Wednesday, 

May 10, 2006 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors; Final Rule 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117; FRL–8164–9] 

RIN 2060–AL97 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating 

amendments to the air emission 

standards for existing and new large 

municipal waste combustor (MWC) 

units. Standards for MWC units were 

promulgated in 1995 and implemented 

in 2000. The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires review of these standards every 

5 years. The review is to be conducted 

in accordance with CAA section 129 

and section 111 requirements, with 

standards revised as necessary. For 

existing MWC units, the goal of this 

action is to amend the standards to 

reflect the actual performance levels 

being achieved by existing MWC units. 

For new MWC units, the goal of this 

action is to amend the standards to 

reflect the performance level achievable 

by MWC units constructed in the future. 

Other technical improvements are also 

being made to the standards for MWC 

units. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendment 

to § 60.50 is effective May 10, 2006. The 

final rule amendments to the standards 

for new sources in subpart Eb of 40 CFR 

part 60 (§§ 60.50b, 60.51b, 60.52b, 

60.53b, 60.54b, 60.57b, 60.58b, 60.59b) 

are effective November 6, 2006. The 

final rule amendments to the emission 

guidelines for existing sources in 

subpart Cb of 40 CFR part 60 (§§ 60.30b, 

60.31b, 60.32b, 60.33b, 60.34b, Tables 1, 

2, and 3 to subpart Cb) are effective July 

10, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Docket. EPA has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West Building, Room B102, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open 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: Mr. 

Walt Stevenson, Energy Strategies 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (D243–01), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5264; email address: stevenson.walt@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially affected by the final 

rule are MWC units with a design 

combustion capacity of greater than 250 

tons per day. The NSPS and emission 

guidelines for municipal waste 

combustors affect the following 

categories of sources: 

Category NAICS code SIC code 

(optional) Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry, Federal government, and State/local/tribal 

governments.

562213 

92411 

4953 

9511 

Solid waste combustors or incinerators at waste-toenergy facilities that generate electricity or steam 

from the combustion of garbage (typically municipal 

solid waste); and solid waste combustors or incinerators at facilities that combust garbage (typically 

municipal solid waste) and do not recover energy 

from the waste combustion. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the final rule. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by the 

final rule, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.32b 

of subpart Cb and 40 CFR 60.50b of 

subpart Eb. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of the final 

rule to a particular entity, contact the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Docket. The docket number for the 

large MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Eb) and emission guidelines (40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cb) is Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0117. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final rule is 

available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

(TTN Web). Following signature, EPA 

posted a copy of the final rule on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Judicial Review. Under CAA section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of the final 

rule is available only by filing a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit by 

July 10, 2006. Under CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the 

final rule that was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review. Moreover, under CAA 

section 307(b)(2), the requirements 

established by today’s final action may 

not be challenged separately in any civil 

or criminal proceedings brought by EPA 

to enforce these requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘only an objection 

to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment (including 

any public hearing) may be raised 

during judicial review.’’ This section 

also provides a mechanism for the EPA 

to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising 

the objection can demonstrate to the 

EPA that is was impracticable to raise 

such an 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 the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

the EPA should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27325 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Director of the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of 

General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background Information 

II. Summary of Amendments 

A. What are the major revisions resulting 

from the review? 

B. What are the revised emission limits? 

C. Are other amendments being 

promulgated? 

D. Is an implementation schedule being 

promulgated? 

E. Has EPA revised the applicability date 

of the NSPS? 

III. Responses to Significant Comments 

A. What areas of the proposal received the 

most comments? 

B. Why did EPA not recalculate the MACT 

floor? 

C. Relative to technical issues, how were 

statistical methods used to develop 

emission limits? 

D. How were the final emission limits 

selected? 

E. What types of comments were received 

on the EPA statistical methods? 

F. What comments were received on the 

EPA database and data screening 

procedures? 

G. What was the most important factor 

affecting emissions estimates? 

H. What emission variability factor is 

appropriate? 

I. What other significant comments were 

received on the proposal, and how were 

they addressed in the final rule? 

J. What comments were received on the 

proposed 95 percent CEMS data 

availability requirement and how were 

they addressed in the final rule? 

K. What comments were received on the 

expanded use of continuous emission 

monitors technology, and how were the 

comments addressed in the final rule? 

L. Would the use of particulate matter 

continuous emission monitors or 

mercury continuous emission monitors 

for compliance testing require EPA to 

adopt alternative particulate matter and 

mercury emission limits? 

IV. Impacts of the Final Amendments for 

Existing Units 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background Information 

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled 

‘‘Solid Waste Combustion,’’ requires 

EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and 

emission guidelines for solid waste 

incineration units pursuant to CAA 

sections 111 and 129. Section 111(b) of 

the CAA (NSPS program) addresses 

emissions from new MWC units and 

section 111(d) of the CAA (emission 

guidelines program) addresses 

emissions from existing MWC units. 

The NSPS are directly enforceable 

Federal regulations. The emission 

guidelines are not directly enforceable 

but, rather, are implemented by State air 

pollution control agencies through 

sections 111(d)/129 State plans. 

In December 1995, EPA adopted 

NSPS (subpart Eb of 40 CFR part 60) 

and emission guidelines (subpart Cb of 

40 CFR part 60) for MWC units with a 

combustion capacity greater than 250 

tons per day. These MWC units are 

referred to as large MWC units. Both the 

NSPS and emission guidelines require 

compliance with emission limitations 

that reflect the performance of 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT). The NSPS apply to 

new MWC units after the effective date 

of the NSPS or at start-up, whichever is 

later. The emission guidelines apply to 

existing MWC units built before the 

NSPS applicability date and required 

compliance by December 2000. These 

retrofits were completed on time, and 

the controls installed to meet the 

required emission limitations were 

highly effective in reducing emissions of 

all of the CAA section 129 pollutants 

emitted by large MWC units. 

Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires 

EPA to conduct a 5-year review of the 

NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if 

appropriate, revise the NSPS and 

emission guidelines. The EPA has 

completed that review. On December 

19, 2005 (70 FR 75348), EPA proposed 

amendments to the NSPS and emission 

guidelines to reflect the revisions EPA 

believes are appropriate. EPA carefully 

considered comments received on the 

proposal, and this action promulgates 

those revisions. 

II. Summary of Amendments 

A. What are the major revisions 

resulting from the review? 

Two major revisions result from 

EPA’s review: Revisions to the emission 

limits and revisions to compliance 

testing provisions. Relative to the 1995 

emission guidelines for existing MWC 

units, the emission limits are revised for 

dioxin, cadmium, lead, mercury, and 

particulate matter. The nitrogen oxides 

emission limit for mass burn rotary 

waterwall type MWC units is also 

revised. Relative to the 1995 NSPS for 

new MWC units, the emission limits are 

revised for cadmium, lead, mercury, and 

particulate matter. For both the 

emission guidelines and NSPS, the 

compliance testing provisions have been 

revised to require increased data 

availability from continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS). The 

revisions require CEMS to generate at 

least 95 percent data availability on a 

calendar year basis and at least 90 

percent data availability on a calendar 

quarter basis. The emission guidelines 

and NSPS have also been revised to 

allow the optional use of CEMS to 

monitor particulate matter and mercury. 

B. What are the revised emission limits? 

The final amendments revise many of 

the emission limits in both the NSPS 

and emission guidelines. Relative to the 

NSPS, the most significant revisions are 

in the cadmium and mercury emission 

limits. Relative to the emission 

guidelines, the most significant 

revisions are in the dioxin/furan (for 

units equipped with electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs)) and mercury 

emission limits, as well as nitrogen 

oxides for mass burn rotary combustors. 

Table 1 of this preamble contains a 

summary of the final emission limits. 

TABLE 1.—FINAL EMISSION LIMITS FOR LARGE MWC UNITS

Pollutant Emission limit for existing MWC units a Emission limit for new MWC units a

Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF) .................................... 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

total mass basis (non-ESP equipped units)/ 

35 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

total mass basis (ESP-equipped units).

b 13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

total mass basis. 

Cadmium (Cd) .................................................... 35 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter .. 10 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Pollutant Emission limit for existing MWC units a Emission limit for new MWC units a

Lead (Pb) ........................................................... 400 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 140 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter. 

Mercury (Hg) ...................................................... 50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 

or 85 percent reduction of mercury emissions.

50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter 

or 85 percent reduction of mercury emissions. 

Particulate Matter (PM) ...................................... 25 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter .... 20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter. 

Hydrogen chloride (HCl) .................................... b 29 parts per million dry volume or 95 percent 

reduction of hydrogen chloride emissions.

b 25 parts per million dry volume or 95 percent 

reduction of hydrogen chloride emissions. 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ........................................... b 29 parts per million dry volume or 75 percent 

reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.

b 30 parts per million dry volume or 80 percent 

reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) ...................................... Varies by combustor type (see table 1 to subpart Cb of part 60).

b 180 parts per million dry volume/150 parts 

per million dry volume after first year of operation. 

aAll emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen. 

b No change promulgated. 

C. Are other amendments being 

promulgated? 

The final amendments also make the 

following changes based on information 

received during implementation of the 

MWC emission guidelines and apply 

equally to the NSPS and emission 

guidelines, unless otherwise specified. 

Following is a list of the most 

significant changes compared to the 

1995 NSPS and emission guidelines. 

Operating Practices 

• The final amendments revise the 

operator stand-in provisions in 

§ 60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift 

supervisor is allowed to be off site when 

a provisionally certified control room 

operator is standing in. A provisionally 

certified control room operator may 

stand in for up to 12 hours without 

notifying EPA; for up to 2 weeks if EPA 

is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if 

EPA is notified and the MWC owner 

demonstrates to EPA that a good faith 

effort is being made to ensure that a 

certified chief facility operator or 

certified shift supervisor is on site as 

soon as practicable. In the final 

amendments, a provisionally certified 

operator who is newly promoted or 

recently transferred to a shift supervisor 

position or chief facility operator 

position is able to serve up to 6 months 

without notification before taking the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineer’s (ASME) Standard for the 

Qualification and Certification of 

Resource Recovery Facility Operators 

(QRO) certification exam for full 

certification. 

• The final amendments add two 

additional classifications of MWC units 

to the emission guidelines and add 

associated carbon monoxide limits to 

assure good combustion practices. The 

two new classifications are ‘‘spreader 

stoker fixed floor refuse-derived fuel 

(RDF)-fired/100 percent coal capable 

combustor’’ and ‘‘semi-suspension RDFfired combustor/wet RDF process 

conversion.’’

Operating Parameters 

• The final amendments revise 

§ 60.58b(m) to establish an 8-hour block 

average for measuring activated carbon 

injection (ACI) rate. This makes the 

NSPS and emission guidelines for large 

MWC units consistent with the newer 

(year 2000) CAA section 129 regulations 

for small MWC units (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts AAAA and BBBB), which 

monitor ACI rate using an 8-hour block 

average. 

Performance Testing and Monitoring 

• The final amendments revise the 

annual mercury testing requirements to 

additionally allow for optimization of 

mercury control operating parameters 

by waiving operating parameter limits 

during the mercury performance test 

and during the 2 weeks preceding the 

mercury performance test. This is 

already done for dioxin testing. It is 

recommended that both dioxin and 

mercury testing be done during 

optimization testing. 

• The final amendments revise the 

relative accuracy criterion for sulfur 

dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS. 

• The final amendments add 

flexibility to the annual compliance 

testing schedule so that a facility tests 

once per calendar year, but no less than 

9 months and no more than 15 months 

since the previous test. The revision 

provides flexibility to facilities when 

facing scheduled and unscheduled 

outages, adverse local weather 

conditions, and other conditions, while 

still meeting the intent of the 

compliance testing. The final 

amendments also require at least five 

compliance tests be completed in each 

5-year calendar period. 

• The final amendments allow the 

use of parametric monitoring limits 

from an exceptionally well-operated 

MWC unit (i.e., MWC unit with dioxin 

emissions for 2 years in a row below 15 

nanogram/dry standard cubic meter (ng/ 

dscm) for existing MWC units and 

below 7 ng/dscm for new MWC units) 

be applied to all identical units at the 

same plant site without retesting for 

dioxin. 

• The final amendments revise the 

particulate matter and mercury 

compliance testing requirements to 

allow the optional use of a particulate 

matter CEMS or mercury CEMS in place 

of stack testing and would allow the 

optional use of multi-metal, hydrogen 

chloride, dioxin/furan CEMS in place of 

stack tests after which performance 

specifications for these CEMS are 

promulgated. 

• The final amendments add 

provisions for monitoring the activated 

carbon injection pressure or equivalent 

parameter. 

• The final amendments revise the 

data availability requirement for CEMS. 

Data must be available for at least 90 

percent of the hours of operation per 

calendar quarter and at least 95 percent 

of the hours of operation per calendar 

year. 

• The final amendments clarify the 

exclusion of monitoring data from 

compliance calculations during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunctions, 

but requires identification of such 

periods and an explanation for 

exclusion of such data. 

Other Amendments 

• The final amendments clarify the 

meaning of the term ‘‘Administrator’’ in 

the standards. 

D. Is an implementation schedule being 

promulgated? 

Yes. Under the emission guidelines, 

and consistent with CAA section 129, 

revised State plans containing the 

revised emission limits and other 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27327 

requirements in the revised emission 

guidelines are due within 1 year after 

promulgation of these revisions. That is, 

revised State plans must be submitted to 

EPA by May 10, 2007. 

The emission guidelines then allow 

MWC units two compliance schedules. 

As a first option, MWC units have up to 

2 years from the date of EPA approval 

of a State plan to comply. Consistent 

with CAA section 129, EPA expects 

States to require compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable. Large 

MWC units have already installed the 

emission control equipment necessary 

to meet the revised limits, and EPA, 

therefore, anticipates that most State 

plans will include compliance dates less 

than 2 years following approval of State 

plans. In most cases, the only changes 

necessary are to review the revisions 

and adjust the emission monitoring and 

reporting accordingly. State plan 

revisions are not approvable until the 

related State rule or enforceable 

mechanism is adopted and becomes 

effective. As a second compliance 

option, an owner or operator of an MWC 

unit that plans a substantial upgrade, 

can apply to the EPA Administrator (if 

the MWC is regulated by a Federal 

Section 111(d)/129 plan) or the State 

Administrator (if the MWC is regulated 

by an EPA approved State section 

111(d)/129 plan), for a site-specific 

compliance schedule that can extend up 

to 5 years following publication of these 

amendments. 

In revising the emission limits in a 

State plan, a State has two options. 

First, it could insert the new emission 

limits in place of the current emission 

limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part 

60, subpart B, and submit a revised 

State plan to EPA for approval. If the 

revised State plan contains only the new 

emission limits (i.e., the existing 

emission limits are not retained), then 

the new emission limits must become 

effective immediately since the current 

limits would be removed from the State 

plan. A second approach would be for 

a State plan to include both the current 

and the new emission limits. This 

allows a phased approach in applying 

the new limits. That is, the State plan 

would make it clear that the existing 

emission limits remain in force and 

apply until the date the new emission 

limits are effective (as defined in the 

State plan). 

E. Has EPA revised the applicability 

date of the NSPS? 

No. The applicability date for the 

NSPS units remains September 20, 

1994; however, units for which 

construction or modification is 

commenced after December 19, 2005, 

are subject to more stringent emission 

limits. Under the final amendments, 

units that commenced construction after 

September 20, 1994, and on or before 

December 19, 2005, continue to be 

subject to the NSPS emission limits that 

were promulgated in 1995 and that 

remain in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Eb NSPS. Units that commence 

construction after December 19, 2005, 

are subject to the new NSPS limits being 

added to subpart Eb. 

The EPA is not aware of, and 

commenters did not identify, any MWC 

units that were modified or 

reconstructed after June 19, 1996 

(effective date of the December 19, 1995 

NSPS), therefore, EPA simplified the 

applicability text for the NSPS to be 

MWC units that commenced 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after September 20, 1994. 

The use of one date is the most 

understandable. As noted in adopting 

regulations for MWC in 1995, any 

change made to an MWC unit for the 

principal purpose of complying with the 

subpart Cb, 40 CFR part 60, emission 

guidelines or subpart Eb NSPS is not 

considered to be a modification or 

reconstruction. 

III. Responses to Significant Comments 

A. What areas of the proposal received 

the most comments? 

The comment letters received by EPA 

on the proposed rule, identified more 

than 50 issues for consideration. The 

most common issue was related to the 

statistical methods used by EPA to assist 

in development of the proposed 

emission limits. Associated comments 

included those on the adequacy of the 

database, appropriateness of the data 

screening procedures, and development 

of emissions variability factors. In 

addition, EPA received legal comments 

on recalculating the MACT floor. 

B. Why did EPA not recalculate the 

MACT floor? 

Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires 

EPA to ‘‘* * * review, and in 

accordance with this section and section 

111, revise’’ performance standards and 

other requirements under section 129. 

The provision does not mandate that 

this review be conducted in a single, 

unvarying manner. One commenter, 

nevertheless, maintains that because of 

the reference to ‘‘this section and 

section 111,’’ EPA is necessarily 

required to repeat the CAA section 

129(a) standards development process, 

which includes re-determining the 

MACT floor for new and existing MWC 

units. EPA does not read the provision 

as requiring another analysis of the 

MACT floor. A more natural reading of 

the provision is that EPA is to conduct 

a periodic review to determine whether 

advances in technology warrant 

revisions to the standards. This is the 

same general approach taken by EPA in 

reviewing CAA section 111 standards. 

There is nothing in the language of 

section 129(a)(5) that speaks directly to 

the issue of whether another floor 

analysis is required. EPA believes that a 

reasonable interpretation of the 

reference cited by the commenter leads 

to the conclusion that such an analysis 

is not required. EPA believes that a 

reasonable interpretation of the 

reference requires EPA to determine 

‘‘the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through application of the 

best system of emission reduction 

which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated.’’ See, Clean 

Air Act section 111(a)(1). Recalculating 

the floor as advocated by the commenter 

would eviscerate the Administrator’s 

ability to effectively consider factors 

that Congress has otherwise mandated 

be considered. That is, once a new floor 

has been calculated, the Administrator 

cannot establish emission limits which 

are less stringent than that floor even if 

consideration of costs and other factors 

would otherwise lead him to conclude 

that this is appropriate. EPA believes 

that Congress would have been explicit 

in its instructions had it intended this 

result. Since it was not, EPA believes 

that a reasonable interpretation of 

section 129(a)(5) is that it does not 

require EPA to recalculate the floor for 

existing units. 

EPA also believes that interpreting 

section 129(a)(5) as requiring additional 

floor determinations could effectively 

convert existing source standards into 

new source standards. After 5 years, all 

sources will be performing at least at the 

existing source MACT level of 

performance and some sources will be 

performing at the new source MACT 

level of performance. As a result, it is 

likely that the average performance of 

the best performing 12 percent of 

sources will be at or near the new 

source MACT level of performance. This 

would result in existing sources being 

subject to new source MACT 

requirements on a 5-year cycle 

regardless of whether those sources 

have undergone a change which would 

otherwise require compliance with that 

standard. EPA sees no indication that 

section 129(a)(5) was intended to have 

this inexorable downward ratcheting 

effect. Rather, we read the provision as 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

requiring EPA to consider developments 

in pollution control at the sources and 

to revise the standards based on it 

evaluation of the costs, non-air quality 

effects and energy implications of doing 

so. 

C. Relative to technical issues, how were 

the statistical methods used to develop 

emission limits? 

The statistical methods were used as 

an aid. One must remember that 

statistical methods attempt to estimate 

what could occur in the future based on 

what occurred in the past. Statistical 

methods provide an estimate of what 

could occur, but they are not the actual 

process. Actual events will determine 

what actually occurs. The usefulness of 

statistical methods is affected by the 

appropriateness of the model and 

assumptions used as well as the quality 

and size of the database. Statistical 

methods are a useful aid in making an 

informed decision but they alone cannot 

dictate a decision. Human judgment 

must always be applied in making the 

final decision. 

D. How were the final emission limits 

selected? 

The final emission limits were 

selected in a three-step process. The 

first step was to develop statistical 

estimates. The second step was to 

consider the statistical estimates in 

relation to current performance levels. 

The third step was for EPA to select 

emission limits. Relative to the first 

step, EPA identified an appropriate 

statistical model, defined reasonable 

assumptions, and applied the model to 

year 2000 compliance data for all MWC 

units with the relevant control 

technologies to estimate the peak 

emission rate that is estimated to occur 

from time to time, considering inherent 

variability in emission levels. Next, EPA 

obtained year 2000 to 2005 test data 

from more than a dozen MWC units. 

This data was compared to the 

statistical estimates and considered in 

relation to public comments. As a last 

step, EPA selected the emission limits 

for the final standards. 

E. What types of comments were 

received on the EPA statistical methods? 

A range of comments were received 

on the statistical methodology. Some 

commenters simply presented their own 

statistical methodology, which they 

claimed was more conventional or 

appropriate for the data analysis being 

conducted. They went on to claim their 

methodology would lead to more 

appropriate emission limits. The most 

common statistical methodology 

identified by commenters followed the 

approach presented by the Integrated 

Waste Services Association (IWSA). 

EPA concludes that the IWSA approach 

presents another generally acceptable 

methodology for developing emission 

limits. Based on public comments, EPA 

revised its methodology and updated 

the database and conducted another 

analysis. The revised methodology used 

by EPA followed that used by IWSA, but 

improved upon it with more accurate 

selection of frequency distributions on 

which to base the analyses. Regardless 

of the statistical methodology used, the 

results of the statistical analysis were 

used only as a tool to aid in selection 

of appropriate emission limits. That is, 

the estimates from the new statistical 

analysis were used as an aid in selecting 

the final emission limits. The new 

analysis is contained in the docket. 

F. What comments were received on the 

EPA database and data screening 

procedures? 

Although the MWC database is one of 

the larger databases EPA has had for 

standards development, a number of 

commenters indicated the database is 

inadequate because of its age. They 

indicated that the data from initial 

MACT compliance tests (year 2000) is 

old and should be supplemented with 

more current data. Some commenters 

suggested the more current data would 

address emission control performance 

over time including deterioration of the 

control system. (It could also be argued 

more current data could show improved 

performance as MWC operators became 

more familiar with operating an 

emission control system.) EPA believes 

the size of the year 2000 database 

adequate to address emission variability 

for developing estimates; however, EPA 

did collect 2000 to 2005 test data from 

more than a dozen MWC units to aid in 

reviewing emission control performance 

over time and to compare to the 

statistical estimates. Additionally, 

commenters identified a number of 

errors in the database. These were 

corrected by EPA. Relative to data 

screening as done by EPA at proposal, 

commenters claimed its use 

inappropriate and that it introduced 

bias to the results. At proposal, EPA had 

screened data to identify values that 

required additional investigation not 

because the values were high or low. 

Based on public comments, EPA 

dropped the data screening procedure in 

its final analysis. In some cases, using 

the unscreened data rather than the 

screened data changed estimates, but in 

other cases it did not. For example, the 

particulate matter emissions limit with 

or without data screening did not 

change. For cadmium, the change from 

data screening to non-screening changed 

the estimate by 1 micrograms/dry 

standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) (31 μg/ 

dscm to 32 μg/dscm). A more significant 

change resulting from changing from 

data screening to non-screening was in 

the estimate for the lead emission limit. 

EPA found that data received 

following proposal showed highly 

variable lead emissions. The statistical 

analysis data for lead used by EPA and 

IWSA was not as variable as data for 

subsequent years that were obtained 

after the statistical analyses were 

completed. Therefore, EPA discounted 

both the EPA and industry statistical 

estimates, and based the final limit on 

a review of the year 2000–2005 test data 

and public comment, selecting a higher 

emission limit. 

In selecting the final mercury 

emission limit, EPA again discounted 

both the EPA and industry statistical 

estimates, and based the final limit on 

a review of the year 2000–2005 test data 

and public comment, this time selecting 

a lower emission limit. The EPA and 

IWSA analyses used year 2000 test data, 

and both analyses supported retention 

of the existing mercury limit of 80 μg/ 

dscm. However, EPA obtained mercury 

test data for 68 different tests conducted 

on ESP-equipped MWC units in the 

2000 to 2005 time period. These data 

showed that mercury emissions are 

considerably lower than suggested by 

the statistical analyses. To understand 

this performance, EPA reviewed 

uncontrolled mercury emissions data 

from a number of MWC units for the 

1995 to 2005 time period. The data 

showed that in 1995, when the MACT 

standards were adopted, average 

uncontrolled mercury emission levels 

were about 250 μg/dscm, and, by 2005, 

the level was reduced by about 50 

percent to about 125 μg/dscm. The 

result of application of 85 percent 

mercury control to these lower mercury 

inlet levels has resulted in much lower 

mercury outlet levels, as demonstrated 

by the test data. A 50 percent reduction 

in inlet mercury levels suggests an 

emission limit of 40 μg/dscm in the 

MACT standards. Public comments and 

test data suggested that levels less than 

30 μg/dscm are being achieved. 

However, in consideration of the 

potential use of mercury CEMS and the 

higher mercury variability that may be 

observed with CEMS use, the final 

standards were set at 50 μg/dscm for 

both existing and new MWC units. 

G. What was the most important factor 

affecting emissions estimates? 

The emission variability factor was 

the most important factor affecting 

emissions estimates. The emission 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27329 

variability factor is an emission factor 

that is added to the mean performance 

level in order to estimate the peak 

emissions level that will occur from 

time to time. For example, over an 

extended period (many years) 

particulate matter emissions from an 

MWC could average 15 milligrams per 

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). 

Clearly, individual particulate matter 

tests would be above and below 15 mg/ 

dscm. The emission variability factor 

addresses how much individual test 

values are estimated to be above the 15 

mg/dscm mean value. If the variability 

factor were 10 mg/dscm, it would mean 

that it is estimated that from time to 

time particulate matter emissions could 

be as high as 25 mg/dscm (15 + 10 = 25). 

H. What emission variability factor is 

appropriate? 

Although most commenters and EPA 

used similar statistical methodology, 

differences were identified in 

assumptions used to develop emission 

variability factors. EPA used percentiles. 

The percentile addresses how often one 

would estimate that an emissions level 

may exceed a certain value (the 

standard). For analysis of CEMS data, 

such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen 

oxides, where 365 tests (24-hr CEMS 

average) are conducted per year, EPA 

and commenters agreed the emission 

limit should be set at a level that would 

be expected to be exceeded only once 

per year at a well-operated MWC plant. 

Once per year translates into a 99.7 

percentile level. A number of 

commenters suggested the use of a 99.7 

percentile for development of limits 

using both CEMS data (sulfur dioxide 

and nitrogen oxide) and stack test data 

(cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate 

matter, dioxin, and hydrogen chloride). 

This is one area where EPA disagrees 

with these commenters. EPA concludes 

a different assumption is appropriate. 

For stack test emission limits, EPA 

used a different and lower percentile. 

This is the same approach EPA used at 

proposal. Analysis of data to estimate 

emission limits to be enforced by stack 

test methods must be done using a 

different approach than where 

enforcement is to be based on CEMS. 

Historically, for stack test data, EPA 

used its judgment to select appropriate 

emission limits in consideration of 

emissions variability over a wide range 

of operating conditions, and 

consideration of the limitations of 

compliance determination by infrequent 

stack testing. For this rulemaking, EPA 

moved a step forward using statistical 

methods to aid in estimating 

appropriate emission levels for stack 

test compliance. The percentile for 

estimating emission limits enforced by 

infrequent stack testing must also reflect 

a reasonable consideration of emissions 

variability and compliance limitations 

of stack testing. Based on EPA’s 

experience, EPA concluded a 99 

percentile was appropriate to estimate 

achievable emission levels for emission 

limits enforced by stack testing. 

Therefore, just as done in the December 

19, 2005 proposal, EPA continues to use 

a 99 percentile for estimating emission 

limits to be enforced by stack testing 

and 99.7 percentile for estimating 

emission limits to be enforced by CEMS. 

The commenters did not provide any 

persuasive information for the use of a 

99.7 percentile for both CEMS and stack 

test compliance methods. 

I. What other significant comments were 

received on the proposal, and how were 

they addressed in the final rule? 

Other significant comment topics 

included CEMS data availability and 

increased use of CEMS, including 

particulate matter CEMS and other new 

CEMS technology. The CEMS data 

availability issue and increased use of 

CEMS technology are discussed below. 

Other comments are addressed in the 

response to comment document, which 

is contained in the docket. 

J. What comments were received on the 

proposed 95 percent CEMS data 

availability requirement, and how were 

they addressed in the final rule? 

Most commenters agreed that 95 

percent CEMS data availability was 

achievable by a single CEMS, but 

indicated that legally requiring 

demonstration of such high availability 

levels on a short term basis may result 

in the installation of a second backup 

CEMS to assure compliance. 

Commenters indicated that from time to 

time it is necessary to obtain 

replacement parts for CEMS, sometimes 

from foreign suppliers, and this can 

quickly deteriorate data availability 

levels on a short term basis. In 

proposing the 95 percent data 

availability requirement, it was not 

EPA’s intention to require installation of 

a second backup CEMS. To address 

these concerns, the final rule addresses 

CEMS data availability in two steps. 

First, a 90 percent CEMS data 

availability requirement is applied on a 

calendar quarter basis. Second, a 95 

percent data availability requirement is 

applied on a calendar year basis. The 

procedure for calculation of data 

availability is also revised in the final 

rule to be hours of valid CEMS data 

collected divided by the hours of MWC 

operation. This is done on a calendar 

quarter basis for the 90 percent 

requirement and on a calendar year 

basis for the 95 percent requirement. 

The current requirement of obtaining 

CEMS data for 75 percent of the 

operating hours per day before data is 

counted toward the CEMS data 

availability requirement has been 

removed from the MWC regulations to 

assure consistency with CEMS 

requirements for other source categories. 

K. What comments were received on the 

expanded use of CEMS technology, and 

how were the comments addressed in 

the final rule? 

In the proposal, EPA allowed the 

optional use of particulate matter CEMS 

and requested comment on the optional 

use of particulate matter CEMS, multimetal CEMS, hydrogen chloride CEMS, 

and semi-continuous dioxin monitoring. 

Some commenters stated the CEMS 

have not been validated on MWC units; 

that PM CEMS have not been installed 

in any MWC in the United States; and 

the use of PM CEMS on MWCs in 

Europe are not indicative of the 

appropriateness of their use in the 

United States, because of differences in 

how CEMS are used for enforcement. 

While PM CEMS are used in the United 

States on other types of sources, there 

could be some operational differences 

between these sources and MWCs that 

affect the performance of PM CEMS on 

MWCs. 

In the final rule, EPA is allowing, as 

optional test methods, the use of 

particulate matter CEMS and mercury 

CEMS, since performance specifications 

are available for these CEMS. In the 

regulations, the owners or operators of 

an MWC would provide EPA a 30 day 

notice before starting to use the CEMS 

and provide a 30 day notice if they elect 

to discontinue the use of the CEMS. As 

an incentive for the optional application 

of CEMS in the MWC context, EPA is 

modifying the monitoring availability 

requirements. The 90 percent and 95 

percent CEMS data availability 

requirements do not apply to particulate 

matter CEMS or mercury CEMS use for 

the first 2 years of application. For the 

other CEMS (multi-metal, hydrogen 

chloride, and semi-continuous dioxin 

monitoring), their optional use is 

allowed after their respective 

performance specifications are adopted 

by EPA. No dates for adoption are 

currently scheduled. 

L. Would the use of particulate matter 

CEMS or mercury CEMS for compliance 

testing require EPA to adopt alternative 

particulate matter and mercury 

emission limits? 

Theoretically, yes. The use of 

particulate matter CEMS or mercury 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

CEMS for compliance testing would 

theoretically require EPA to adopt 

alternative particulate matter and 

mercury emission limits. The move 

from once per year stack testing (where 

emission limits were calculated from 

the 99 percentile) to CEMS (99.7 

percentile) suggests the emission limit 

should be increased if the same data 

averaging period is used. To address 

this, the final rule increases the data 

averaging period from 8 hours (typical 

particulate matter and mercury stack 

test period) to a 24-hr daily average if 

particulate matter or mercury CEMS are 

used. Past analysis of sulfur dioxide 

CEMS and nitrogen oxides CEMS data 

(and utility particulate matter CEMS 

data) indicate increasing the averaging 

period to a 24-hr daily average will 

reduce emissions variability and 

associated peak emissions estimates. 

EPA supports the optional use of 

particulate matter and mercury CEMS, 

but is fully aware that no particulate 

matter CEMS or mercury CEMS data 

from MWC units are available from 

domestic MWC units. EPA encourages 

MWC owners or operators who elect to 

apply particulate matter or mercury 

CEMS, to notify EPA as soon as data are 

collected to allow a determination if 

alternative emission limits are 

appropriate. 

IV. Impacts of the Final Amendments 

EPA projects the final amendments 

will have no additional impacts to air, 

water, or energy since the final emission 

limits can be achieved using the same 

air pollution control technology that 

was used to comply with the current 

emission limits. Similarly, EPA expects 

minimal cost and no economic impact 

for the same reason. Existing large MWC 

units will continue to use their existing 

MACT control technology to meet the 

emission limits, and will not incur costs 

to retrofit equipment. In addition, EPA 

does not believe that the revised limits 

will result in any increase in operating 

or maintenance costs. The same 

conclusions apply to new MWC units 

since EPA expects that new MWC units 

will be equipped with the same control 

technology used to comply with the 

1995 NSPS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

review by OMB and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA 

that it considers the final rule a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the meaning of the Executive Order. 

EPA has submitted today’s action to 

OMB for review. Changes made in 

response to OMB suggestions or 

recommendations will be documented 

in the public record. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Office of Management and Budget 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

NSPS and emission guidelines for large 

MWC units under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and 

emission guidelines were promulgated 

on December 19, 1995 and subsequent 

recertifications. The information 

collection request has been assigned 

OMB Control Number 2060–0210 (EPA 

ICR No. 1506.10). 

The final amendments result in no 

changes to the information collection 

requirements of the NSPS or emission 

guidelines and will have no impact on 

the information collection estimate of 

project cost and hour burden made and 

approved by OMB. Therefore, the 

information collection requests have not 

been revised. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

the final rule. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as follows: (1) A small 

business in the regulated industry that 

has gross annual revenues of less than 

$6 million; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; or (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise that 

is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the final rule on small 

entities, EPA has concluded that today’s 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The final rule 

will not impose any requirements on 

small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27331 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, EPA must 

have developed a small government 

agency plan under section 203 of the 

UMRA. The plan must provide for 

notifying potentially affected small 

governments, enabling officials of 

affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of EPA’s regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that the final 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 because 

the final rule does not require a change 

in the control technology applied. Thus, 

the final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of section 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, EPA has 

determined that the final rule contains 

no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, the final rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

The final rule 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. The final rule 

will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State or local 

governments because the regulations 

will not require any change in the 

emission control technology currently 

used to comply with the 1995 NSPS and 

emissions guidelines, and will not 

preempt State law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to the final 

amendments. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’

The final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. They will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

EPA is not aware of any large MWC unit 

owned or operated by tribal 

government. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to the final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives EPA considered. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that are based on 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. The final 

amendments are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they are 

based on technology performance and 

not on health and safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Since there would be no change in 

energy consumption resulting from the 

final rule, EPA does not expect any 

price increase for any energy type. We 

also expect that there will be no impact 

on the import of foreign energy 

supplies, and no other adverse 

outcomes are expected to occur with 

regards to energy supplies. Therefore, 

EPA concludes that the final rule is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 

15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards in 

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) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through 

annual reports to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), with 

explanations when an agency does not 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The MWC NSPS and emission 

guidelines involve technical standards. 

The EPA cites the following methods in 

the NSPS and emission guidelines: 

Methods 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A or 6C, 7 

or 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E, 9, 10, 10A or 10B, 

19, 22, 23, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A; Performance 

Specifications (PS) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and 

appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. 

In previous searches and review, 

which have been documented and 

placed in the docket, EPA identified 

four voluntary consensus standards that 

have already been incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 60.17. The 

voluntary consensus standard ASTM 

D6216 (1998), ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to 

Certify Conformance with Design and 

Performance Specifications,’’ is an 

acceptable alternative for opacity 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

monitor design specifications given in 

EPA’s PS 1 (promulgated in March 

1983). As a result, EPA incorporated 

ASTM D6216–98 by reference into PS 1 

as the design specifications for opacity 

monitors in August 2000. (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B.) The MWC NSPS and 

emission guidelines also incorporate by 

reference into 40 CFR part 60.17 ASME 

QRO–1–1994, ‘‘Standard for the 

Qualification and Certification of 

Resource Recovery Facility Operators’’

for operator qualification and 

certification; ASME PTC 4.1–1964 

(reaffirmed 1991), ‘‘Power Test Codes: 

Test Code for Steam Generating Units,’’

for steam or feedwater flow; and ASME 

Interim Supplement 19.5 (6th Edition, 

1971), ‘‘Instruments and Apparatus: 

Application, Part II of Fluid Meters,’’ for 

nozzle and orifice design. 

In this search and review, EPA 

conducted searches to identify 

voluntary consensus standards in 

addition to EPA methods in the MWC 

NSPS and emission guidelines. No 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards were identified for EPA 

Methods 7D, 9, 10A, 19, and 22; and PS 

3 and 4A. The search for emissions 

measurement procedures identified 27 

voluntary consensus standards 

potentially applicable to the final 

amendments. One of the 27 voluntary 

consensus standards identified in this 

search was not available at the time the 

review was conducted for the purposes 

of the amendments because the standard 

is under development by a voluntary 

consensus body: ASTM WK3159 (Begun 

in 2003), ‘‘Practice for Quality 

Assurance of Instrumental Monitoring 

Systems.’’ The EPA determined that two 

of the remaining 26 standards identified 

for measuring emissions subject to the 

NSPS and emission guidelines were 

practical alternatives to EPA test 

methods for the purposes of the final 

amendments. EPA determined that 24 

standards were not practical alternatives 

to EPA test methods, therefore, EPA 

does not intend to adopt these standards 

for this purpose. The reasons for EPA’s 

determinations are discussed in a 

memorandum in the docket. 

EPA identified two voluntary 

consensus standards as alternatives to 

EPA test methods. ASME PTC 19–10–

1981—Part 10, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses’’ includes manual and 

instrumental methods of analyses for 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 

oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. The manual 

methods of ASME PTC 19–10–1981—

Part 10 for measuring the nitrogen 

oxide, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide 

content of exhaust gas are acceptable 

alternatives to Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 

7C. The instrumental methods of ASME 

PTC 19–10–1981—Part 10 are not 

acceptable as a substitute for EPA 

Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7E, 10, and 10B. 

The instrumental methods are only 

general descriptions of procedures and 

are not true methods. Therefore, while 

some of the manual methods are 

acceptable alternatives to EPA methods, 

the instrumental methods are not. 

The voluntary consensus standard 

ASTM D6784–02, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ is an 

alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion 

for mercury only) as a method for 

measuring mercury. A full discussion of 

acceptable and unacceptable voluntary 

consensus standards is contained in a 

memorandum in the docket. 

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 the final 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 final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

final rule is not a major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule 

amendments to the standards of 

performance for new stationary sources 

is effective November 6, 2006. The final 

rule amendments to the emission 

guidelines for existing sources is 

effective on July 10, 2006. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 28, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, 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. 

Subpart Cb—[Amended] 

■ 2. Revise § 60.30b to read as follows: 

§ 60.30b Scope and delegation of 

authority. 

(a) This subpart contains emission 

guidelines and compliance schedules 

for the control of certain designated 

pollutants from certain municipal waste 

combustors in accordance with section 

111(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air 

Act and subpart B of this part. The 

provisions in these emission guidelines 

apply instead of the provisions of 

§ 60.24(f) of subpart B of this part. 

(b) The following authorities are 

retained by EPA: 

(1) Approval of exemption claims in 

§ 60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e), (f)(1), (i)(1); 

(2) Approval of a nitrogen oxides 

trading program under § 60.33b(d)(2); 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods; 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring; 

(5) Waiver of recordkeeping; and 

(6) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under § 608(b). 

■ 3. Amend § 60.31b by adding the 

definitions of ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘Semi-suspension 

refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet 

refuse-derived fuel process conversion,’’

and ‘‘Spreader stoker fixed floor refusederived fuel-fired combustor/100 

percent coal capable’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 60.31b Definitions. 

EPA means the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA or employee of the U.S. EPA 

who is delegated to perform the 

specified task. 

* * * * * 

Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuelfired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel 

process conversion means a combustion 

unit that was converted from a wet 

refuse-derived fuel process to a dry 

refuse-derived fuel process, and because 

of constraints in the design of the 

system, includes a low furnace height 

(less than 60 feet between the grate and 

the roof) and a high waste capacity-toundergrate air zone ratio (greater than 

300 tons of waste per day (tpd) fuel per 

each undergrate air zone). 

Spreader stoker fixed floor refusederived fuel-fired combustor/100 

percent coal capable means a spreader 

stoker type combustor with a fixed floor 

grate design that typically fires 100 

percent refuse-derived fuel but is 

equipped to burn 100 percent coal 

instead of refuse-derived fuel to fulfill 

100 percent steam or energy demand. 

■ 4. Amend § 60.32b by: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27333 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (f)(1); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (i)(1); and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.32b Designated facilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption 

claim, 

* * * * * 

(d) A qualifying small power 

production facility, as defined in section 

3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 

U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns 

homogeneous waste (such as automotive 

tires or used oil, but not including 

refuse-derived fuel) for the production 

of electric energy is not subject to this 

subpart if the owner or operator of the 

facility notifies EPA of this exemption 

and provides data documenting that the 

facility qualifies for this exemption. 

(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility, 

as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous 

waste (such as automotive tires or used 

oil, but not including refuse-derived 

fuel) for the production of electric 

energy and steam or forms of useful 

energy (such as heat) that are used for 

industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes, is not subject to this 

subpart if the owner or operator of the 

facility notifies EPA of this exemption 

and provides data documenting that the 

facility qualifies for this exemption. 

(f) * * * 

(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption 

claim, and 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption 

claim, 

* * * * * 

(n) Any affected facility meeting the 

applicability requirements under this 

section is not subject to subpart E of this 

part. 

■ 5. Amend § 60.33b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ c. Removing table 1 from paragraph 

(d) introductory text and table 2 from 

paragraph (d)(1)(iii); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 60.33b Emission guidelines for 

municipal waste combustor metals, acid 

gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides. 

(a) The emission limits for municipal 

waste combustor metals are specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) For approval, a State plan shall 

include emission limits for particulate 

matter and opacity at least as protective 

as the emission limits for particulate 

matter and opacity specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of 

this section. 

(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission 

limit for particulate matter contained in 

the gases discharged to the atmosphere 

from a designated facility is 27 

milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. On 

and after April 28, 2009, the emission 

limit for particulate matter contained in 

the gases discharged to the atmosphere 

from a designated facility is 25 

milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(iii) The emission limit for opacity 

exhibited by the gases discharged to the 

atmosphere from a designated facility is 

10 percent (6-minute average). 

(2) For approval, a State plan shall 

include emission limits for cadmium at 

least as protective as the emission limits 

for cadmium specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section. 

(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission 

limit for cadmium contained in the 

gases discharged to the atmosphere from 

a designated facility is 40 micrograms 

per dry standard cubic meter, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April 

28, 2009, the emission limit for 

cadmium contained in the gases 

discharged to the atmosphere from a 

designated facility is 35 micrograms per 

dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 

percent oxygen. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(3) For approval, a State plan shall 

include emission limits for mercury at 

least as protective as the emission limits 

specified in this paragraph. Before April 

28, 2009, the emission limit for mercury 

contained in the gases discharged to the 

atmosphere from a designated facility is 

80 micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter or 15 percent of the potential 

mercury emission concentration (85- 

percent reduction by weight), corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less 

stringent. On and after April 28, 2009, 

the emission limit for mercury 

contained in the gases discharged to the 

atmosphere from a designated facility is 

50 micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter or 15 percent of the potential 

mercury emission concentration (85- 

percent reduction by weight), corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less 

stringent. 

(4) For approval, a State plan shall 

include an emission limit for lead at 

least as protective as the emission limit 

for lead specified in this paragraph. 

Before April 28, 2009, the emission 

limit for lead contained in the gases 

discharged to the atmosphere from a 

designated facility is 440 micrograms 

per dry standard cubic meter, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April 

28, 2009, the emission limit for lead 

contained in the gases discharged to the 

atmosphere from a designated facility is 

400 micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

* * * * * 

(c) The emission limits for municipal 

waste combustor organics, expressed as 

total mass dioxin/furan, are specified in 

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

section. 

(1) For approval, a State plan shall 

include an emission limit for dioxin/ 

furan contained in the gases discharged 

to the atmosphere from a designated 

facility at least as protective as the 

emission limit for dioxin/furan 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 

(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission 

limit for designated facilities that 

employ an electrostatic precipitatorbased emission control system is 60 

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

(total mass), corrected to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

(ii) On and after April 28, 2009, the 

emission limit for designated facilities 

that employ an electrostatic 

precipitator-based emission control 

system is 35 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (total mass), 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(iii) The emission limit for designated 

facilities that do not employ an 

electrostatic precipitator-based emission 

control system is 30 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (total mass), 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(d) * * * 

(2) A State plan may establish a 

program to allow owners or operators of 

municipal waste combustor plants to 

engage in trading of nitrogen oxides 

emission credits. A trading program 

must be approved by EPA before 

implementation. 

(3) For approval, a State plan shall 

include emission limits for nitrogen 

oxides from fluidized bed combustors at 

least as protective as the emission limits 

listed in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and 

(d)(3)(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

§ 60.34b [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 60.34b by removing table 

3 from paragraph (a) introductory text. 

■ 7. Amend § 60.39b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e); and 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping 

guidelines and compliance schedules. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, not later than 

December 19, 1996, each State in which 

a designated facility is located shall 

submit to EPA a plan to implement and 

enforce all provisions of this subpart 

except the revised April 28, 2009 

emission limits in § 60.33b(a), (c), and 

(d). Not later than April 28, 2007, each 

State in which a designated facility is 

located shall submit to EPA a plan to 

implement and enforce all provisions of 

this subpart, as amended on May 10, 

2006. The submittal schedule specified 

in this paragraph is in accordance with 

section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

and applies instead of the schedule 

provided in § 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of 

this part. 

(c) For approval, a State plan that is 

submitted prior to May 10, 2006 shall 

include the compliance schedules 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(c)(5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) The owner or operator of a 

designated facility may request that the 

Administrator waive the requirement 

specified in § 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of 

this part for chief facility operators, shift 

supervisors, and control room operators 

who have obtained provisional 

certification from the American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers on or before 

the initial date of State plan approval. 

* * * * * 

(e) Not later than August 25, 1998, 

each State in which a designated facility 

is operating shall submit to EPA a plan 

to implement and enforce all provisions 

of this subpart specified in 

§ 60.33b(b)(3) and (d)(3) and the 

emission limit in paragraph (a)(4) that 

applies before April 28, 2009. 

* * * * * 

(g) For approval, a revised State plan 

submitted not later than April 28, 2007 

in accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section, shall include compliance 

schedules for meeting the revised April 

28, 2009 emission limits in § 60.33b(a), 

(c), and (d) and the revised testing 

provisions in § 60.38b(b). 

(1) Compliance with the revised April 

28, 2009 emission limits is required as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than April 28, 2009, except as provided 

in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. 

(2) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility who is planning an 

extensive emission control system 

upgrade may petition the Administrator 

for a longer compliance schedule and 

must demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the Administrator the need for the 

additional time. If approved, the 

schedule may exceed the schedule in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section, but 

cannot exceed May 10, 2011. 

(h) In the event no plan for 

implementing the emission guidelines is 

approved by EPA, all designated 

facilities meeting the applicability 

requirements under § 60.32b shall be in 

compliance with all of the guidelines, 

including the revised April 28, 2009 

emission limits in § 60.33b(a), (b), (c), 

(d), and § 60.34b(a), and the revised 

testing provisions in § 60.38b(b), no 

later than May 10, 2011. 

■ 8. Add tables 1, 2, and 3 to the end 

of subpart Cb to read as follows: 

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

Municipal waste combustor technology 

Before April 28, 2009, 

nitrogen oxides emission limit 

(parts per million by volume) a

On and after April 28, 2009, 

nitrogen oxides emission limit 

(parts per million by volume) a

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

Mass burn rotary waterwall ..................................................................... 250 ................................................ 210. 

Refuse-derived fuel combustor ................................................................ 250 ................................................ 250. 

Fluidized bed combustor ......................................................................... 180 ................................................ 180. 

Mass burn refractory combustors ............................................................ No limit .......................................... No limit. 

a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART Cb OF PART 60.—NITROGEN OXIDES LIMITS FOR EXISTING DESIGNATED FACILITIES INCLUDED IN AN

EMISSIONS AVERAGING PLAN AT A MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR PLANT b

Municipal waste combustor technology 

Before April 28, 

2009, nitrogen 

oxides emission 

limit (parts per 

million by 

volume) b

On and after April 

28, 2009, nitrogen 

oxides emission 

limit (parts per 

million by 

volume) a

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

Mass burn rotary waterwall ......................................................................................................................... 220 190 

Refuse-derived fuel combustor .................................................................................................................... 230 230 

Fluidized bed combustor ............................................................................................................................. 165 165 

a Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors and other MWC technologies not listed above may not be included in an emissions averaging plan. b Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. 

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

Municipal waste combustor technology 

Carbon monoxide 

emissions levels 

(parts per million 

by volume) a

Averaging time 

(hrs) b

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


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27335 

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

Municipal waste combustor technology 

Carbon monoxide 

emissions levels 

(parts per million 

by volume) a

Averaging time 

(hrs) b

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

Mass burn rotary refractory ......................................................................................................................... 100 24 

Mass burn rotary waterwall ......................................................................................................................... 250 24 

Modular starved air ...................................................................................................................................... 50 4 

Modular excess air ...................................................................................................................................... 50 4 

Refuse-derived fuel stoker ........................................................................................................................... 200 24 

Fluidized bed, mixed fuel (wood/refuse-derived fuel) ................................................................................. 200 c 24 

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

Circulating fluidized bed combustor ............................................................................................................ 100 4 

Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ................................................................. 150 4 

Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor ........................................................ 200 24 

Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel process conversion .......... 250 c 24 

Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/100 percent coal capable ....................... 250 c 24 

a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis. Calculated as an arithmetic average. bAveraging times are 4-hour or 24-hour block averages. 

c 24-hour block average, geometric mean. 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 9. Amend § 60.50 by adding 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.50 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

* * * * * 

(c) Any facility covered by subpart Cb, 

Eb, AAAA, or BBBB of this part is not 

covered by this subpart. 

(d) Any facility covered by an EPA 

approved State section 111(d)/129 plan 

implementing subpart Cb or BBBB of 

this part is not covered by this subpart. 

(e) Any facility covered by subpart 

FFF or JJJ of part 62 of this title (Federal 

section 111(d)/129 plan implementing 

subpart Cb or BBBB of this part) is not 

covered by this subpart. 

Subpart Eb—[Amended] 

■ 10. Amend § 60.50b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (f); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (g)(1); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and 

■ g. Revising paragraph (n). 

§ 60.50b Applicability and delegation of 

authority. 

(a) The affected facility to which this 

subpart applies is each municipal waste 

combustor unit with a combustion 

capacity greater than 250 tons per day 

of municipal solid waste for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction is commenced after 

September 20, 1994. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption 

claim; 

* * * * * 

(e) A qualifying small power 

production facility, as defined in section 

3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 

U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that burns 

homogeneous waste (such as automotive 

tires or used oil, but not including 

refuse-derived fuel) for the production 

of electric energy is not subject to this 

subpart if the owner or operator of the 

facility notifies EPA of this exemption 

and provides data documenting that the 

facility qualifies for this exemption. 

(f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, 

as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

796(18)(B)), that burns homogeneous 

waste (such as automotive tires or used 

oil, but not including refuse-derived 

fuel) for the production of electric 

energy and steam or forms of useful 

energy (such as heat) that are used for 

industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes, is not subject to this 

subpart if the owner or operator of the 

facility notifies EPA of this exemption 

and provides data documenting that the 

facility qualifies for this exemption. 

(g) * * * 

(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption 

claim; and 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) Notifies EPA of an exemption 

claim; 

* * * * * 

(n) The following authorities are 

retained by the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA and are not transferred to a 

State: 

(1) Approval of exemption claims in 

paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g) and (j) of this 

section; 

(2) Enforceability under Federal law 

of all Federally enforceable, as defined 

in § 60.51b, limitations and conditions; 

(3) Determination of compliance with 

the siting requirements as specified in 

§ 60.57b(a); 

(4) Acceptance of relationship 

between carbon monoxide and oxygen 

as part of initial and annual 

performance tests as specified in 

§ 60.58b(b)(7); 

(5) Approval of other monitoring 

systems used to obtain emissions data 

when data is not obtained by CEMS as 

specified in § 60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12), 

(i)(11), and (n)(14), and (p)(11); 

(6) Approval of a site-specific 

monitoring plan for the continuous 

emission monitoring system specified in 

‘‘60.58b(n)(13) and (o) of this section or 

the continuous automated sampling 

system specified in § 60.58b(p)(10) and 

(q) of this section; 

(7) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods; 

(8) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring; 

(9) Waiver of recordkeeping; and 

(10) Performance test and data 

reduction waivers under ‘‘608(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 60.51b by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Federally enforceable’’

and adding the definitions for 

‘‘Administrator,’’ ‘‘Continuous 

automated sampling system,’’ and 

‘‘EPA,’’ in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.51b Definitions. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For approved and effective State 

Section 111(d)/129 plans, the Director of 

the State air pollution control agency, or 

employee of the State air pollution 

control agency that is delegated the 

authority to perform the specified task; 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) For Federal Section 111(d)/129 

plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an 

employee of the EPA, the Director of the 

State air pollution control agency, or 

employee of the State air pollution 

control agency to whom the authority 

has been delegated by the Administrator 

of the EPA to perform the specified task; 

and 

(3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the 

EPA, an employee of the EPA, the 

Director of the State air pollution 

control agency, or employee of the State 

air pollution control agency to whom 

the authority has been delegated by the 

Administrator of the EPA to perform the 

specified task. 

* * * * * 

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 or 

multiple integrated sample(s) of the 

pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent 

on-or off-site analysis; integrated 

sample(s) collected are representative of 

the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

* * * * * 

EPA means the Administrator of the 

U.S. EPA or employee of the U.S. EPA 

who is delegated to perform the 

specified task. 

Federally enforceable means all 

limitations and conditions that are 

enforceable by EPA including the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR 

part 61, and 40 CFR part 63, 

requirements within any applicable 

State implementation plan, and any 

permit requirements established under 

40 CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 

and 40 CFR 51.24. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 60.52b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(3); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(4); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.52b Standards for municipal waste 

combustor metals, acid gases, organics, 

and nitrogen oxides. 

(a) The limits for municipal waste 

combustor metals are specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(1) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under § 60.8 

of subpart A of this part, no owner or 

operator of an affected facility shall 

cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere from that affected facility 

any gases that contain particulate matter 

in excess of the limits specified in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after September 20, 

1994, and on or before December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 24 

milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(ii) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 20 

milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

* * * * * 

(3) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under § 60.8 

of subpart A of this part, no owner or 

operator of an affected facility shall 

cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere from that affected facility 

any gases that contain cadmium in 

excess of the limits specified in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after September 20, 

1994, and on or before December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 20 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(ii) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 10 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(4) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under § 60.8 

of subpart A of this part, no owner or 

operator of an affected facility shall 

cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere from the affected facility 

any gases that contain lead in excess of 

the limits specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) 

or (a)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(i) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after September 20, 

1994, and on or before December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 200 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(ii) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 140 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen. 

(5) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under § 60.8 

of subpart A of this part, no owner or 

operator of an affected facility shall 

cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere from the affected facility 

any gases that contain mercury in excess 

of the limits specified in paragraph 

(a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section. 

(i) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after September 20, 

1994 and on or before December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 80 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter or 15 percent of the potential 

mercury emission concentration (85- 

percent reduction by weight), corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less 

stringent. 

(ii) For affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after December 19, 

2005, the emission limit is 50 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter, or 15 percent of the potential 

mercury emission concentration (85- 

percent reduction by weight), corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less 

stringent. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 60.53b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(2); 

■ e. Adding paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.53b Standards for municipal waste 

combustor operating practices. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or 

mercury performance test and the 2 

weeks preceding the annual dioxin/ 

furan or mercury performance test, no 

municipal waste combustor unit load 

limit is applicable if the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met. 

(2) The municipal waste combustor 

unit load limit may be waived in writing 

by the Administrator for the purpose of 

evaluating system performance, testing 

new technology or control technologies, 

diagnostic testing, or related activities 

for the purpose of improving facility 

performance or advancing the state-ofthe-art for controlling facility emissions. 

The municipal waste combustor unit 

load limit continues to apply, and 

remains enforceable, until and unless 

the Administrator grants the waiver. 

(c) * * * 

(1) During the annual dioxin/furan or 

mercury performance test and the 2 

weeks preceding the annual dioxin/ 

furan or mercury performance test, no 

particulate matter control device 

temperature limitations are applicable if 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27337 

the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section are met. 

(2) The particulate matter control 

device temperature limits may be 

waived in writing by the Administrator 

for the purpose of evaluating system 

performance, testing new technology or 

control technologies, diagnostic testing, 

or related activities for the purpose of 

improving facility performance or 

advancing the state-of-the-art for 

controlling facility emissions. The 

temperature limits continue to apply, 

and remain enforceable, until and 

unless the Administrator grants the 

waiver. 

(d) Paragraph (m)(2) of § 60.58b 

addresses treatment of activated carbon 

injection rate during dioxin/furan or 

mercury testing. 

■ 14. Amend § 60.54b by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) and adding paragraph 

(c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 60.54b Standards for municipal waste 

combustor operator training and 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) If both the certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

are unavailable, a provisionally certified 

control room operator on site at the 

municipal waste combustion unit may 

fulfill the certified operator 

requirement. Depending on the length of 

time that a certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

are away, the owner or operator of the 

affected facility must meet one of three 

criteria: 

(i) When the certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

are both off site for 12 hours or less, and 

no other certified operator is on site, the 

provisionally certified control room 

operator may perform the duties of the 

certified chief facility operator or 

certified shift supervisor. 

(ii) When the certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

are off site for more than 12 hours, but 

for two weeks or less, and no other 

certified operator is on site, the 

provisionally certified control room 

operator may perform the duties of the 

certified chief facility operator or 

certified shift supervisor without notice 

to, or approval by, the Administrator. 

However, the owner or operator of the 

affected facility must record the period 

when the certified chief facility operator 

and certified shift supervisor are off site 

and include that information in the 

annual report as specified under 

§ 60.59b(g)(5). 

(iii) When the certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

are off site for more than two weeks, and 

no other certified operator is on site, the 

provisionally certified control room 

operator may perform the duties of the 

certified chief facility operator or 

certified shift supervisor without 

approval by the Administrator. 

However, the owner or operator of the 

affected facility must take two actions: 

(A) Notify the Administrator in 

writing. In the notice, state what caused 

the absence and what actions are being 

taken by the owner or operator of the 

facility to ensure that a certified chief 

facility operator or certified shift 

supervisor is on site as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

(B) Submit a status report and 

corrective action summary to the 

Administrator every four weeks 

following the initial notification. If the 

Administrator provides notice that the 

status report or corrective action 

summary is disapproved, the municipal 

waste combustion unit may continue 

operation for 90 days, but then must 

cease operation. If corrective actions are 

taken in the 90-day period such that the 

Administrator withdraws the 

disapproval, municipal waste 

combustion unit operation may 

continue. 

(3) A provisionally certified operator 

who is newly promoted or recently 

transferred to a shift supervisor position 

or a chief facility operator position at 

the municipal waste combustion unit 

may perform the duties of the certified 

chief facility operator or certified shift 

supervisor without notice to, or 

approval by, the Administrator for up to 

six months before taking the ASME 

QRO certification exam. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 60.57b by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text and 

(a)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 60.57b Siting requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall prepare a materials 

separation plan, as defined in § 60.51b, 

for the affected facility and its service 

area, and shall comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section. The 

initial application is defined as 

representing a good faith submittal as 

determined by EPA. 

* * * * * 

(6) As required under § 60.59b(a), the 

owner or operator shall submit to EPA 

a copy of the notification of the public 

meeting, a transcript of the public 

meeting, the document summarizing 

responses to public comments, and 

copies of both the preliminary and final 

draft materials separation plans on or 

before the time the facility’s application 

for a construction permit is submitted 

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 

52, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 60.58b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(6)(i); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(7); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(2); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (c)(9); 

■ j. Adding paragraph (c)(10); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (c)(11); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii); 

■ m. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(vii); 

■ n. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii); 

■ o. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii); 

■ p. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iv); 

■ q. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ix); 

■ r. Revising paragraph (e)(7) 

introductory text; 

■ s. Revising paragraph (e)(12) 

introductory text; 

■ t. Revising paragraph (e)(12)(i)(A); 

■ u. Revising paragraph (e)(12)(i)(B); 

■ v. Revising paragraph (e)(14); 

■ w. Adding paragraph (f)(8); 

■ x. Revising paragraph (g)(2); 

■ y. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(i); 

■ z. Adding paragraph (g)(5)(ii); 

■ aa. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(iii); 

■ bb. Revising paragraph (g)(7); 

■ cc. Revising paragraph (h)(6) 

introductory text; 

■ dd. Revising paragraph (h)(10)(i)(B); 

■ ee. Revising paragraph (h)(12); 

■ ff. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ gg. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B); 

■ hh. Revising paragraph (i)(8); 

■ ii. Revising paragraph (i)(9); 

■ jj. Revising paragraph (i)(10) 

introductory text; 

■ kk. Revising paragraph (i)(11); 

■ ll. Revising paragraph (m) 

introductory text; 

■ mm. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(ii); 

■ nn. Revising paragraph (m)(2); 

■ oo. Adding paragraph (b)(8); 

■ pp. Adding paragraph (d)(3); 

■ qq. Adding paragraph (d)(4); 

■ rr. Adding paragraph (g)(10); 

■ ss. Adding paragraph (m)(4); 

■ tt. Adding paragraph (n); 

■ uu. Adding paragraph (o); 

■ vv. Adding paragraph (p); and 

■ ww. Adding paragraph (q) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.58b Compliance and performance 

testing. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Except as provided by § 60.56b, 

the standards under this subpart apply 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

at all times except during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

Duration of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction periods are limited to 3 

hours per occurrence, except as 

provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this 

section. During periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction, monitoring 

data shall be dismissed or excluded 

from compliance calculations, but shall 

be recorded and reported in accordance 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 

60.59b(d)(7). 

* * * * * 

(iii) For the purpose of compliance 

with the carbon monoxide emission 

limits in § 60.53b(a), if a loss of boiler 

water level control (e.g., boiler 

waterwall tube failure) or a loss of 

combustion air control (e.g., loss of 

combustion air fan, induced draft fan, 

combustion grate bar failure) is 

determined to be a malfunction, the 

duration of the malfunction period is 

limited to 15 hours per occurrence. 

During such periods of malfunction, 

monitoring data shall be dismissed or 

excluded from compliance calculations, 

but shall be recorded and reported in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 60.59b(d)(7). 

* * * * * 

(b) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a continuous 

emission monitoring system for 

measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide 

content of the flue gas at each location 

where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides emissions, or particulate 

matter (if the owner or operator elects to 

continuously monitor emissions under 

paragraph (n) of this section) are 

monitored and record the output of the 

system and shall comply with the test 

procedures and test methods specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 

3B shall be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide at a sampling location. Method 

3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ASME 

PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10, as 

applicable, shall be used to determine 

the oxygen concentration at the same 

location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

* * * * * 

(7) The relationship between carbon 

dioxide and oxygen concentrations that 

is established in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall be 

submitted to EPA as part of the initial 

performance test report and, if 

applicable, as part of the annual test 

report if the relationship is reestablished 

during the annual performance test. 

(8) During a loss of boiler water level 

control or loss of combustion air control 

malfunction period as specified in 

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

diluent cap of 14 percent for oxygen or 

5 percent for carbon dioxide may be 

used in the emissions calculations for 

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(10) of this section, the procedures 

and test methods specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(11) of this 

section shall be used to determine 

compliance with the emission limits for 

particulate matter and opacity under 

§ 60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2). 

* * * * * 

(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A 

or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC–

19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, 

shall be used for gas analysis. 

(3) EPA Reference Method 5 shall be 

used for determining compliance with 

the particulate matter emission limit. 

The minimum sample volume shall be 

1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter 

holder heating systems in the sample 

train shall be set to provide a gas 

temperature no greater than 160 °C. An 

oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement 

shall be obtained simultaneously with 

each Method 5 run. 

* * * * * 

(9) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for particulate matter 

is completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of 

this part for an affected facility, the 

owner or operator shall conduct a 

performance test for particulate matter 

on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 

calendar months and no more than 15 

calendar months following the previous 

performance test; and must complete 

five performance tests in each 5-year 

calendar period). 

(10) In place of particulate matter 

testing with EPA Reference Method 5, 

an owner or operator may elect to 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous emission monitoring 

system for monitoring particulate matter 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. The 

owner or operator of an affected facility 

who elects to continuously monitor 

particulate matter emissions instead of 

conducting performance testing using 

EPA Method 5 shall install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a continuous 

emission monitoring system and shall 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through 

(c)(10)(xiv) of this section. The owner or 

operator who elects to continuously 

monitor particulate matter emissions 

instead of conducting performance 

testing using EPA Method 5 is not 

required to complete performance 

testing for particulate matter as 

specified in paragraph (c)(9) of this 

section and is not required to 

continuously monitor opacity as 

specified in paragraph (c)(8) of this 

section. 

(i) Notify the Administrator one 

month before starting use of the system. 

(ii) Notify the Administrator one 

month before stopping use of the 

system. 

(iii) The monitor shall be installed, 

evaluated, and operated in accordance 

with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(iv) The initial performance 

evaluation shall be completed no later 

than 180 days after the date of initial 

startup of the affected facility, as 

specified under § 60.8 of subpart A of 

this part or within 180 days of 

notification to the Administrator of use 

of the continuous monitoring system if 

the owner or operator was previously 

determining compliance by Method 5 

performance tests, whichever is later. 

(v) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility may request that 

compliance with the particulate matter 

emission limit be determined using 

carbon dioxide measurements corrected 

to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

The relationship between oxygen and 

carbon dioxide levels for the affected 

facility shall be established as specified 

in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(vi) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall conduct an initial 

performance test for particulate matter 

emissions as required under § 60.8 of 

subpart A of this part. Compliance with 

the particulate matter emission limit 

shall be determined by using the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this 

section to measure particulate matter 

and calculating a 24-hour block 

arithmetic average emission 

concentration using EPA Reference 

Method 19, section 12.4.1. 

(vii) Compliance with the particulate 

matter emission limit shall be 

determined based on the 24-hour daily 

(block) average of the hourly arithmetic 

average emission concentrations using 

continuous emission monitoring system 

outlet data. 

(viii) After April 28, 2008, at a 

minimum, valid continuous monitoring 

system hourly averages shall be 

obtained as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(10)(viii)(A) and (c)(10)(viii)(B) for at 

least 90 percent of the operating hours 

per calendar quarter and 95 percent of 

the operating hours per calendar year 

that the affected facility is combusting 

municipal solid waste. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27339 

(A) At least two data points per hour 

shall be used to calculate each 1-hour 

arithmetic average. 

(B) Each particulate matter 1-hour 

arithmetic average shall be corrected to 

7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis 

using the 1-hour arithmetic average of 

the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 

continuous emission monitoring system 

data. 

(ix) The 1-hour arithmetic averages 

required under paragraph (c)(10)(vii) of 

this section shall be expressed in 

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) 

and shall be used to calculate the 24- 

hour daily arithmetic average emission 

concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages shall be calculated using the 

data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) 

of subpart A of this part. 

(x) All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data shall be used in 

calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum 

continuous emission monitoring system 

data requirements of paragraph 

(c)(10)(viii) of this section are not met. 

(xi) The continuous emission 

monitoring system shall be operated 

according to Performance Specification 

11 in appendix B of this part. 

(xii) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

Performance Specification 11 in 

appendix B of this part, particulate 

matter and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 

data shall be collected concurrently (or 

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by 

both the continuous emission monitors 

and the test methods specified in 

paragraphs (c)(10)(xii)(A) and 

(c)(10)(xii)(B) of this section. 

(A) For particulate matter, EPA 

Reference Method 5 shall be used. 

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as 

applicable shall be used. 

(xiii) Quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration 

drift tests shall be performed in 

accordance with procedure 2 in 

appendix F of this part. 

(xiv) When particulate matter 

emissions data are not obtained because 

of continuous emission monitoring 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero and span adjustments, 

emissions data shall be obtained by 

using other monitoring systems as 

approved by the Administrator or EPA 

Reference Method 19 to provide, as 

necessary, valid emissions data for a 

minimum of 90 percent of the hours per 

calendar quarter and 95 percent of the 

hours per calendar year that the affected 

facility is operated and combusting 

municipal solid waste. 

(11) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for opacity is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of 

this part for an affected facility, the 

owner or operator shall conduct a 

performance test for opacity on an 

annual basis (no less than 9 calendar 

months and no more than 15 calendar 

months following the previous 

performance test; and must complete 

five performance tests in each 5-year 

calendar period) using the test method 

specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this 

section. 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, 

or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC–

19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, 

shall be used for flue gas analysis. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Following the date of the initial 

performance test or the date on which 

the initial performance test is required 

to be completed under § 60.8 of subpart 

A of this part, the owner or operator of 

an affected facility shall conduct a 

performance test for compliance with 

the emission limits for cadmium and 

lead on a calendar year basis (no less 

than 9 calendar months and no more 

than 15 calendar months following the 

previous performance test; and must 

complete five performance tests in each 

5-year calendar period). 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, 

or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC–

19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, 

shall be used for flue gas analysis. 

(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 or 

as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 shall 

be used to determine the mercury 

emission concentration. The minimum 

sample volume when using Method 29 

as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 for 

mercury shall be 1.7 cubic meters. 

(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 

measurement shall be obtained 

simultaneously with each Method 29 or 

as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 test 

run for mercury required under 

paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(ix) Following the date that the initial 

performance test for mercury is 

completed or is required to be 

completed under § 60.8 of subpart A of 

this part, the owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall conduct a 

performance test for mercury emissions 

on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 

calendar months and no more than 15 

calendar months from the previous 

performance test; and must complete 

five performance tests in each 5-year 

calendar period). 

* * * * * 

(3) In place of cadmium and lead 

testing with EPA Reference Method 29 

as an alternative ASTM D6784–02, an 

owner or operator may elect to install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

for monitoring cadmium and lead 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system 

according to the provisions of 

paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section. 

(4) In place of mercury testing with 

EPA Reference Method 29 or as an 

alternative ASTM D6784–02, an owner 

or operator may elect to install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

or a continuous automated sampling 

system for monitoring mercury 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system 

according to the provisions of 

paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section, or 

paragraphs (p) and (q) of this section, as 

appropriate. The owner or operator who 

elects to continuously monitor mercury 

in place of mercury testing with EPA 

Reference Method 29 or as an 

alternative ASTM D6784–02 is not 

required to complete performance 

testing for mercury as specified in 

paragraph (d)(2)(ix) of this section. 

(e) * * * 

(7) At a minimum, valid continuous 

monitoring system hourly averages shall 

be obtained as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) for 90 percent of 

the operating hours per calendar quarter 

and 95 percent of the operating days per 

calendar year that the affected facility is 

combusting municipal solid waste. 

* * * * * 

(12) The continuous emission 

monitoring system shall be operated 

according to Performance Specification 

2 in appendix B of this part. For sources 

that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, 

the relative accuracy criterion for inlet 

sulfur dioxide continuous emission 

monitoring systems should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the 

reference method test data in terms of 

the units of the emission standard, or 5 

parts per million dry volume absolute 

value of the mean difference between 

the reference method and the 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems, whichever is greater. 

(i) * * * 

(A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference 

Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an alternative 

ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10, shall 

be used. 

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

as an alternative ASME PTC–19–10–

1981—Part 10, as applicable, shall be 

used. 

* * * * * 

(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions 

data are not obtained because of 

continuous emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 

and/or zero and span adjustments, 

emissions data shall be obtained by 

using other monitoring systems as 

approved by EPA or EPA Reference 

Method 19 to provide, as necessary, 

valid emissions data for a minimum of 

90 percent of the hours per calendar 

quarter and 95 percent of the hours per 

calendar year that the affected facility is 

operated and combusting municipal 

solid waste. 

(f) * * * 

(8) In place of hydrogen chloride 

testing with EPA Reference Method 26 

or 26A, an owner or operator may elect 

to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for monitoring 

hydrogen chloride emissions discharged 

to the atmosphere and record the output 

of the system according to the 

provisions of paragraphs (n) and (o) of 

this section. 

(g) * * * 

(2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, 

or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC–

19–10–1981—Part 10, as applicable, 

shall be used for flue gas analysis. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) For affected facilities, performance 

tests shall be conducted on a calendar 

year basis (no less than 9 calendar 

months and no more than 15 calendar 

months following the previous 

performance test; and must complete 

five performance tests in each 5-year 

calendar period). 

(ii) For the purpose of evaluating 

system performance to establish new 

operating parameter levels, testing new 

technology or control technologies, 

diagnostic testing, or related activities 

for the purpose of improving facility 

performance or advancing the state-ofthe-art for controlling facility emissions, 

the owner or operator of an affected 

facility that qualifies for the 

performance testing schedule specified 

in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, 

may test one unit for dioxin/furan and 

apply the dioxin/furan operating 

parameters to similarly designed and 

equipped units on site by meeting the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(g)(5)(ii)(A) through (g)(5)(ii)(D) of this 

section. 

(A) Follow the testing schedule 

established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of 

this section. For example, each year a 

different affected facility at the 

municipal waste combustor plant shall 

be tested, and the affected facilities at 

the plant shall be tested in sequence 

(e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as 

applicable). 

(B) Upon meeting the requirements in 

paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section for 

one affected facility, the owner or 

operator may elect to apply the average 

carbon mass feed rate and associated 

carbon injection system operating 

parameter levels for dioxin/furan as 

established in paragraph (m) of this 

section to similarly designed and 

equipped units on site. 

(C) Upon testing each subsequent unit 

in accordance with the testing schedule 

established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of 

this section, the dioxin/furan and 

mercury emissions of the subsequent 

unit shall not exceed the dioxin/furan 

and mercury emissions measured in the 

most recent test of that unit prior to the 

revised operating parameter levels. 

(D) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility that selects to follow the 

performance testing schedule specified 

in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section 

and apply the carbon injection system 

operating parameters to similarly 

designed and equipped units on site 

shall follow the procedures specified in 

§ 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting. 

(iii) Where all performance tests over 

a 2-year period indicate that dioxin/ 

furan emissions are less than or equal to 

7 nanograms per dry standard cubic 

meter (total mass) for all affected 

facilities located within a municipal 

waste combustor plant, the owner or 

operator of the municipal waste 

combustor plant may elect to conduct 

annual performance tests for one 

affected facility (i.e., unit) per year at 

the municipal waste combustor plant. 

At a minimum, a performance test for 

dioxin/furan emissions shall be 

conducted on a calendar year basis (no 

less than 9 calendar months and no 

more than 15 months following the 

previous performance test; and must 

complete five performance tests in each 

5-year calendar period) for one affected 

facility at the municipal waste 

combustor plant. Each year a different 

affected facility at the municipal waste 

combustor plant shall be tested, and the 

affected facilities at the plant shall be 

tested in sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, 

unit 3, as applicable). If each annual 

performance test continues to indicate a 

dioxin/furan emission level less than or 

equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter (total mass), the owner or 

operator may continue conducting a 

performance test on only one affected 

facility per calendar year. If any annual 

performance test indicates either a 

dioxin/furan emission level greater than 

7 nanograms per dry standard cubic 

meter (total mass), performance tests 

shall thereafter be conducted annually 

on all affected facilities at the plant 

until and unless all annual performance 

tests for all affected facilities at the plant 

over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/ 

furan emission level less than or equal 

to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic 

meter (total mass). 

* * * * * 

(7) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility where activated carbon 

is used shall follow the procedures 

specified in paragraph (m) of this 

section for measuring and calculating 

the carbon usage rate. 

* * * * * 

(10) In place of dioxin/furan sampling 

and testing with EPA Reference Method 

23, an owner or operator may elect to 

sample dioxin/furan by installing, 

calibrating, maintaining, and operating a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for monitoring dioxin/furan emissions 

discharged to the atmosphere, recording 

the output of the system, and analyzing 

the sample using EPA Method 23. This 

option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification 

applicable to dioxin/furan from 

monitors is published in the Federal 

Register or the date of approval of a sitespecific monitoring plan. The owner or 

operator of an affected facility who 

elects to continuously sample dioxin/ 

furan emissions instead of sampling and 

testing using EPA Method 23 shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous automated sampling 

system and shall comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (p) 

and (q) of this section. 

(h) * * * 

(6) At a minimum, valid continuous 

emission monitoring system hourly 

averages shall be obtained as specified 

in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of 

this section for 90 percent of the 

operating hours per calendar quarter 

and for 95 percent of the operating 

hours per calendar year that the affected 

facility is combusting municipal solid 

waste. 

* * * * * 

(10) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or 

as an alternative ASME PTC–19–10–

1981—Part 10, as applicable, shall be 

used. 

* * * * * 

(12) When nitrogen oxides continuous 

emission data are not obtained because 

of continuous emission monitoring 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27341 

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 

checks, and zero and span adjustments, 

emissions data shall be obtained using 

other monitoring systems as approved 

by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to 

provide, as necessary, valid emissions 

data for a minimum of 90 percent of the 

hours per calendar quarter and 95 

percent of the hours per calendar year 

the unit is operated and combusting 

municipal solid waste. 

(i) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by 

Performance Specification 4A in 

appendix B of this part, carbon 

monoxide and oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) data shall be collected 

concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) by both the continuous 

emission monitors and the test methods 

specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) and 

(i)(3)(ii)(B) of this section. For affected 

facilities subject to the 100 parts per 

million dry volume carbon monoxide 

standard, the relative accuracy criterion 

of 5 parts per million dry volume is 

calculated as the absolute value of the 

mean difference between the reference 

method and continuous emission 

monitoring systems. 

* * * * * 

(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or 

ASME PTC–19–10–1981—Part 10 

(incorporated by reference, see § 60.17 

of subpart A of this part), as applicable, 

shall be used. 

* * * * * 

(8) The maximum demonstrated 

municipal waste combustor unit load 

shall be determined during the initial 

performance test for dioxins/furans and 

each subsequent performance test 

during which compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit specified in 

§ 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum 

demonstrated municipal waste 

combustor unit load shall be the highest 

4-hour arithmetic average load achieved 

during four consecutive hours during 

the most recent test during which 

compliance with the dioxin/furan 

emission limit was achieved. If a 

subsequent dioxin/furan performance 

test is being performed on only one 

affected facility at the MWC plant, as 

provided in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this 

section, the owner or operator may elect 

to apply the same maximum municipal 

waste combustor unit load from the 

tested facility for all the similarly 

designed and operated affected facilities 

at the MWC plant. 

(9) For each particulate matter control 

device employed at the affected facility, 

the maximum demonstrated particulate 

matter control device temperature shall 

be determined during the initial 

performance test for dioxins/furans and 

each subsequent performance test 

during which compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit specified in 

§ 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum 

demonstrated particulate matter control 

device temperature shall be the highest 

4-hour arithmetic average temperature 

achieved at the particulate matter 

control device inlet during four 

consecutive hours during the most 

recent test during which compliance 

with the dioxin/furan limit was 

achieved. If a subsequent dioxin/furan 

performance test is being performed on 

only one affected facility at the MWC 

plant, as provided in paragraph 

(g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or 

operator may elect to apply the same 

maximum particulate matter control 

device temperature from the tested 

facility for all the similarly designed 

and operated affected facilities at the 

MWC plant. 

(10) At a minimum, valid continuous 

emission monitoring system hourly 

averages shall be obtained as specified 

in paragraphs (i)(10)(i) and (i)(10)(ii) of 

this section for at least 90 percent of the 

operating hours per calendar quarter 

and 95 percent of the operating hours 

per calendar year that the affected 

facility is combusting municipal solid 

waste. 

* * * * * 

(11) All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data must be used in 

calculating the parameters specified 

under paragraph (i) of this section even 

if the minimum data requirements of 

paragraph (i)(10) of this section are not 

met. When carbon monoxide 

continuous emission data are not 

obtained because of continuous 

emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 

and zero and span adjustments, 

emissions data shall be obtained using 

other monitoring systems as approved 

by EPA or EPA Reference Method 10 to 

provide, as necessary, the minimum 

valid emission data. 

* * * * * 

(m) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility where activated carbon 

injection is used to comply with the 

mercury emission limit under 

§ 60.52b(a)(5), and/or the dioxin/furan 

emission limits under § 60.52(b)(c), or 

the dioxin/furan emission level 

specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this 

section shall follow the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(m)(4) of this section. 

(1) * * * 

(ii) An average carbon mass feed rate 

in kilograms per hour or pounds per 

hour shall be estimated during the 

initial performance test for dioxin/furan 

emissions and each subsequent 

performance test for dioxin/furan 

emissions. If a subsequent dioxin/furan 

performance test is being performed on 

only one affected facility at the MWC 

plant, as provided in paragraph 

(g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or 

operator may elect to apply the same 

estimated average carbon mass feed rate 

from the tested facility for all the 

similarly designed and operated affected 

facilities at the MWC plant. 

(2) During operation of the affected 

facility, the carbon injection system 

operating parameter(s) that are the 

primary indicator(s) of the carbon mass 

feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) shall 

be averaged over a block 8-hour period, 

and the 8-hour block average must equal 

or exceed the level(s) documented 

during the performance tests specified 

under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) 

of this section, except as specified in 

paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) During the annual dioxin/furan or 

mercury performance test and the 2 

weeks preceding the annual dioxin/ 

furan or mercury performance test, no 

limit is applicable for average mass 

carbon feed rate if the provisions of 

paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section are 

met. 

(ii) The limit for average mass carbon 

feed rate may be waived in accordance 

with permission granted by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

evaluating system performance, testing 

new technology or control technologies, 

diagnostic testing, or related activities 

for the purpose of improving facility 

performance or advancing the state-ofthe-art for controlling facility emissions. 

* * * * * 

(4) Pneumatic injection pressure or 

other carbon injection system 

operational indicator shall be used to 

provide additional verification of proper 

carbon injection system operation. The 

operational indicator shall provide an 

instantaneous visual and/or audible 

alarm to alert the operator of a potential 

interruption in the carbon feed that 

would not normally be indicated by 

direct monitoring of carbon mass feed 

rate (e.g., continuous weight loss feeder) 

or monitoring of the carbon system 

operating parameter(s) that are the 

indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate 

(e.g., screw feeder speed). The carbon 

injection system operational indicator 

used to provide additional verification 

of carbon injection system operation, 

including basis for selecting the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

indicator and operator response to the 

indicator alarm, shall be included in 

section (e)(6) of the site-specific 

operating manual required under 

§ 60.54b(e) of this subpart. 

(n) In place of periodic manual testing 

of mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen 

chloride with EPA Reference Method 

26, 26A, 29, or as an alternative ASTM 

D6784–02 (as applicable), the owner or 

operator of an affected facility may elect 

to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for monitoring 

emissions discharged to the atmosphere 

and record the output of the system. The 

option to use a continuous emission 

monitoring system for mercury takes 

effect on the date of approval of the sitespecific monitoring plan required in 

paragraph (n)(13) and (o) of this section. 

The option to use a continuous emission 

monitoring system for cadmium, lead, 

or hydrogen chloride takes effect on the 

date a final performance specification 

applicable to cadmium, lead, or 

hydrogen chloride monitor is published 

in the Federal Register or the date of 

approval of the site-specific monitoring 

plan required in paragraphs (n)(13) and 

(o) of this section. The owner or 

operator of an affected facility who 

elects to continuously monitor 

emissions instead of conducting manual 

performance testing shall install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

and shall comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through 

(n)(13) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator one 

month before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator one 

month before stopping use of the 

system. 

(3) The monitor shall be installed, 

evaluated, and operated in accordance 

with § 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(4) The initial performance evaluation 

shall be completed no later than 180 

days after the date of initial startup of 

the affected facility, as specified under 

§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part or within 

180 days of notification to the 

Administrator of use of the continuous 

monitoring system if the owner or 

operator was previously determining 

compliance by Method 26, 26A, 29, or 

as an alternative ASTM D6784–02 (as 

applicable) performance tests, 

whichever is later. 

(5) The owner or operator may request 

that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon 

dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide levels for the affected facility 

shall be established as specified in 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(6) The owner or operator shall 

conduct an initial performance test for 

emissions as required under § 60.8 of 

subpart A of this part. Compliance with 

the emission limits shall be determined 

by using the continuous emission 

monitoring system specified in 

paragraph (n) of this section to measure 

emissions and calculating a 24-hour 

block arithmetic average emission 

concentration using EPA Reference 

Method 19, section 12.4.1. 

(7) Compliance with the emission 

limits shall be determined based on the 

24-hour daily (block) average of the 

hourly arithmetic average emission 

concentrations using continuous 

emission monitoring system outlet data. 

(8) Beginning on April 28, 2008 for 

mercury and on the date two years after 

final performance specifications for 

cadmium, lead or hydrogen chloride 

monitors are published in the Federal 

Register or the date two years after 

approval of a site-specific monitoring 

plan, valid continuous monitoring 

system hourly averages shall be 

obtained as specified in paragraphs 

(n)(8)(i) and (n)(8)(ii) of this section for 

at least 90 percent of the operating 

hours per calendar quarter and 95 

percent of the operating hours per 

calendar year that the affected facility is 

combusting municipal solid waste. 

(i) At least two data points per hour 

shall be used to calculate each 1-hour 

arithmetic average. 

(ii) Each 1-hour arithmetic average 

shall be corrected to 7 percent oxygen 

on an hourly basis using the 1-hour 

arithmetic average of the oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide) continuous emission 

monitoring system data. 

(9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages 

required under paragraph (n)(7) of this 

section shall be expressed in 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter for mercury, cadmium, lead and 

parts per million dry volume for 

hydrogen chloride corrected to 7 

percent oxygen (dry basis) and shall be 

used to calculate the 24-hour daily 

arithmetic (block) average emission 

concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 

averages shall be calculated using the 

data points required under § 60.13(e)(2) 

of subpart A of this part. 

(10) All valid continuous emission 

monitoring system data shall be used in 

calculating average emission 

concentrations even if the minimum 

continuous emission monitoring system 

data requirements of paragraph (n)(8) of 

this section are not met. 

(11) The continuous emission 

monitoring system shall be operated 

according to the performance 

specifications in paragraphs (n)(11)(i) 

through (n)(11)(iii) of this section or the 

approved site-specific monitoring plan. 

(i) For mercury, Performance 

Specification 12A in appendix B of this 

part. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(12) During each relative accuracy test 

run of the continuous emission 

monitoring system required by the 

performance specifications in paragraph 

(n)(11) of this section, mercury, 

cadmium, lead, hydrogen chloride, and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data shall be 

collected concurrently (or within a 30- 

to 60-minute period) by both the 

continuous emission monitors and the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(n)(12)(i) through (n)(12)(iii) of this 

section. 

(i) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, 

EPA Reference Method 29 or as an 

alternative ASTM D6784–02 shall be 

used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, EPA 

Reference Method 26 or 26A shall be 

used. 

(iii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), 

EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, as 

applicable shall be used. 

(13) The owner or operator who elects 

to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for mercury, 

cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride 

must develop and implement a sitespecific monitoring plan as specified in 

paragraph (o) of this section. The owner 

or operator who relies on a performance 

specification may refer to that document 

in addressing applicable procedures and 

criteria. 

(14) When emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous 

emission monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 

and zero and span adjustments, 

parametric monitoring data shall be 

obtained by using other monitoring 

systems as approved by EPA. 

(o) The owner or operator who elects 

to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system for mercury, 

cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride 

must develop and submit for approval 

by EPA, a site-specific mercury, 

cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride 

monitoring plan that addresses the 

elements and requirements in 

paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(7) of this 

section. 

(1) Installation of the continuous 

emission monitoring system sampling 

probe or other interface at a 

measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27343 

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 analyzer, 

and the data collection and reduction 

system. 

(3) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(4) Provisions for periods when the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

is out of control as described in 

paragraphs (o)(4)(i) through (o)(4)(iii) of 

this section. 

(i) A continuous emission monitoring 

system is out of control if either of the 

conditions in paragraphs (o)(4)(i)(A) or 

(o)(4)(ii)(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; or 

(B) The continuous emission 

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 emission 

monitoring system is out of control as 

defined in paragraph (o)(4)(i) of this 

section, the owner or operator of the 

affected source shall take the necessary 

corrective action and shall repeat all 

necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. The owner or 

operator shall take corrective action and 

conduct retesting until the performance 

requirements are below the applicable 

limits. The beginning of the out-ofcontrol period is the hour the owner or 

operator conducts 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. 

During the period the continuous 

emission monitoring system is out of 

control, recorded data shall not be used 

in data averages and calculations or to 

meet any data availability requirements 

in paragraph (n)(8) of this section. 

(iii) The owner or operator of a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

that is out of control as defined in 

paragraph (o)(4) of this section shall 

submit all information concerning outof-control periods, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken in the annual or 

semiannual compliance reports required 

in § 60.59b(g) or (h). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures for continuous emission 

monitoring systems as described in 

paragraphs (o)(5)(i) and (o)(5)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Develop and implement a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

quality control program. As part of the 

quality control program, the owner or 

operator shall develop and submit to 

EPA for approval, upon request, a sitespecific performance evaluation test 

plan for the continuous emission 

monitoring system performance 

evaluation required in paragraph 

(o)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, 

each quality control program shall 

include, at a minimum, a written 

protocol that describes procedures for 

each of the operations described in 

paragraphs (o)(7)(i)(A) through 

(o)(7)(i)(F) of this section. 

(A) Initial and any subsequent 

calibration of the continuous emission 

monitoring system; 

(B) Determination and adjustment of 

the calibration drift of the continuous 

emission monitoring system; 

(C) Preventive maintenance of the 

continuous emission monitoring system, 

including spare parts inventory; 

(D) Data recording, calculations, and 

reporting; 

(E) Accuracy audit procedures, 

including sampling and analysis 

methods; and 

(F) Program of corrective action for a 

malfunctioning continuous emission 

monitoring system. 

(ii) The performance evaluation test 

plan shall include the evaluation 

program objectives, an evaluation 

program summary, the performance 

evaluation schedule, data quality 

objectives, and both an internal and 

external quality assurance program. 

Data quality objectives are the preevaluation expectations of precision, 

accuracy, and completeness of data. The 

internal quality assurance program shall 

include, at a minimum, the activities 

planned by routine operators and 

analysts to provide an assessment of 

continuous emission monitoring system 

performance, for example, plans for 

relative accuracy testing using the 

appropriate reference method in 

§ 60.58b(n)(12) of this section. The 

external quality assurance program shall 

include, at a minimum, systems audits 

that include the opportunity for on-site 

evaluation by the Administrator of 

instrument calibration, data validation, 

sample logging, and documentation of 

quality control data and field 

maintenance activities. 

(6) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each continuous emission monitoring 

system in accordance with the sitespecific monitoring plan. 

(7) Operate and maintain the 

continuous emission monitoring system 

in continuous operation according to 

the site-specific monitoring plan. 

(p) In place of periodic manual testing 

of dioxin/furan or mercury with EPA 

Reference Method 23, 29, or as an 

alternative ASTM D6784–02 (as 

applicable), the owner or operator of an 

affected facility may elect to install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system 

for determining emissions discharged to 

the atmosphere. This option takes effect 

on the date a final performance 

specification applicable to such 

continuous automated sampling systems 

is published in the Federal Register or 

the date of approval of a site-specific 

monitoring plan required in paragraphs 

(p)(10) and (q) of this section. The 

owner or operator of an affected facility 

who elects to use a continuous 

automated sampling system to 

determine emissions instead of 

conducting manual performance testing 

shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate the sampling system and 

conduct analyses in compliance with 

the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(12) of this 

section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator one 

month before starting use of the system. 

(2) Notify the Administrator one 

month before stopping use of the 

system. 

(3) The initial performance evaluation 

shall be completed no later than 180 

days after the date of initial startup of 

the affected facility, as specified under 

§ 60.8 of subpart A of this part or within 

180 days of notification to the 

Administrator of use of the continuous 

monitoring system if the owner or 

operator was previously determining 

compliance by manual performance 

testing using Method 23, 29, or as an 

alternative ASTM D6784–02 (as 

applicable), whichever is later. 

(4) The owner or operator may request 

that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon 

dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The 

relationship between oxygen and carbon 

dioxide levels for the affected facility 

shall be established as specified in 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(5) The owner or operator shall 

conduct an initial performance test for 

emissions as required under § 60.8 of 

subpart A of this part. Compliance with 

the emission limits shall be determined 

by using the continuous automated 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

sampling system specified in paragraph 

(p) of this section to collect integrated 

samples and analyze emissions for the 

time period specified in paragraphs 

(p)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) For dioxin/furan, the continuous 

automated sampling system shall collect 

an integrated sample over each 2-week 

period. The collected sample shall be 

analyzed using Method 23. 

(ii) For mercury, the continuous 

automated sampling system shall collect 

an integrated sample over each 24-hour 

daily period and the sample shall be 

analyzed according to the applicable 

final performance specification or the 

approved site-specific monitoring plan 

required by paragraph (q) of this section. 

(6) Compliance with the emission 

limits shall be determined based on 2- 

week emission concentrations for 

dioxin/furan and on the 24-hour daily 

emission concentrations for mercury 

using samples collected at the system 

outlet. The emission concentrations 

shall be expressed in nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (total mass) for 

dioxin/furan and micrograms per dry 

standard cubic meter for mercury, 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry 

basis). 

(7) Beginning on the date two years 

after the respective final performance 

specification for continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury is published in the Federal 

Register or two years after approval of 

a site-specific monitoring plan, the 

continuous automated sampling system 

must be operated and collect emissions 

for at least 90 percent of the operating 

hours per calendar quarter and 95 

percent of the operating hours per 

calendar year that the affected facility is 

combusting municipal solid waste. 

(8) All valid data shall be used in 

calculating emission concentrations. 

(9) The continuous automated 

sampling system shall be operated 

according to the final performance 

specification in paragraphs (p)(9)(i) or 

(p)(9)(ii) of this section or the approved 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(10) The owner or operator who elects 

to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxin/furan or 

mercury must develop and implement a 

site-specific monitoring plan as 

specified in paragraph (q) of this 

section. The owner or operator who 

relies on a performance specification 

may refer to that document in 

addressing applicable procedures and 

criteria. 

(11) When emissions data are not 

obtained because of continuous 

automated sampling system 

breakdowns, repairs, quality assurance 

checks, or adjustments, parametric 

monitoring data shall be obtained by 

using other monitoring systems as 

approved by EPA. 

(q) The owner or operator who elects 

to install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxin/furan or 

mercury must develop and submit for 

approval by EPA, a site-specific 

monitoring plan that has sufficient 

detail to assure the validity of the 

continuous automated sampling system 

data and that addresses the elements 

and requirements in paragraphs (q)(1) 

through (q)(7) of this section. 

(1) Installation of the continuous 

automated sampling 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 analytical 

method, and the data collection system. 

(3) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria. 

(4) Provisions for periods when the 

continuous automated sampling system 

is malfunctioning or is out of control as 

described in paragraphs (q)(4)(i) through 

(q)(4)(iii) of this section. 

(i) The site-specific monitoring plan 

shall identify criteria for determining 

that the continuous automated sampling 

system is out of control. This shall 

include periods when the sampling 

system is not collecting a representative 

sample or is malfunctioning, or when 

the analytical method does not meet 

site-specific quality criteria established 

in paragraph (q)(5) of this section. 

(ii) When the continuous automated 

sampling system is out of control as 

defined in paragraph (q)(4)(i) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall take 

the necessary corrective action and shall 

repeat all necessary tests that indicate 

that the system is out of control. The 

owner or operator shall take corrective 

action and conduct retesting until the 

performance requirements are within 

the applicable limits. The out-of-control 

period includes all hours that the 

sampling system was not collecting a 

representative sample or was 

malfunctioning, or hours represented by 

a sample for which the analysis did not 

meet the relevant quality criteria. 

Emissions data obtained during an outof-control period shall not be used in 

determining compliance with the 

emission limits or to meet any data 

availability requirements in paragraph 

(p)(8) of this section. 

(iii) The owner or operator of a 

continuous automated sampling system 

that is out of control as defined in 

paragraph (q)(4) of this section shall 

submit all information concerning outof-control periods, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of 

corrective actions taken in the annual or 

semiannual compliance reports required 

in § 60.59b(g) or (h). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures for continuous automated 

sampling systems as described in 

paragraphs (q)(5)(i) and (q)(5)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Develop and implement a 

continuous automated sampling system 

and analysis quality control program. As 

part of the quality control program, the 

owner or operator shall develop and 

submit to EPA for approval, upon 

request, a site-specific performance 

evaluation test plan for the continuous 

automated sampling system 

performance evaluation required in 

paragraph (q)(5)(ii) of this section. In 

addition, each quality control program 

shall include, at a minimum, a written 

protocol that describes procedures for 

each of the operations described in 

paragraphs (q)(7)(i)(A) through 

(q)(7)(i)(F) of this section. 

(A) Correct placement, installation of 

the continuous automated sampling 

system such that the system is collecting 

a representative sample of gas; 

(B) Initial and subsequent calibration 

of flow such that the sample collection 

rate of the continuous automated 

sampling system is known and 

verifiable; 

(C) Procedures to assure 

representative (e.g., proportional or 

isokinetic) sampling; 

(D) Preventive maintenance of the 

continuous automated sampling system, 

including spare parts inventory and 

procedures for cleaning equipment, 

replacing sample collection media, or 

other servicing at the end of each 

sample collection period; 

(E) Data recording and reporting, 

including an automated indicator and 

recording device to show when the 

continuous automated monitoring 

system is operating and collecting data 

and when it is not collecting data; 

(F) Accuracy audit procedures for 

analytical methods; and 

(G) Program of corrective action for a 

malfunctioning continuous automated 

sampling system. 

(ii) The performance evaluation test 

plan shall include the evaluation 

program objectives, an evaluation 

program summary, the performance 

evaluation schedule, data quality 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27345 

objectives, and both an internal and 

external quality assurance program. 

Data quality objectives are the preevaluation expectations of precision, 

accuracy, and completeness of data. The 

internal quality assurance program shall 

include, at a minimum, the activities 

planned by routine operators and 

analysts to provide an assessment of 

continuous automated sampling system 

performance, for example, plans for 

relative accuracy testing using the 

appropriate reference method in 

60.58b(p)(3), and an assessment of 

quality of analysis results. The external 

quality assurance program shall include, 

at a minimum, systems audits that 

include the opportunity for on-site 

evaluation by the Administrator of 

instrument calibration, data validation, 

sample logging, and documentation of 

quality control data and field 

maintenance activities. 

(6) Conduct a performance evaluation 

of each continuous automated sampling 

system in accordance with the sitespecific monitoring plan. 

(7) Operate and maintain the 

continuous automated sampling system 

in continuous operation according to 

the site-specific monitoring plan. 

■ 17. Amend § 60.59b by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(3); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(6) 

introductory text; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(iv); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(v); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (d)(7); 

■ h. Adding paragraph (d)(10); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(12) 

introductory text; 

■ j. Revising paragraph (d)(14); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (g) introductory 

text; 

■ l. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii); 

■ m. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv); 

■ n. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v); 

■ o. Revising paragraph (g)(4); 

■ p. Revising paragraph (h)(1); 

■ q. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E); 

■ r. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E); 

■ s. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F); 

■ t. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi); 

■ u. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vii); 

■ v. Adding paragraph (d)(12)(iv); 

■ w. Adding paragraph (g)(5); 

■ x. Adding paragraph (m); 

■ y. Adding paragraph (n); and 

■ z. Adding paragraph (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The measurements specified in 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through 

(d)(2)(i)(F) of this section shall be 

recorded and be available for submittal 

to the Administrator or review on site 

by an EPA or State inspector. 

* * * * * 

(E) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

emissions instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods, all 1-hour average 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride emission 

concentrations as specified under 

§ 60.58b(n). 

(ii) The average concentrations and 

percent reductions, as applicable, 

specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) 

through (d)(2)(ii)(F) of this section shall 

be computed and recorded, and shall be 

available for submittal to the 

Administrator or review on-site by an 

EPA or State inspector. 

* * * * * 

(E) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

emissions instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods, all 24-hour daily 

arithmetic average particulate matter, 

cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen 

chloride emission concentrations as 

specified under § 60.58b(n). 

(F) For owners and operators who 

elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system to monitor mercury or 

dioxin/furan instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods, all integrated 24-hour 

mercury concentrations or all integrated 

2-week dioxin/furan concentrations as 

specified under § 60.586(p). 

(3) Identification of the calendar dates 

when any of the average emission 

concentrations, percent reductions, or 

operating parameters recorded under 

paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through 

(d)(2)(ii)(F) of this section, or the 

opacity levels recorded under paragraph 

(d)(2)(i)(A) of this section are above the 

applicable limits, with reasons for such 

exceedances and a description of 

corrective actions taken. 

* * * * * 

(6) Identification of the calendar dates 

and times (hours) for which valid 

hourly data specified in paragraphs 

(d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(vi) of this section 

have not been obtained, or continuous 

automated sampling systems were not 

operated as specified in paragraph 

(d)(6)(vii) of this section, including 

reasons for not obtaining the data and a 

description of corrective actions taken. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit 

load data; 

(v) Particulate matter control device 

temperature data; and 

(vi) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

emissions instead of performance 

testing by EPA manual test methods, 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

emissions data. 

(vii) For owners and operators who 

elect to use continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxins/furans or 

mercury as allowed under ‘‘60.58b(p) 

and (q), dates and times when the 

sampling systems were not operating or 

were not collecting a valid sample. 

(7) Identification of each occurrence 

that sulfur dioxide emissions data, 

nitrogen oxides emissions data, 

particulate matter emissions data, 

cadmium emissions data, lead 

emissions data, mercury emissions data, 

hydrogen chloride emissions data, or 

dioxin/furan emissions data (for owners 

and operators who elect to continuously 

monitor particulate matter, cadmium, 

lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or 

who elect to use continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury emissions, instead of 

conducting performance testing using 

EPA manual test methods) or 

operational data (i.e., carbon monoxide 

emissions, unit load, and particulate 

matter control device temperature) have 

been excluded from the calculation of 

average emission concentrations or 

parameters, and the reasons for 

excluding the data. 

* * * * * 

(10) An owner or operator who elects 

to continuously monitor emissions 

instead of performance testing by EPA 

manual methods must maintain records 

specified in paragraphs (10)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods), as required under 

appendix F of this part, procedure 2, the 

results of daily drift tests and quarterly 

accuracy determinations for particulate 

matter. 

(ii) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor cadmium, 

lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

instead of conducting EPA manual test 

methods, the results of all quality 

evaluations, such as daily drift tests and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

periodic accuracy determinations, 

specified in the approved site-specific 

performance evaluation test plan 

required by § 60.58b(o)(5). 

(iii) For owners and operators who 

elect to use continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury, the results of all quality 

evaluations specified in the approved 

site-specific performance evaluation test 

plan required by § 60.58b(q)(5). 

* * * * * 

(12) The records specified in 

paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through (d)(12)(iv) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Records of when a certified 

operator is temporarily off site. Include 

two main items: 

(A) If the certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

are off site for more than 12 hours, but 

for 2 weeks or less, and no other 

certified operator is on site, record the 

dates that the certified chief facility 

operator and certified shift supervisor 

were off site. 

(B) When all certified chief facility 

operators and certified shift supervisors 

are off site for more than 2 weeks and 

no other certified operator is on site, 

keep records of four items: 

(1) Time of day that all certified 

persons are off site. 

(2) The conditions that cause those 

people to be off site. 

(3) The corrective actions taken by the 

owner or operator of the affected facility 

to ensure a certified chief facility 

operator or certified shift supervisor is 

on site as soon as practicable. 

(4) Copies of the written reports 

submitted every 4 weeks that 

summarize the actions taken by the 

owner or operator of the affected facility 

to ensure that a certified chief facility 

operator or certified shift supervisor 

will be on site as soon as practicable. 

* * * * * 

(14) For affected facilities that apply 

activated carbon, identification of the 

calendar dates when the average carbon 

mass feed rates recorded under 

paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section were 

less than either of the hourly carbon 

feed rates estimated during performance 

tests for mercury emissions and 

recorded under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and 

(d)(4)(ii) of this section, respectively, 

with reasons for such feed rates and a 

description of corrective actions taken. 

For affected facilities that apply 

activated carbon, identification of the 

calendar dates when the average carbon 

mass feed rates recorded under 

paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section were 

less than either of the hourly carbon 

feed rates estimated during performance 

tests for dioxin/furan emissions and 

recorded under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and 

(d)(4)(ii) of this section, respectively, 

with reasons for such feed rates and a 

description of corrective actions taken. 

* * * * * 

(g) Following the first year of 

municipal waste combustor operation, 

the owner or operator of an affected 

facility shall submit an annual report 

that includes the information specified 

in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this 

section, as applicable, no later than 

February 1 of each year following the 

calendar year in which the data were 

collected (once the unit is subject to 

permitting requirements under title V of 

the Act, the owner or operator of an 

affected facility must submit these 

reports semiannually). 

(1) * * * 

(ii) A list of the highest emission level 

recorded for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, 

hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan 

(for owners and operators who elect to 

continuously monitor particulate 

matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, 

hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan 

emissions instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods), municipal waste 

combustor unit load level, and 

particulate matter control device inlet 

temperature based on the data recorded 

under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through 

(d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Periods when valid data were not 

obtained as described in paragraphs 

(g)(1)(iv)(A) through (g)(1)(iv)(C) of this 

section. 

(A) The total number of hours per 

calendar quarter and hours per calendar 

year that valid data for sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, 

municipal waste combustor unit load, or 

particulate matter control device 

temperature data were not obtained 

based on the data recorded under 

paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 

(B) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, and hydrogen chloride 

emissions instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods, the total number of hours 

per calendar quarter and hours per 

calendar year that valid data for 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, and hydrogen chloride were 

not obtained based on the data recorded 

under paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 

For each continuously monitored 

pollutant or parameter, the hours of 

valid emissions data per calendar 

quarter and per calendar year expressed 

as a percent of the hours per calendar 

quarter or year that the affected facility 

was operating and combusting 

municipal solid waste. 

(C) For owners and operators who 

elect to use continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury, the total number of hours per 

calendar quarter and hours per calendar 

year that the sampling systems were not 

operating or were not collecting a valid 

sample based on the data recorded 

under paragraph (d)(6)(vii) of this 

section. Also, the number of hours 

during which the continuous automated 

sampling system was operating and 

collecting a valid sample as a percent of 

hours per calendar quarter or year that 

the affected facility was operating and 

combusting municipal solid waste. 

(v) Periods when valid data were 

excluded from the calculation of average 

emission concentrations or parameters 

as described in paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(A) 

through (g)(1)(v)(C) of this section. 

(A) The total number of hours that 

data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

carbon monoxide, municipal waste 

combustor unit load, and particulate 

matter control device temperature were 

excluded from the calculation of average 

emission concentrations or parameters 

based on the data recorded under 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 

(B) For owners and operators who 

elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

emissions instead of conducting 

performance testing using EPA manual 

test methods, the total number of hours 

that data for particulate matter, 

cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen 

chloride were excluded from the 

calculation of average emission 

concentrations or parameters based on 

the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7) 

of this section. 

(C) For owners and operators who 

elect to use continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury, the total number of hours that 

data for mercury and dioxin/furan were 

excluded from the calculation of average 

emission concentrations or parameters 

based on the data recorded under 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) A notification of intent to begin 

the reduced dioxin/furan performance 

testing schedule specified in 

§ 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of this section during 

the following calendar year and 

notification of intent to apply the 

average carbon mass feed rate and 

associated carbon injection system 

operating parameter levels as 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 27347 

established in § 60.58b(m) to similarly 

designed and equipped units on site. 

(5) Documentation of periods when 

all certified chief facility operators and 

certified shift supervisors are off site for 

more than 12 hours. 

(h) * * * 

(1) The semiannual report shall 

include information recorded under 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, cadmium, 

lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxin/furan (for owners and operators 

who elect to continuously monitor 

particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 

mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or who 

elect to use continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury emissions, instead of 

conducting performance testing using 

EPA manual test methods) municipal 

waste combustor unit load level, 

particulate matter control device inlet 

temperature, and opacity. 

* * * * * 

(m) Owners and operators who elect 

to continuously monitor particulate 

matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or 

hydrogen chloride, or who elect to use 

continuous automated sampling systems 

for dioxin/furan or mercury emissions, 

instead of conducting performance 

testing using EPA manual test methods 

must notify the Administrator one 

month prior to starting or stopping use 

of the particulate matter, cadmium, 

lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and 

dioxin/furan continuous emission 

monitoring systems or continuous 

automated sampling systems. 

(n) Additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for affected 

facilities with continuous cadmium, 

lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 

monitoring systems. In addition to 

complying with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) 

of this section, the owner or operator of 

an affected source who elects to install 

a continuous emission monitoring 

system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or 

hydrogen chloride as specified in 

§ 60.58b(n), shall maintain the records 

in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of 

this section and report the information 

in paragraphs (n)(11) through (n)(12) of 

this section, relevant to the continuous 

emission monitoring system: 

(1) All required continuous emission 

monitoring measurements (including 

monitoring data recorded during 

unavoidable continuous emission 

monitoring system breakdowns and outof-control periods); 

(2) The date and time identifying each 

period during which the continuous 

emission monitoring system was 

inoperative except for zero (low-level) 

and high-level checks; 

(3) The date and time identifying each 

period during which the continuous 

emission monitoring system was out of 

control, as defined in § 60.58b(o)(4); 

(4) The specific identification (i.e., the 

date and time of commencement and 

completion) of each period of excess 

emissions and parameter monitoring 

exceedances, as defined in the standard, 

that occurs during startups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions of the affected source; 

(5) The specific identification (i.e., the 

date and time of commencement and 

completion) of each time period of 

excess emissions and parameter 

monitoring exceedances, as defined in 

the standard, that occurs during periods 

other than startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the affected source; 

(6) The nature and cause of any 

malfunction (if known); 

(7) The corrective action taken to 

correct any malfunction or preventive 

measures adopted to prevent further 

malfunctions; 

(8) The nature of the repairs or 

adjustments to the continuous emission 

monitoring system that was inoperative 

or out of control; 

(9) All procedures that are part of a 

quality control program developed and 

implemented for the continuous 

emission monitoring system under 

§ 60.58b(o); 

(10) When more than one continuous 

emission monitoring system is used to 

measure the emissions from one affected 

source (e.g., multiple breechings, 

multiple outlets), the owner or operator 

shall report the results as required for 

each continuous emission monitoring 

system. 

(11) Submit to EPA for approval, the 

site-specific monitoring plan required 

by § 60.58b(n)(13) and § 60.58b(o), 

including the site-specific performance 

evaluation test plan for the continuous 

emission monitoring system required by 

§ 60.58(b)(o)(5). The owner or operator 

shall maintain copies of the site-specific 

monitoring plan on record for the life of 

the affected source to be made available 

for inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator. If the site-specific 

monitoring plan is revised and 

approved, the owner or operator shall 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the plan on record to be made 

available for inspection, upon request, 

by the Administrator, for a period of 5 

years after each revision to the plan. 

(12) Submit information concerning 

all out-of-control periods for each 

continuous emission monitoring system, 

including start and end dates and hours 

and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken, in the annual or semiannual 

reports required in paragraphs (g) or (h) 

of this section. 

(o) Additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for affected 

facilities with continuous automated 

sampling systems for dioxin/furan or 

mercury monitoring. In addition to 

complying with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) 

of this section, the owner or operator of 

an affected source who elects to install 

a continuous automated sampling 

system for dioxin/furan or mercury, as 

specified in § 60.58b(p), shall maintain 

the records in paragraphs (o)(1) through 

(o)(10) of this section and report the 

information in (o)(11) and (o)(12) of this 

section, relevant to the continuous 

automated sampling system: 

(1) All required 24-hour integrated 

mercury concentration or 2-week 

integrated dioxin/furan concentration 

data (including any data obtained 

during unavoidable system breakdowns 

and out-of-control periods); 

(2) The date and time identifying each 

period during which the continuous 

automated sampling system was 

inoperative; 

(3) The date and time identifying each 

period during which the continuous 

automated sampling system was out of 

control, as defined in § 60.58b(q)(4); 

(4) The specific identification (i.e., the 

date and time of commencement and 

completion) of each period of excess 

emissions and parameter monitoring 

exceedances, as defined in the standard, 

that occurs during startups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions of the affected source; 

(5) The specific identification (i.e., the 

date and time of commencement and 

completion) of each time period of 

excess emissions and parameter 

monitoring exceedances, as defined in 

the standard, that occurs during periods 

other than startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the affected source; 

(6) The nature and cause of any 

malfunction (if known); 

(7) The corrective action taken to 

correct any malfunction or preventive 

measures adopted to prevent further 

malfunctions; 

(8) The nature of the repairs or 

adjustments to the continuous 

automated sampling system that was 

inoperative or out of control; 

(9) All procedures that are part of a 

quality control program developed and 

implemented for the continuous 

automated sampling system under 

§ 60.58b(q); 

(10) When more than one continuous 

automated sampling system is used to 

measure the emissions from one affected 

source (e.g., multiple breechings, 

multiple outlets), the owner or operator 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2
27348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

shall report the results as required for 

each system. 

(11) Submit to EPA for approval, the 

site-specific monitoring plan required 

by § 60.58b(p)(11) and § 60.58b(q) 

including the site-specific performance 

evaluation test plan for the continuous 

emission monitoring system required by 

§ 60.58(b)(q)(5). The owner or operator 

shall maintain copies of the site-specific 

monitoring plan on record for the life of 

the affected source to be made available 

for inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator. If the site-specific 

monitoring plan is revised and 

approved, the owner or operator shall 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the plan on record to be made 

available for inspection, upon request, 

by the Administrator, for a period of 5 

years after each revision to the plan. 

(12) Submit information concerning 

all out-of-control periods for each 

continuous automated sampling system, 

including start and end dates and hours 

and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken in the annual or semiannual 

reports required in paragraphs (g) or (h) 

of this section. 

[FR Doc. 06–4197 Filed 5–9–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES2