 

specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of 

this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring 

system, your monitoring plan must 

address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(8) of this section. You must operate 

and maintain the continuous monitoring 

system in continuous operation 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(1) Installation of the continuous 

monitoring system sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement 

location relative to each affected process 

unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 

emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the 

last control device). 

(2) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions 

monitoring systems, your performance 

evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems specified in § 60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance 

specifications (e.g., relative accuracy 

tests) in appendix B of this part. 

(C) The applicable procedures (e.g., 

quarterly accuracy determinations and 

daily calibration drift tests) in appendix 

F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the 

occurrence and duration of out-ofcontrol periods will affect the suitability 

of CEMS data, where out-of-control has 

the meaning given in section (a)(7)(i) of 

this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter 

monitoring systems, your performance 

evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a flow monitoring 

system, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(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. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a pressure 

monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(B)(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., 

particulate matter 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. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a pH monitoring system, you 

must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(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 operating limit pH 

level) of the pH monitoring system in 

accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but 

no less frequently than quarterly. 

(D) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a temperature 

measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and 

other necessary equipment in a position 

that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, 

whichever is larger, for a noncryogenic 

temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.8 degrees 

Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, 

whichever is larger, for a cryogenic 

temperature range. 

(4) Conduct a temperature 

measurement device performance 

evaluation at the time of each 

performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that 

requires a secondary electric power 

monitoring system for an electrostatic 

precipitator, you must meet the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 67
15438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(E)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install sensors to measure 

(secondary) voltage and current to the 

electrostatic 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. 

(F) 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 

(a)(3)(ii)(F)(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. 

(4) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 60.7(b), 

(c), (c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f) and (g). 

(7) Provisions for periods when the 

continuous monitoring system is out of 

control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is 

out of control if the conditions of 

paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) of 

this section are met. 

(A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if 

applicable), or high-level calibration 

drift exceeds two times the applicable 

calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or 

in the relevant standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system 

fails a performance test audit (e.g., 

cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy 

audit, relative accuracy test audit, or 

linearity test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring 

system is out of control as specified in 

paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, you 

must take the necessary corrective 

action and must repeat all necessary 

tests that indicate that the system is out 

of control. You must take corrective 

action and conduct retesting until the 

performance requirements are below the 

applicable limits. The beginning of the 

out-of-control period is the hour you 

conduct a performance check (e.g., 

calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance 

requirements established under this 

part. The end of the out-of-control 

period is the hour following the 

completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the 

system is within the allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial 

and periodic performance evaluations of 

your continuous monitoring systems. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is 

used, your monitoring plan must 

include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak 

detection system in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Install the 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. 

(ii) 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. 

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the bag leak detection system, including 

how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a system that will 

sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter 

emissions over a preset level. The alarm 

must be located where it is observed 

readily and any alert is detected and 

recognized easily by plant operating 

personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of 

the bag leak detection system, 

performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the 

guidance provided in Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection 

system, including quality assurance 

procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak 

detection system, including a routine 

maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record 

retention) of the bag leak detection 

system data. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a device to 

continuously record the output signal 

from the sensor. (c) You must conduct 

an initial performance evaluation of 

each continuous monitoring system and 

bag leak detection system, as applicable, 

in accordance with your monitoring 

plan and to § 60.13(c). For the purpose 

of this subpart, the provisions of 

§ 60.13(c) also apply to the bag leak 

detection system. You must conduct the 

initial performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system within 

60 days of installation of the monitoring 

system 

(d) You must submit a monitoring 

plan specifying the ash handling system 

operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that you meet the 

fugitive emissions limit specified in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to 

the Administrator for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards of this subpart, subject to the 

provisions of paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not 

approve averaging periods other than 

those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or 

information, that the longer averaging 

period will ensure that emissions do not 

exceed levels achieved over the 

duration of three performance test runs. 

(2) If the application to use an 

alternate monitoring requirement is 

approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until 

approval is received to use another 

monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application 

for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The 

application must contain the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iii) of this section: 

(i) Data or information justifying the 

request, such as the technical or 

economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required 

approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed 

alternative monitoring requirement, 

including the operating parameter to be 

monitored, the monitoring approach 

and technique, the averaging period for 

the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting 

that the alternative monitoring 

requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with 

the relevant emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you 

of the approval or denial of the 

application within 90 calendar days 

after receipt of the original request, or 

within 60 calendar days of the receipt 

of any supplementary information, 

whichever is later. The Administrator 

will not approve an alternate monitoring 

application unless it would provide 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 68
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15439 

equivalent or better assurance of 

compliance with the relevant emission 

standard. Before disapproving any 

alternate monitoring application, the 

Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and 

findings upon which the intended 

disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to 

present additional supporting 

information before final action is taken 

on the application. This notice will 

specify how much additional time is 

allowed for you to provide additional 

supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting 

any supporting information in a timely 

manner to enable the Administrator to 

consider the application prior to the 

performance test. Neither submittal of 

an application, nor the Administrator’s 

failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any 

provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at 

any time, on a case-by-case basis, that 

additional or alternative operating 

limits, or alternative approaches to 

establishing operating limits, are 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this 

subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring 

plans required in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section at least 60 days before 

your initial performance evaluation of 

your continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring 

plan for your ash handling system, as 

required in paragraph (d) of this section, 

at least 60 days before your initial 

compliance test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit 

your monitoring plan if there are any 

changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a 

process change, as defined in § 60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance 

Requirements 

§ 60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits 

and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, use the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. In lieu of using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using 

the procedures specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section for particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, 

and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 

section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements in § 60.5220(a) and (b). 

You may also petition the Administrator 

for alternative monitoring parameters as 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a performance test. 

Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the 

date that the initial performance test for 

each pollutant in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart is completed, you must conduct 

a performance test for each such 

pollutant on an annual basis (between 

11 and 13 calendar months following 

the previous performance test). The 

performance test must be conducted 

using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in § 60.5220(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The 

Administrator may request a repeat 

performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance 

test within 60 days of a process change, 

as defined in § 60.5250. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section, you can 

conduct performance tests less often for 

a given pollutant, as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests 

less often if your performance tests for 

the pollutant for at least 2 consecutive 

years show that your emissions are at or 

below 75 percent of the emission limit 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, 

and there are no changes in the 

operation of the affected source or air 

pollution control equipment that could 

increase emissions. In this case, you do 

not have to conduct a performance test 

for that pollutant for the next 2 years. 

You must conduct a performance test 

during the third year and no more than 

37 months after the previous 

performance test.(ii) If your SSI unit 

continues to meet the emission limit for 

the pollutant, you may choose to 

conduct performance tests for the 

pollutant every third year if your 

emissions are at or below 75 percent of 

the emission limit, and if there are no 

changes in the operation of the affected 

source or air pollution control 

equipment that could increase 

emissions, but each such performance 

test must be conducted no more than 37 

months after the previous performance 

test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows 

emissions exceeded 75 percent of the 

emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for 

that pollutant until all performance tests 

over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or 

continuous automated sampling system. 

The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is 

published in the Federal Register. The 

option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans 

takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system 

is published in the Federal Register. 

Collect data as specified in 

§ 60.5220(b)(6) and use the following 

procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 

substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting 

the annual performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system for any pollutant specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section in lieu of 

conducting the annual performance test 

for that pollutant in paragraph (a) of this 

section. For determining compliance 

with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7 

percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon monoxide 

concentration without correcting for 

oxygen concentration in averaging with 

other carbon monoxide concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for mercury or dioxins/furans in lieu of 

conducting the annual mercury or 

dioxin/furan performance test in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 69
15440 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

you must use the continuous emissions 

monitoring system and follow the 

requirements specified in § 60.5220(b). 

You must measure emissions according 

to § 60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic 

averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 

24-hour block average of these 1-hour 

arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using 

Equation 19–19 in section 12.4.1 of 

Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated 

sampling system to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated 

sampling system specified in § 60.58b(p) 

and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to 

§ 60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 24-hour averages 

to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in 

§ 60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages 

to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limits in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.4880(e). For mercury 

continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 

75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of 

this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, you must complete 

your periodic performance evaluations 

required in your monitoring plan for 

any continuous emissions monitoring 

systems and continuous automated 

sampling systems, according to the 

schedule specified in your monitoring 

plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting 

an annual performance test (or 

according to the less frequent testing for 

a pollutant as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section), you must 

complete the initial performance 

evaluation required under your 

monitoring plan in § 60.5200 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to 

using the continuous emissions 

monitoring system to demonstrate 

compliance or continuous automated 

sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the 

procedures and acceptance criteria 

specified in § 60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with 

the dioxins/furans toxic equivalency 

emission limit in paragraph (a) or (b) of 

this section, you must determine 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency as 

follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxin/furan tetra- through 

octachlorinated-isomer emitted using 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetrathrough octachlorinated) isomer 

measured in accordance with paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, multiply the 

isomer concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section to obtain the total concentration 

of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of 

toxic equivalency. 

(d) You must submit an annual 

compliance report as specified in 

§ 60.5235(c). You must submit a 

deviation report as specified in 

§ 60.5235(d) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous 

compliance using a performance test, as 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure 

is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert 

a claim of force majeure, you must 

notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in § 60.5235(g). You must 

conduct the performance test as soon as 

practicable after the force majeure 

occurs. The Administrator will 

determine whether or not to grant the 

extension to the performance test 

deadline, and will notify you in writing 

of approval or disapproval of the request 

for an extension as soon as practicable. 

Until an extension of the performance 

test deadline has been approved by the 

Administrator, you remain strictly 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in 

§ 60.5200 for alternative monitoring 

requirements for initial compliance, you 

may subsequently petition the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in §§ 60.13(i) 

and 60.5200(e). 

§ 60.5210 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with my operating 

limits? 

You must continuously monitor your 

operating parameters as specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section and meet 

the requirements of paragraphs (b) and 

(c) of this section, according to the 

monitoring and calibration requirements 

in § 60.5225. You must confirm and reestablish your operating limits as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor 

the operating parameters specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section using the continuous monitoring 

equipment and according to the 

procedures specified in § 60.5225 or 

established in § 60.5175. To determine 

compliance, you must use the data 

averaging period specified in Table 4 to 

this subpart (except for alarm time of 

the baghouse leak detection system) 

unless a different averaging period is 

established under § 60.5175. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI 

unit meets the operating limits 

established according to §§ 60.5175 and 

60.5190 and paragraph (d) of this 

section for each applicable operating 

parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI 

unit meets the operating limit for bag 

leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, 

you must calculate the alarm time as 

follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective action is 

required, no alarm time is counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, 

each alarm time shall be counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, each alarm 

time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken by you to initiate corrective 

action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is 

equal to 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§ 60.5170(c). 

(b) Operation above the established 

maximum, below the established 

minimum, or outside the allowable 

range of the operating limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section constitutes 

a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except 

during performance tests conducted to 

determine compliance with the 

emission and operating limits or to 

establish new operating limits. You 

must submit the deviation report 

specified in § 60.5235(d) for each 

instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under 

this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual 

compliance report specified in 

§ 60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 70
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15441 

(d) You must confirm your operating 

limits according to paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section or re-establish operating 

limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. Your operating limits must 

be established so as to assure ongoing 

compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your 

operating requirements in your fugitive 

emissions monitoring plan specified in 

§ 60.5170(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be 

based on operating data recorded during 

any performance test required in 

§ 60.5205(a) or any performance 

evaluation required in § 60.5205(b)(4). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat 

performance test at any time to establish 

new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§ 60.5215 By what date must I conduct 

annual air pollution control device 

inspections and make any necessary 

repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual 

inspection of each air pollution control 

device used to comply with the 

emission limits, according to 

§ 60.5220(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air 

pollution control device inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days 

following an air pollution control device 

inspection, all necessary repairs must be 

completed unless you obtain written 

approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all 

necessary repairs of the affected SSI unit 

must be completed. 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, 

Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§ 60.5220 What are the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements for compliance with the 

emission limits and standards? 

You must meet, as applicable, the 

performance testing requirements 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the monitoring requirements 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the air pollution control device 

inspections requirements specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section, and the 

bypass stack provisions specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist 

of a minimum of three test runs 

conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as 

specified in § 60.8(c). Emissions in 

excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction are 

considered deviations from the 

applicable emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry 

sludge burned during the performance 

test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating 

conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of 

sewage sludge burned during the 

performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average 

hourly rate that sewage sludge is fed to 

the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture 

content of the sewage sludge burned 

during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed 

to the incinerator for each 8 hour period 

that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be 

conducted using the test methods, 

minimum sampling volume, observation 

period, and averaging method specified 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A must be used to select the 

sampling location and number of 

traverse points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2 must be used for gas 

composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. 

Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2 must be used 

simultaneously with each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must 

be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using 

Equation 1 of this section: 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 

percent oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on 

a dry basis. 

(20.9 ¥ 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen ¥ 7 percent 

oxygen (defined oxygen correction 

basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a 

dry basis, percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be 

conducted and data reduced in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures contained in this subpart 

unless the Administrator does one of the 

following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific 

cases, the use of a method with minor 

changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent 

method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative 

method the results of which he has 

determined to be adequate for indicating 

whether a specific source is in 

compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for 

performance tests because you have 

demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that the 

affected SSI unit is in compliance with 

the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times 

and smaller sample volumes when 

necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph 

is construed to abrogate the 

Administrator’s authority to require 

testing under section 114 of the Clean 

Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the 

Administrator at least 30 days prior 

notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford 

the Administrator the opportunity to 

have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled 

performance test, there is a delay (due 

to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance 

test, you must notify the Administrator 

as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at 

least 7 days prior notice of the 

rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date 

with the Administrator by mutual 

agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be 

provided, performance testing facilities 

as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the 

test methods applicable to the SSI unit, 

as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution 

control system such that volumetric 

flow rates and pollutant emission rates 

can be accurately determined by 

applicable test methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of 

cyclonic flow during performance tests, 

as demonstrated by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling 

platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing 

equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this 

subpart, each performance test must 

consist of three separate runs using the 

applicable test method. Each run must 

be conducted for the time and under the 

conditions specified in the applicable 

standard. Compliance with each 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2ER21MR11.020</GPH>

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 71
15442 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

emission limit must be determined by 

calculating the arithmetic mean of the 

three runs. In the event that a sample is 

accidentally lost or conditions occur in 

which one of the three runs must be 

discontinued because of forced 

shutdown, failure of an irreplaceable 

portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other 

circumstances, beyond your control, 

compliance may, upon the 

Administrator’s approval, be 

determined using the arithmetic mean 

of the results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you 

must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent 

of your maximum permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. 

You must meet the following 

requirements, as applicable, when using 

a continuous monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is 

published in the Federal Register. If you 

elect to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this 

section. If you elect to use a continuous 

automated sampling system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The 

option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans 

takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system 

is published in the Federal Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 

1 month before starting use of the 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 

1 month before stopping use of the 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system, in which case you must also 

conduct a performance test within prior 

to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain an instrument 

for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the 

atmosphere in accordance with the 

following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this 

part. 

(ii) The following performance 

specifications of appendix B of this part, 

as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, 

Performance Specification 11 of 

appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, 

Performance Specification 15 of 

appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, 

Performance Specification 4B of 

appendix B of this part with spans 

appropriate to the applicable emission 

limit. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance 

Specification 12A of appendix B of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance 

Specification 2 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions 

monitoring systems, the quality 

assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly 

accuracy determinations and daily 

calibration drift tests) of appendix F of 

this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this 

section. For each pollutant, the span 

value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the 

applicable emission limit, expressed as 

a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 

2 in appendix F of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 

1 in appendix F of this part except that 

the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be 

replaced with the validation 

requirements and criteria of sections 

11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance 

Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 

in appendix F of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a 

malfunction or out-of-control period, 

you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as 

expeditiously as possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii) of this section, emission data 

for each regulated pollutant and oxygen 

(or carbon dioxide as established in 

(b)(5) of this section) must be collected 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) by both the continuous 

emissions monitoring systems and the 

test methods specified in paragraph 

(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this 

section. Relative accuracy testing must 

be at representative operating 

conditions while the SSI unit is 

charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or 

Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 

or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

8, shall be used, as specified in Tables 

1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 

10A, or 10B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7, shall be 

used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, 

Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8, shall be used. Alternatively for 

mercury, either Method 30B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8 or ASTM D6784– 

02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 

7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, 

shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 

6C at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4, or 

as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 60.17) must be used. For sources 

that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, 

the relative accuracy criterion for the 

inlet of the sulfur dioxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system should be 

no greater than 20 percent of the mean 

value of the method test data in terms 

of the units of the emission standard, or 

5 parts per million dry volume absolute 

value of the mean difference between 

the method and the continuous 

emissions monitoring system, 

whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as 

established in (b)(5) of this section), 

Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2, or as an alternative 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17), 

as applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance 

with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent 

oxygen. If carbon dioxide is selected for 

use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide levels must be established 

during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and 

methods specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 72
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15443 

through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. This 

relationship may be re-established 

during subsequent performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2 

must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10–1981 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 

30 minutes in each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 

1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be 

performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous 

monitoring system and collect data with 

the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the 

continuous monitoring system at all 

times the affected SSI unit is operating 

and at the intervals specified in 

paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, 

except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified in § 60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality 

control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). 

Any such periods that you do not 

collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring 

requirements and must be reported in a 

deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous 

emissions monitoring system data in 

accordance with § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. Any such periods must 

be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in § 60.4880(a)(7)(i), 

repairs associated with periods when 

the monitoring system is out of control, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities 

conducted during out-of-control periods 

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction as defined in § 60.5250, 

constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected 

during all periods except those periods 

specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(iii) and 

(b)(6)(iv) of this section in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous 

automated sampling system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, 

you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous automated 

sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in 

§ 60.58b(p)(1) through (p)(6), (p)(9), 

(p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to 

§ 60.58b(p)(5) and paragraph (b)(6) of 

this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device 

inspections. You must conduct air 

pollution control device inspections 

that include, at a minimum, the 

following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control 

device(s) for proper operation. 

(2) Generally observe that the 

equipment is maintained in good 

operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring 

plan according to the requirements in 

§ 60.5200. This requirement also applies 

to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 60.13(i). (d) Bypass 

stack. Use of the bypass stack at any 

time that sewage sludge is being charged 

to the SSI unit is an emissions standards 

deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of 

the bypass stack during a performance 

test invalidates the performance test. 

§ 60.5225 What are the monitoring and 

calibration requirements for compliance 

with my operating limits? 

(a) You must install, operate, 

calibrate, and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems according 

to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general 

requirements for flow, pressure, pH, and 

operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the 

continuous monitoring system at all 

times the affected SSI unit is operating 

and at the intervals specified in 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, 

except for periods of monitoring system 

malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified defined in § 60.5200(a)(7)(i), 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments). 

Any such periods that you do not 

collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring 

requirements and must be reported in a 

deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous 

parameter monitoring system data in 

accordance with § 60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control 

activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. Any such periods must 

be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods 

when the monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in § 60.5200(a)(7)(i) 

must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods that do not 

coincide with a monitoring system 

malfunction, as defined in § 60.5250, 

constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected 

during all periods except those periods 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and 

(a)(1)(iv) of this section in assessing the 

operation of the control device and 

associated control system. 

(vi) Record the results of each 

inspection, calibration, and validation 

check. 

(2) Operate and maintain your 

continuous monitoring system 

according to your monitoring plan 

required under § 60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors 

(for activated carbon injection), during 

the performance test conducted 

pursuant to § 60.4885, you must 

demonstrate that the system is 

maintained within +/¥5 percent 

accuracy, according to the procedures in 

appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop 

monitors (for activated carbon 

injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to § 60.4885, you 

must demonstrate that the system is 

maintained within +/¥5 percent 

accuracy. 

(b) You must operate and maintain 

your bag leak detection system in 

continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under 

§ 60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter 

systems that do not duct all 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 73
15444 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

compartments of cells to a common 

stack, a bag leak detection system must 

be installed in each baghouse 

compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors 

are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be 

shared among detectors. 

(3) You must initiate procedures to 

determine the cause of every alarm 

within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm 

within 24 hours of the alarm by taking 

whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may 

include, but are not limited to the 

following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in particulate matter 

emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise repairing the control 

device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate matter 

emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems specified in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section in continuous 

operation according to your monitoring 

plan required under § 60.4880. 

(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, 

you must install, calibrate (to 

manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or 

method for measuring the use of the 

bypass stack including date, time, and 

duration. 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and 

Reporting 

§ 60.5230 What records must I keep? 

You must maintain the items (as 

applicable) specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be 

available on site in either paper copy or 

computer-readable format that can be 

printed upon request, unless an 

alternative format is approved by the 

Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of 

the final control plan and any additional 

notifications, reported under § 60.5235. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation 

of the operator training procedures and 

records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(4) of this section. You must 

make available and readily accessible at 

the facility at all times for all SSI unit 

operators the documentation specified 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(1) Documentation of the following 

operator training procedures and 

information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable 

standards under this subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, 

handling, and feeding sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction preventative and 

corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper 

combustion air supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the 

incinerator and associated air pollution 

control systems within the standards 

established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping 

procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned 

during the performance test, if in 

addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and 

other plant personnel who may operate 

the unit according to the provisions of 

§ 60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager 

number at which they can be reached 

during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who may operate the unit according to 

the provisions of § 60.5155(a), as 

follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI 

unit operators and other plant personnel 

who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section as required by § 60.5160(b), 

including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the 

SSI operators who have completed the 

operator training requirements under 

§ 60.5130, met the criteria for 

qualification under § 60.5140, and 

maintained or renewed their 

qualification under § 60.5145 or 

§ 60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including 

the dates of their initial qualification 

and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 

weeks, as required in § 60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when 

no qualified operators were accessible 

for 2 weeks or more along with copies 

of reports submitted as required in 

§ 60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device 

inspections. Records of the results of 

initial and annual air pollution control 

device inspections conducted as 

specified in §§ 60.5195 and 60.5220(c), 

including any required maintenance 

and any repairs not completed within 

10 days of an inspection or the 

timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, 

and any subsequent performance tests 

conducted to determine compliance 

with the emission limits and standards 

and/or to establish operating limits, as 

applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete 

performance test report, including 

calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry 

sludge feed rate measured during 

performance test runs as specified in 

§ 60.5220(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to 

demonstrate that the performance test 

was conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, 

including a record of the moisture 

content measured as required in 

§ 60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample 

taken of the sewage sludge burned 

during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. 

Records of the following data, as 

applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions 

monitoring systems, all 1-hour average 

concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans total mass basis, 

mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated 

sampling systems, all average 

concentrations measured for mercury 

and dioxins/furans total mass basis at 

the frequencies specified in your 

monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter 

monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded 

for the following operating parameters, 

as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating 

temperature (or afterburner 

temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply 

with the rule, pressure drop across each 

wet scrubber system and liquid flow 

rate to each wet scrubber used to 

comply with the emission limit in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber 

liquid flow rate and scrubber liquid pH 

for each wet scrubber used to comply 

with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart for sulfur dioxide or 

hydrogen chloride. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 74
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15445 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is 

used to comply with the rule, secondary 

voltage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, and 

effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is 

used to comply with the rule, sorbent 

flow rate and carrier gas flow rate or 

pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded 

for the feed rate and moisture content of 

the sewage sludge fed to the sewage 

sludge incinerator, monitored and 

calculated as specified in § 60.5170(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply 

with the rule, the date, time, and 

duration of each alarm and the time 

corrective action was initiated and 

completed, and a brief description of the 

cause of the alarm and the corrective 

action taken. You must also record the 

percent of operating time during each 

6-month period that the alarm sounds, 

calculated as specified in § 60.5210. 

(iv) For other control devices for 

which you must establish operating 

limits under § 60.5175, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating 

parameters used to determine 

compliance with the operating limits, at 

the frequencies specified in your 

monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous 

monitoring systems. You must keep the 

following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications 

to the Administrator in § 60.4915(h)(1) 

of starting or stopping use of a 

continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under 

§ 60.5220(b)(5) that compliance with the 

emission limits be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is 

used to comply with the rule, the type 

of sorbent used and any changes in the 

type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any 

deviation reports submitted under 

§ 60.5235(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and 

operation and maintenance 

requirements. Equipment specifications 

and related operation and maintenance 

requirements received from vendors for 

the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and 

validation checks of monitoring devices. 

Records of inspections, calibration, and 

validation checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§ 60.5220 

and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance 

evaluations for continuous monitoring 

systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under § 60.5200, and 

records of performance evaluations 

required under § 60.5205(b)(5).(l) Less 

frequent testing. If, consistent with 

60.5205(a)(3), you elect to conduct 

performance tests less frequently than 

annually, you must keep annual records 

that document that your emissions in 

the two previous consecutive years were 

at or below 75 percent of the applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, and document that there were 

no changes in source operations or air 

pollution control equipment that would 

cause emissions of the relevant 

pollutant to increase within the past 2 

years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records 

indicating use of the bypass stack, 

including dates, times, and durations as 

required under § 60.5225(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must 

keep a record of the information 

submitted in your annual report in 

§ 60.5235(c)(16). 

§ 60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

You must submit the reports specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this 

section. See Table 6 to this subpart for 

a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If 

you plan to achieve compliance more 

than 1 year following the effective date 

of state plan approval, you must submit 

the following reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in 

§§ 60.5085(a) and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification 

of achievement of increments of 

progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the 

increment as specified in §§ 60.5095 

and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of 

progress, you must submit a notification 

to the Administrator postmarked within 

10 business days after the date for that 

increment, as specified in § 60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit 

rather than comply with the state plan, 

submit a closure notification as 

specified in § 60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You 

must submit the following information 

no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the 

initial performance test results obtained 

by using the test methods specified in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance 

evaluation of a continuous monitoring 

system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific 

operating limits established pursuant to 

§§ 60.5170 and 60.5175 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, 

used to establish each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to 

comply with the emission limits, 

documentation that a bag leak detection 

system has been installed and is being 

operated, calibrated, and maintained as 

required by § 60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air 

pollution control device inspection 

required in § 60.5195, including a 

description of repairs. 

(9) The site-specific monitoring plan 

required under § 60.5200, at least 60 

days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous 

monitoring system. 

(10) The site-specific monitoring plan 

for your ash handling system required 

under § 60.5200, at least 60 days before 

your initial performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with your 

fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Annual compliance report. You 

must submit an annual compliance 

report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of this 

section for the reporting period 

specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first 

annual compliance report no later than 

12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in 

paragraph (b) of this section. You must 

submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months 

following the previous annual 

compliance report. (You may be 

required to submit these reports (or 

additional compliance information) 

more frequently by the title V operating 

permit required in § 60.5240.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, 

with that official’s name, title, and 

signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was 

conducted during the reporting period, 

the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established 

during the performance test, include the 

value for each operating limit and, as 

applicable, the method used to establish 

each operating limit, including 

calculations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 75
15446 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during 

the performance test, include the type of 

activated carbon used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating 

parameter recorded using a continuous 

monitoring system, the highest average 

value and lowest average value recorded 

during the reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission 

monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, report the 

highest and lowest 24-hour average 

emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter 

monitoring systems, report the 

following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters 

except scrubber liquid pH, the highest 

and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the 

highest and lowest 3-hour average 

values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during 

the reporting period from any emission 

limit, emission standard, or operating 

limit that applies to you, a statement 

that there were no deviations from the 

emission limits, emission standard, or 

operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection 

systems recorded under 

§ 60.5230(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was 

conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new 

operating limits were established during 

the performance evaluation, include 

your calculations for establishing those 

operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct 

performance tests less frequently as 

allowed in § 60.5205(a)(3) and did not 

conduct a performance test during the 

reporting period, you must include the 

dates of the last two performance tests, 

a comparison of the emission level you 

achieved in the last two performance 

tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in § 60.5205(a)(3), 

and a statement as to whether there 

have been any process changes and 

whether the process change resulted in 

an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when 

all qualified sewage sludge incineration 

unit operators were unavailable for 

more than 8 hours, but less than 2 

weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution 

control device inspections recorded 

under § 60.5230(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of 

repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during 

the reporting period when your 

continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were 

no periods during which your 

continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during 

the reporting period when a continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which your continuous 

monitoring systems were out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training 

deviations, a statement that there were 

no such deviations during the reporting 

period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to 

your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a statement 

that you did not make any revisions to 

your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period. If you made 

revisions to your site-specific 

monitoring plan during the reporting 

period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the compliance 

report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for 

each type of malfunction that occurred 

during the reporting period and that 

caused or may have caused any 

applicable emission limitation to be 

exceeded. The report must also include 

a description of actions taken by an 

owner or operator during a malfunction 

of an affected source to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

(d) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation 

report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter 

level, based on the averaging time 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or 

below the minimum operating limit 

established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

alarm sounds for more than 5 percent of 

the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block 

average emissions level is above the 

emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply 

with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of 

combustion ash from an ash conveying 

system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted 

that deviated from any emission limit in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system 

was out of control. 

(vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., 

continuous monitoring system 

malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to 

be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be 

submitted by August 1 of that year for 

data collected during the first half of the 

calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and 

by February 1 of the following year for 

data you collected during the second 

half of the calendar year (July 1 to 

December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are 

using a continuous monitoring system 

to comply with an associated emission 

limit or operating limit, report the items 

described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through 

(d)(3)(viii) of this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with that official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the accuracy of 

the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times 

your unit deviated from the emission 

limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data 

for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each 

deviation from the following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission 

standards, operating limits, and your 

corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective 

actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for 

monitor downtime incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating 

parameter monitoring data during each 

deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during 

which the continuous monitoring 

system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following 

information for each deviation from an 

emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each 

malfunction started and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

inoperative, except for zero (low-level) 

and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that 

each continuous monitoring system was 

out of control, including start and end 

dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken. 

(D) The date and time that each 

deviation started and stopped, and 

whether each deviation occurred during 

a period of malfunction, during a period 

when the system as out of control, or 

during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of 

the deviation during the reporting 

period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating 

time during that reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration 

of the deviations during the reporting 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 76
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15447 

period into those that are due to control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, and other 

unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration 

of continuous monitoring system 

downtime during the reporting period, 

and the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime as a 

percent of the total operating time of the 

SSI unit at which the continuous 

monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each 

parameter and pollutant that was 

monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the 

continuous monitoring system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous 

monitoring system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring system, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are 

not using a continuous monitoring 

system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report 

the following items:. 

(i) Company name, physical address, 

and mailing address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with that official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the accuracy of 

the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each 

affected source during the reporting 

period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your 

unit deviated from the emission limits, 

emission standards, or operating limits 

requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data 

for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each 

deviation from the following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission 

standards, operating limits, and your 

corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective 

actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test 

report that showed a deviation from the 

emission limits or standards. 

(viii) A brief description of any 

malfunction reported in paragraph 

(d)(1)(vii) of this section, including a 

description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 60.11(d) and to 

correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation. 

(1) If all qualified operators are not 

accessible for 2 weeks or more, you 

must take the two actions in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the 

deviation within 10 days that includes 

the three items in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(A) 

through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the 

deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to 

ensure that a qualified operator is 

accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that 

a qualified operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the 

Administrator every 4 weeks that 

includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this 

section. 

(A) A description of actions taken to 

ensure that a qualified operator is 

accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that 

a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the 

Administrator to continue operation of 

the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the 

Administrator, under the provisions of 

§ 60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to 

provide an accessible qualified operator, 

you must notify the Administrator 

within five days of meeting 

§ 60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming 

operation. 

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If 

a force majeure is about to occur, 

occurs, or has occurred for which you 

intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the 

Administrator, in writing as soon as 

practicable following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence, should 

have known that the event may cause or 

caused a delay in conducting a 

performance test beyond the regulatory 

deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test 

deadline unless the initial force majeure 

or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the 

notification must occur as soon as 

practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the 

Administrator a written description of 

the force majeure event and a rationale 

for attributing the delay in conducting 

the performance test beyond the 

regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be 

taken to minimize the delay; and 

identify a date by which you propose to 

conduct the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports 

required. You must submit other 

notifications as provided by § 60.7 and 

as follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 

1 month before starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for 

determining compliance with any 

emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 

at least 30 days prior to any 

performance test conducted to comply 

with the provisions of this subpart, to 

afford the Administrator the 

opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in § 60.5220(a)(8), you 

must notify the Administrator at least 7 

days prior to the date of a rescheduled 

performance test for which notification 

was previously made in paragraph (g)(2) 

of this section. 

(h) Report submission form. 

(1) Submit initial, annual, and 

deviation reports electronically or in 

paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, as defined in 

§ 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/ert_

tool.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. 

(i) Changing report dates. If the 

Administrator agrees, you may change 

the semiannual or annual reporting 

dates. See § 60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting 

date. 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§ 60.5240 Am I required to apply for and 

obtain a Title V operating permit for my 

existing SSI unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable 

EPA-approved and effective CAA 

section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan or 

an applicable and effective Federal plan, 

you are required to apply for and obtain 

a Title V operating permit for your 

existing SSI unit unless you meet the 

relevant requirements for an exemption 

specified in § 60.5065. 

§ 60.5245 When must I submit a title V 

permit application for my existing SSI unit? 

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not 

subject to an earlier permit application 

deadline, a complete title V permit 

application must be submitted on or 

before the earlier of the dates specified 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this 

section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act 

and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 

71.5(a)(1)(i)). 

(1) 12 months after the effective date 

of any applicable EPA-approved Clean 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 77
15448 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal 

plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date 

of any applicable Federal plan. 

(3) March 21, 2014. 

(b) For any existing unit not subject to 

an earlier permit application deadline, 

the application deadline of 36 months 

after the promulgation of this subpart 

applies regardless of whether or when 

any applicable Federal plan is effective, 

or whether or when any applicable 

Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 state 

or tribal plan is approved by EPA and 

becomes effective. 

(c) If your existing unit is subject to 

title V as a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than those 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section (for example, a unit may be 

a major source or part of a major 

source), then your unit may be required 

to apply for a title V permit prior to the 

deadlines specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b). If more than one requirement 

triggers a source’s obligation to apply for 

a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe 

for filing a title V permit application is 

triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to title 

V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 

70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 

40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).) 

(d) A ‘‘complete’’ title V permit 

application is one that has been 

determined or deemed complete by the 

relevant permitting authority under 

section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 

40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). 

You must submit a complete permit 

application by the relevant application 

deadline in order to operate after this 

date in compliance with Federal law. 

(See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the 

Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 

40 CFR 71.7(b).) 

Model Rule-Definitions 

§ 60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

Terms used but not defined in this 

subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act 

and § 60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the Federal 

plan, the Administrator of the EPA or 

his/her authorized representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved 

state plan, the director of the state air 

pollution control agency or his/her 

authorized representative. 

Affected source means a sewage 

sludge incineration unit as defined in 

§ 60.5250. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, 

liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, or 

diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an 

instrument that is capable of monitoring 

particulate matter loadings in the 

exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) 

in order to detect bag failures. A bag 

leak detection system includes, but is 

not limited to, an instrument that 

operates on triboelectric, light 

scattering, light transmittance, or other 

principle to monitor relative particulate 

matter loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for 

discharging combustion gases to avoid 

severe damage to the air pollution 

control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive 

days starting on January 1 and ending 

on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling 

system means the total equipment and 

procedures for automated sample 

collection and sample recovery/analysis 

to determine a pollutant concentration 

or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple 

integrated sample(s) of the pollutant (or 

diluent gas) for subsequent on- or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) 

collected are representative of the 

emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring 

system means a monitoring system for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an 

affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

means a continuous emissions 

monitoring system, continuous 

automated sampling system, continuous 

parameter monitoring system or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is 

used for demonstrating compliance with 

an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this 

subpart. The term refers to the total 

equipment used to sample and 

condition (if applicable), to analyze, and 

to provide a permanent record of 

emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring 

system means a monitoring system for 

continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air 

pollution control device systems (e.g., 

operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in 

which an affected source subject to this 

subpart, or an owner or operator of such 

a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or 

obligation established by this subpart, 

including but not limited to any 

emission limit, operating limit, or 

operator qualification and accessibility 

requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition 

that is adopted to implement an 

applicable requirement in this subpart 

and that is included in the operating 

permit for any affected source required 

to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through 

octa-chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet 

electrostatic precipitator means an air 

pollution control device that uses both 

electrical forces and, if applicable, water 

to remove pollutants in the exit gas from 

a sewage sludge incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration 

unit means a sewage sludge incineration 

unit the construction of which is 

commenced on or before October 14, 

2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air 

pollution control device used to capture 

particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also 

known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an 

enclosed device in which organic matter 

and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles 

suspended in the combustion chamber 

gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, 

infrequent, and not reasonably 

preventable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. 

Failures that are caused, in part, by poor 

maintenance or careless operation are 

not malfunctions. 

Modification means a change to an 

existing SSI unit later than September 

21, 2011 and that meets one of two 

criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes 

over the life of the unit exceeds 50 

percent of the original cost of building 

and installing the SSI unit (not 

including the cost of land) updated to 

current costs (current dollars). To 

determine what systems are within the 

boundary of the SSI unit used to 

calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI 

unit or change in the method of 

operating it that increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted for which 

section 129 or section 111 of the Clean 

Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration 

unit means an existing SSI unit that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 78
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15449 

undergoes a modification, as defined in 

this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a 

circular steel furnace that contains a 

number of solid refractory hearths and 

a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that 

are designed to slowly rake the sludge 

on the hearth are attached to the rotating 

shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top 

and proceeds downward through the 

furnace from hearth to hearth, pushed 

along by the rabble arms. 

Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12:00 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

amount of sewage sludge is combusted 

at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable 

particulate matter emitted from SSI 

units as measured by Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3 or Methods 

26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–8. 

Power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator means the product of the 

test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage 

to the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates. 

Process change means 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: 

(1) A change in the process employed 

at the wastewater treatment facility 

associated with the affected SSI unit 

(e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at 

the facility, which changes the method 

used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution 

control devices used to comply with the 

emission limits for the affected SSI unit 

(e.g., change in the sorbent used for 

activated carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semisolid, or liquid residue generated during 

the treatment of domestic sewage in a 

treatment works. Sewage sludge 

includes, but is not limited to, domestic 

septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced 

wastewater treatment processes; and a 

material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash 

generated during the firing of sewage 

sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated 

during preliminary treatment of 

domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the 

rate at which sewage sludge is fed into 

the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit 

means an incineration unit combusting 

sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incineration unit designs 

include fluidized bed and multiple 

hearth. A SSI unit also includes, but is 

not limited to, the sewage sludge feed 

system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat 

recovery equipment, if any, and bottom 

ash system. The SSI unit includes all 

ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. The 

combustion unit bottom ash system 

ends at the truck loading station or 

similar equipment that transfers the ash 

to final disposal. The SSI unit does not 

include air pollution control equipment 

or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time 

after all sewage sludge has been 

combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, 

refuse, sewage sludge from a waste 

treatment plant, water supply treatment 

plant, or air pollution control facility 

and other discarded material, including 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from 

industrial, commercial, mining, 

agricultural operations, and from 

community activities, but does not 

include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or 

industrial discharges which are point 

sources subject to permits under section 

402 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 

1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring 

to units of measure, means a 

temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 

kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time 

between the activation, including the 

firing of fuels (e.g., natural gas or 

distillate oil), of the system and the first 

feed to the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product 

of the concentration of an individual 

dioxin isomer in an environmental 

mixture and the corresponding estimate 

of the compound-specific toxicity 

relative to tetrachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin, referred to as the toxic 

equivalency factor for that compound. 

Table 5 to this subpart lists the toxic 

equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air 

pollution control device that utilizes an 

aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquid to 

collect particulate matter (including 

nonvaporous metals and condensed 

organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of 

an affected SSI unit. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMMM OF

PART 60—MODEL RULE—INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS AND COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION

UNITS

Comply with these increments of progress By these dates a

Increment 1—Submit 

final control plan.

(Dates to be specified in state plan) 

Increment 2—Final 

compliance.

(Dates to be specified in state plan) b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the 

discretion of the state. bThe date can be no later than 3 years after 

the effective date of state plan approval or 

March 21, 2016 for SSI units that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FLUIDIZED

BED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limit a

Using these averaging methods and 

minimum sampling volumes or 

durations 

And determining compliance using 

this method 

Particulate matter ........... 18 milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters sample per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride .......... 0.51 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 79
15450 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FLUIDIZED

BED SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limit a

Using these averaging methods and 

minimum sampling volumes or 

durations 

And determining compliance using 

this method 

Carbon monoxide .......... 64 parts per million by dry volume .... 3-run average (collect sample for a 

minimum duration of one hour per 

run).

Performance test (Method 10, 10A, 

or 10B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis); or 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis) b

1.2 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter (total mass basis); or 

0.10 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter (toxic equivalency 

basis).

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Mercury .......................... 0.037 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 29 and 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008) c, collect a minimum volume 

of 1 dry standard cubic meters per 

run. For Method 30B, collect a 

minimum sample as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008).c

Oxides of nitrogen ......... 150 parts per million by dry volume .. 3-run average (Collect sample for a 

minimum duration of one hour per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Sulfur dioxide ................. 15 parts per million by dry volume .... 3-run average (For Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume of 60 liters per 

run. For Method 6C, collect sample 

for a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 40, appendix A–4; or 

ANSI/ASME PTC–19.10–1981.c

Cadmium ........................ 0.0016 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS for the analytical finish. 

Lead ............................... 0.0074 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters sample per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS for the analytical finish. 

Fugitive emissions from 

ash handling.

Visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) 

for no more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period.

Three 1-hour observation periods ..... Visible emission test (Method 22 of 

appendix A–7 of this part). 

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic 

equivalency basis. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING MULTIPLE

HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limit a

Using these averaging methods and 

minimum sampling volumes or durations 

And determining compliance using 

this 

method 

Particulate matter ........... 80 milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic 

meters per run).

Performance test (Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–8). 

Hydrogen chloride .......... 1.2 parts per million by dry volume ... 3-run average (For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 200 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Carbon monoxide .......... 3,800 parts per million by dry volume 3-run average (collect sample for a 

minimum duration of one hour per 

run).

Performance test (Method 10, 10A, 

or 10B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Dioxins/furans (total 

mass basis).

5.0 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter; or 

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–7). 

Dioxins/furans (toxic 

equivalency basis) b.

0.32 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter.


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 80
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15451 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—EMISSION LIMITS AND STANDARDS FOR EXISTING MULTIPLE

HEARTH SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS—Continued 

For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limit a

Using these averaging methods and 

minimum sampling volumes or durations 

And determining compliance using 

this 

method 

Mercury .......................... 0.28 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (For Method 29 and 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008),c collect a minimum volume 

of 1 dry standard cubic meters per 

run. For Method 30B, collect a 

minimum sample as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8; or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008)).c

Oxides of nitrogen ......... 220 parts per million by dry volume .. 3-run average (Collect sample for a 

minimum duration of one hour per 

run).

Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4). 

Sulfur dioxide ................. 26 parts per million by dry volume .... 3-run average (For Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 6C, collect sample 

for a minimum duration of one hour 

per run).

Performance test (Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 40, appendix A–4; or 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981).c

Cadmium ........................ 0.095 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Lead ............................... 0.30 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter.

3-run average (collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run).

Performance test (Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–8). 

Fugitive emissions from 

ash handling.

Visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) 

for no more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period.

Three 1-hour observation periods ..... Visible emission test (Method 22 of 

appendix A–7 of this part). 

aAll emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission limit on a toxic 

equivalency basis. c Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS a

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording b

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Combustion chamber operating temperature (not required if afterburner 

temperature is monitored).

Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature or afterburner 

temperature.

Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Fugitive emissions from ash handling Site-specific operating requirements Not applicable ........ No applicable ......... Not applicable. 

Scrubber 

Pressure drop across each wet 

scrubber.

Minimum pressure drop ..................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Scrubber liquid flow rate .................... Minimum flow rate ............................. Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Scrubber liquid pH .............................. Minimum pH ...................................... Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 3-hour block. 

Fabric Filter 

Alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm.

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system alarm (this operating limit is provided in § 60.4850 

and is not established on a site-specific basis) 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary voltage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates.

Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.Continuous ............. Hourly .................... 12-hour block. 

Secondary amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 81
15452 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR EXISTING SEWAGE SLUDGE

INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording b

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Effluent water flow rate at the outlet 

of the electrostatic precipitator.

Minimum effluent water flow rate at 

the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator.

Hourly .................... Hourly ..................... 12-hour block. 

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury sorbent injection rate ............ Minimum mercury sorbent injection 

rate.

Hourly .................... Hourly .................... 12-hour block. 

Dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate ..... Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate.

Carrier gas flow rate or carrier gas 

pressure drop.

Minimum carrier gas flow rate or 

minimum carrier gas pressure drop.

Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

Afterburner 

Temperature of the afterburner combustion chamber.Minimum temperature of the afterburner combustion chamber.Continuous ............. Every 15 minutes ... 12-hour block. 

aAs specified in § 60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records data. For all data 

recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour 

or 3-hour block average specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic 

equivalency 

factor 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .......................................................................................................................................... 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.3 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.03 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ......................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0003 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Increments of progress report No later than 10 business 

days after the compliance 

date for the increment.

1. Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be burned, 

and the maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity.

2. Notification of any failure to meet an increment of 

progress. 

3. Notification of any closure. 

§ 60.5235(a). 

Initial compliance report .......... No later than 60 days following the initial performance test.1. Company name and address ...............................................

2. Statement by a responsible official, with that official’s 

name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the 

content of the report.

§ 60.5235(b). 

3. Date of report.

4. Complete test report for the initial performance test.

5. Results of CMSb performance evaluation.


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 82
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 15453 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

6. The values for the site-specific operating limits and the calculations and methods used to establish each operating 

limit.

7. Documentation of installation of bag leak detection system 

for fabric filter.

8. Results of initial air pollution control device inspection, including a description of repairs.

9. The site-specific monitoring plan required under § 60.5200.

10. The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling 

system required under § 60.5200.

Annual compliance report ........ No later than 12 months following the submission of the 

initial compliance report; 

subsequent reports are to 

be submitted no more than 

12 months following the previous report.

1. Company name and address ...............................................

2. Statement and signature by responsible official. 

3. Date and beginning and ending dates of report. 

4. If a performance test was conducted during the reporting 

period, the results of the test, including any new operating 

limits and associated calculations and the type of activated 

carbon used, if applicable. 

§ 60.5235(c). 

5. For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using 

a CMS, the highest recorded 3-hour average and the lowest recorded 3-hour average, as applicable.

6. If no deviations from emission limits, emission standards, 

or operating limits occurred, a statement that no deviations 

occurred.

7. If a fabric filter is used, the date, time, and duration of 

alarms.

8. If a performance evaluation of a CMS was conducted, the 

results, including any new operating limits and their associated calculations.

9. If you met the requirements of § 60.5205(a)(3) and did not 

conduct a performance test, include the dates of the last 

three performance tests, a comparison to the 50 percent 

emission limit threshold of the emission level achieved in 

the last three performance tests, and a statement as to 

whether there have been any process changes.

10. Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but less 

than 2 weeks.

11. Results of annual pollutions control device inspections, including description of repairs.

12. If there were no periods during which your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your CMSs had malfunctions.

13. If there were no periods during which your CMSs were 

out of control, a statement that there were no periods during which your CMSs were out of control.

14. If there were no operator training deviations, a statement 

that there were no such deviations.

15. Information on monitoring plan revisions, including a copy 

of any revised monitoring plan.

Deviation report (deviations 

from emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits, as specified in 

§ 60.5235(e)(1)).

By August 1 of a calendar 

year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year; by February 1 of 

a calendar year for data collected during the second 

half of the calendar year.

If using a CMS: .........................................................................

1. Company name and address. 

2. Statement by a responsible official. 

3. The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the 

emission limits or operating limits. 

4. The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

5. Duration and cause of each deviation. 

§ 60.5235(d). 

6. Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents.

7. A copy of the operating parameter monitoring data during 

each deviation and any test report that documents the 

emission levels.

8. For periods of CMS malfunction or when a CMS was out 

of control, you must include the information specified in 

§ 60.5235(d)(3)(viii).

If not using a CMS:.

1. Company name and address.

2. Statement by a responsible official.

3. The total operating time of each affected SSI.

4. The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the 

emission limits, emission standard, or operating limits.

5. The averaged and recorded data for those dates.


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 83
15454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART MMMM OF PART 60—MODEL RULE—SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING

SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION UNITS a—Continued 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

6. Duration and cause of each deviation.

7. A copy of any performance test report that showed a deviation from the emission limits or standards.

8. A brief description of any malfunction, a description of actions taken during the malfunction to minimize emissions, 

and corrective action taken.

Notification of qualified operator deviation (if all qualified 

operators are not accessible 

for 2 weeks or more).

Within 10 days of deviation ..... 1. Statement of cause of deviation ...........................................

2. Description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified operator will be available. 

3. The date when a qualified operator will be accessible. 

§ 60.5235(e). 

Notification of status of qualified operator deviation.Every 4 weeks following notification of deviation.1. Description of actions taken to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible.

2. The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will 

be accessible. 

3. Request for approval to continue operation. 

§ 60.5235(e). 

Notification of resumed operation following shutdown 

(due to qualified operator 

deviation and as specified in 

§ 60.5155(b)(2)(i).

Within five days of obtaining a 

qualified operator and resuming operation.

1. Notification that you have obtained a qualified operator and 

are resuming operation.

§ 60.5235(e). 

Notification of a force majeure As soon as practicable following the date you first 

knew, or through due diligence should have known 

that the event may cause or 

caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline; the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless 

the initial force majeure or a 

subsequent force majeure 

event delays the notice, and 

in such cases, the notification must occur as soon as 

practicable.

1. Description of the force majeure event ................................

2. Rationale for attributing the delay in conducting the performance test beyond the regulatory deadline to the force 

majeure.

3. Description of the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay. 

4. Identification of the date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

§ 60.5235(f). 

Notification of intent to start or 

stop use of a CMS.

1 month before starting or 

stopping use of a CMS.

1. Intent to start or stop use of a CMS ..................................... § 60.5235(g). 

Notification of intent to conduct 

a performance test.

At least 30 days prior to the 

performance test.

1. Intent to conduct a performance test to comply with this 

subpart.

Notification of intent to conduct 

a rescheduled performance 

test.

At least 7 days prior to the 

date of a rescheduled performance test.

1. Intent to conduct a rescheduled performance test to comply with this subpart.

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS means continuous monitoring system. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4491 Filed 3–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Case: 11-1131 Document: 1307124 Filed: 05/06/2011 Page: 84