MEMORANDUM 

To: Amy Hambrick, U.S Environmental Protection Agency 

From: Eastern Research Group (ERG) 

Date: February 20, 2011 

Subject: SSI – Summary of EPA Interagency Communications 

 This memorandum summarizes the EPA’s interagency communications regarding 

development of the new source performance standards and emission guidelines for the 

Sewage Sludge Incineration source category. The table below shows the topics discussed 

in each attachment. 

Attachment Topic 

A E-mail thread of correspondence with OMB containing sequence of 

correspondence and attached filenames. 

B E-mail attachment filename SSI_2.16.2011.docx 

C E-mail attachment filename SSI Final Package 2.18.11 3.21pm CLEAN.docx 

D E-mail attachment filename SSI Final Package 2.18 8pm.docx

E E-mail attachment filename SSI Final OMB 2.18 851pm.docx

F E-mail attachment filename Small Entity Screen.docx

G E-mail attachment filename Missing Comment Response for OMB.docx 

H E-mail attachment filename EJ_memo_to_docket.doc 

I E-mail attachment filename 

E.O._12866_SSI_NSPS_and_EG_20110118_InteragencyCommentsUnderEO1.doc
Attachment A. 
----- Forwarded by Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 09:04 PM 

----- 

 

 From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

 To: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Cc: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/18/2011 08:59 PM 

 

 Subject: Final SSI Package (2060-AP90) 

 

Hi Nicole, 

Can you upload the attached file into ROCIS? I've opened the package up 

for amendment. 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Dunkins.Robin@epamail.epa.gov [ 

mailto:Dunkins.Robin@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:55 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Hambrick.Amy@epamail.epa.gov; Mendis.Mayosha@epamail.epa.gov; 

dubey.susmita@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Re: SSI edits 

Cortney, per our conversation, I have made the additional edits to the 

definition of affected sources for new and existing units. The 

attached version reflects your edits. Please let me know when you 

conclude your review. 

(See attached file: SSI FINAL OMB 2.18 851pm.docx) 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

(See attached file: SSI FINAL OMB 2.18 851pm.docx) 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:32 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/18/2011 08:54 PM 

 

 Subject: Re: SSI edits 

 
Cortney, per our conversation, I have made the additional edits to the 

definition of affected sources for new and existing units. The 

attached version reflects your edits. Please let me know when you 

conclude your review. 

(See attached file: SSI FINAL OMB 2.18 851pm.docx) 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/18/2011 08:21 PM 

 

 Subject: SSI edits 

 

Cortney, per our earlier conversation here is the revised SSI package. 

Please call me if you have any additional questions

[attachment "SSI FINAL Package 2.18 8pm.docx" deleted by Robin 

Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US] 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:32 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/18/2011 08:21 PM 

 

 Subject: SSI edits 

 

Cortney, per our earlier conversation here is the revised SSI package. 
Please call me if you have any additional questions

(See attached file: SSI FINAL Package 2.18 8pm.docx) 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:32 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/18/2011 03:31 PM 

 

 Subject: SSI preamble/rule 

 

Cortney, here's the revised preamble/rule but please note that we still 

have a few formatting issues with the reg text that we need to continue 

working on but I believe all your edits have been made. Please call me 

if you have additional comments. 

(See attached file: SSI Final Package 2.18.11 3.21pm CLEAN.docx) 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:34 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/17/2011 10:08 AM 

 

 Subject: SSI EJ Memo 

 

Hi Cortney, 

I am sending some follow-up items to you on behalf of Robin, the 

remaining items we will send soon. Robin said that she will follow up 

with you a little later today (around noon). Please let us know if 

there are any additional comments or questions the Intra-Agency 

workgroup or OMB has for SSI. 
Kind Regards, 

Amy 

1. SSI EJ Memo 

(See attached file: EJ_memo_to_docket.doc) 

2. Here are some preliminary numbers for the State Plans submitted for 

HMIWI and Small MWCs: 

For the 1997 HMIWI rule (Last updated on September 2005) 

 Draft State Plan: 5 

 Final State Plan Under Review: 1 

 State Plan Approved: 31 (includes 1 county) 

 Negative Declaration Submitted: 11 (includes 3 counties) 

For the 2009 HMIWI rule (as of Tuesday 2/17) 

 7 States have either submitted plans in some shape or form, or intend 

 to. 

 13 States--Regions not sure whether they will submit state plan or 

 negative declaration. 

For Small MWC rule (Source 68 FR 5144 January 31, 2003) probably not the 

latest information 

 State plan has been submitted but is incomplete 3 

 No State plan submitted 15 

 State plan is being reviewed by EPA 3 

3. We added the reference to Data Revisions memo is in the rule as OMB 

requested in Wednesday's meeting (OMB will see this is the next version 

that Robin sends) 

4. We added language to preamble for RFA section per discussion with 

OMB (OMB will see this is the next version that Robin sends) 

Amy Hambrick 

Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

US EPA / OAQPS / Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Phone: 919-541-0964 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:31 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/17/2011 01:32 PM 

 

 Subject: 

 
Cortney, you asked where you could find the Comment Response Document 

1999 POTW NESHAP 

Located HERE on EPA's website: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/potw/bidpotw.pdf 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:30 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/16/2011 03:38 PM 

 

 Subject: Re: Interagency comments on SSI -- see attached documnet 

 

Cortney, attached are our responses to your comments. 

(See attached file: SSI_2.16.2011.docx) 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

 

 From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

 To: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/14/2011 10:33 AM 

 

 Subject: Interagency comments on SSI -- see attached documnet 

 

Hi Robin, 

Attached is a redline document with interagency comments under EOs 12866 

and 13563 on SSI. This is in addition to the questions raised on the 

calls last Friday. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 (See attached file: 
E.O._12866_SSI_NSPS_and_EG_20110118_InteragencyCommentsUnderEO12866_20110214.doc) 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:29 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom 

 Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/14/2011 03:43 PM 

 

 Subject: Fw: SSI OMB Follow Up Items from Thursday 

 

Cortney, you asked for us to followup on a couple of questions on last 

week's SSI call with you. Here are a few of our responses we have 

pulled together for your information. Please let us know if you have 

any additional questions/comments. 

1. estimated # of units that will need to install control devices 

(highlight smalls) & estimated # of facilities that can meet the Hg 

limits 

2. Inventory + Sales to Revenue of Smalls 

(See attached file: SSI 18 Small Entities.xlsx)(See attached file: Small 

Entity Screen.docx) 

3. Estimated % of Hg from dental in wastewater influent 

From EPA's website: 

http://www.epa.gov/hg/dentalamalgam.html#contamination- - 

"Mercury from dental offices contributes significantly to the overall 

mercury contamination in wastewater. In an August 2008 report (PDF) (76 

pp., 1.0 MB, about PDF) on the dental industry, EPA estimated that in 

2008 there were approximately 122,000 dental offices (approximately 

160,000 dentists) that used or removed dental amalgam in the U.S., and 

that those offices discharged approximately 3.7 tons of mercury each 

year to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Dental offices were 

found in 2003 to have been the source of 50 percent of all mercury 

pollution entering POTWs. 

 A 2002 study by the New York Academy of Sciences, Pollution Prevention 

 and Management Strategies for Mercury in the New York/New Jersey 

 Harbor (PDF) (116 pp., 799K, about PDF) (Embedded image moved to file: 

 pic20609.gif)Exit EPA Disclaimer, indicated that as much as 40 percent 

 of total mercury loadings in the New York/New Jersey harbor and 

 watershed may have come from dental offices. In another study in 2002, 

 Mercury Source Control & Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation (PDF) 

 (Embedded image moved to file: pic11827.gif)Exit EPA Disclaimer(62 

 pp., 240K, about PDF), the National Association of Clean Water 

 Agencies (NACWA) estimated that nearly 40 percent of the mercury in 

 the nation’s wastewater system came from dental offices, and that 

 mercury discharged from dental offices far exceeded all other 

 commercial and residential sources, each of which was below ten 

 percent." 
4. Missing Comment Response 

(See attached file: Missing Comment Response for OMB.docx) 

thanks 

robin 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/14/2011 10:48 AM 

----- 

 

 From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

 To: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/14/2011 10:33 AM 

 

 Subject: Interagency comments on SSI -- see attached documnet 

 

Hi Robin, 

Attached is a redline document with interagency comments under EOs 12866 

and 13563 on SSI. This is in addition to the questions raised on the 

calls last Friday. Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 (See attached file: 

E.O._12866_SSI_NSPS_and_EG_20110118_InteragencyCommentsUnderEO12866_20110214.doc) 

----- Forwarded by Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/20/2011 03:27 PM 

----- 

 

 From: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

 Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy 

 Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 02/08/2011 03:24 PM 

 

 Subject: SSI OMB Follow up - Technical memos 

 

Cortney, attached are the Technical memos you requested for SSI: 

 -MACT Floor (9docs) 
(See attached file: SSI_MACT_Floor_020811.pdf)(See attached file: 

MACTFloor_AttachD_MHVariability_NSPS.xlsx)(See attached file: 

MACTFloor_AttachC_FBVariability_NSPS.xlsx)(See attached file: 

MACTFloor_AttachB_MHVariability.xlsx)(See attached file: 

MACTFloor_AttachA_FBVariability.xlsx)(See attached file: 

MACTFloor_AttachH_CO_SpanAdjustments.xlsx)(See attached file: 

MACTFloor_AttachG_Units w advanced controls.xls) 

(See attached file: MACTFloor_AttachF_MHVariability_DF.xlsx)(See 

attached file: MACTFloor_AttachE_FBVariability_DF.xlsx) 

 -New Sources(2docs) 

(See attached file: SSI_Revised_New_Sources.pdf)(See attached file: 

NewSourcesMemo_Tables_012811.xlsx) 

 -Data Revisions(2docs) 

(See attached file: SSI_Data_Revisions.pdf)(See attached file: 

DataRevisionsMemo_Tables.xlsx) 

 -Baseline (2docs) 

(See attached file: SSI_Revised_Baseline_Emissions.pdf)(See attached 

file: BaselineEmissionsMemo_Table3-1to4-2.xlsx) 

 -Beyond the Floor (6docs) 

(See attached file: AttachG_Mercury control via carbon injection and PM 

capture.txt)(See attached file: SSI_Revised_Beyond_The_Floor.pdf)(See 

attached file: BeyondTheFloorMemo_Table4.xlsx)(See attached file: 

BeyondTheFloorMemo_AttachF.xlsx)(See attached file:

BeyondTheFloorMemo_AttachE.xlsx)(See attached file:

BeyondTheFloorMemo_AttachA-D.xlsx) 

 -Cost/Reductions (11docs) 

(See attached file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table2.xlsx)(See attached 

file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table1.xlsx)(See attached file: 

SSI_Revised_Compliance_Costs.pdf)(See attached file: 

CostandReductionsMemo_Table10.xlsx)(See attached file: 

CostandReductionsMemo_Table9.xlsx)(See attached file: 

CostandReductionsMemo_Table8.xlsx)(See attached file: 

CostandReductionsMemo_Table7.xlsx) 

(See attached file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table6.xlsx)(See attached 

file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table5.xlsx)(See attached file: 

CostandReductionsMemo_Table4.xls)(See attached file: 

CostandReductionsMemo_Table3.xlsx) 

 -Secondary Impacts (1doc) 

(See attached file: SSI_Revised_Secondary_Impacts.pdf) 

Robin Dunkins 

Leader, Natural Resources and Commerce Group 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

US Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03) 

(phone) 919-541-5335 (fax) 919-541- 3470 

dunkins.robin@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US on 01/19/2011 11:57 AM 

----- 

From: Patricia Grim/DC/USEPA/US 

To: Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alexander 

Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathaniel 

Jutras/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bruce 

Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl 

Adams/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary 

Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 01/19/2011 11:52 AM 

Subject: SAN s 5105 and 5392; SSI and CISWI Rules were uploaded 

to ROCIS this morning. 

Attachment B. 
*** E.O. 12866 and 13563 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, 

Quote, or Release During Review*** 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Page 1 of 494 

E.O. 12866 and 13563 SSI NSPS and EG 2060-AP90 20110118 

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-____-_] 

RIN 2060-AP90 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA’s new source 

performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage 

sludge incineration units located at wastewater treatment 

facilities designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. This 

final rule sets limits for nine pollutants under section 

129 of the Clean Air Act: cadmium, carbon monoxide, 

hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

Comment [E1]: OMB: Change 

made to track with what 

is in ROCIS/Unified 

Agenda. 

EPA Response: This 

title parallels the 

proposal title. No 

change recommended. The 

title must be 

consistent with the 

CFR. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 2 of 494

polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur dioxide. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This docket 

includes previous actions including the standards proposed 

on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and a supplemental notice 

issued on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential business

information (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 http://www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 3 of 494

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 

for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, 

Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

As Arsenic 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 4 of 494

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit 

CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

Cr Chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators 

FF Fabric Filter 

FB Fluidized Bed 

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste 

Incineration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System 

ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

MH Multiple Hearth 

Mn Manganese 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustion 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 5 of 494

Ni Nickel 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

OTM Other Test Method 

OW Office of Water 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPM Parts per Million 

PPMV Parts per Million by Volume 

PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specifications 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 6 of 494

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 

TMB Total Mass Basis 

TPD Tons per Day 

TPY Tons per Year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UL Upper Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The following outline 

is provided to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

C. Judicial Review

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what 

are the emissions? 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge? 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. What units are affected by the final standards? 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 7 of 494

guidelines for existing sources? 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources? 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements? 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units? 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements? 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards? 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimation 

E. Compliance Requirements 

F. Definitions 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI’s Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

D. Baseline Emissions 

E. Beyond the Floor Analysis 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

H. Compliance Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 8 of 494

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units 

VII. Relationship of the Final Action to CAA Sections 

112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B)(ii), and 112(c)(6) 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by the

final action are those that operate sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSI). Although there is no specific NAICS 

code for SSI, these units may be operated by wastewater 

treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. The following NAICS codes could apply: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 9 of 494

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Solid waste 

combustors and 

incinerators 

562213 Municipalities with SSI units 

Sewage 

treatment 

facilities 

221320 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a general guide for identifying entities 

likely to be affected by the final action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected by the final 

action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of 

subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (www) through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final 

action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 10 of 494

for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

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

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the Court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

of the CAA further provides that “only an objection to this 

final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism 

for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f 

the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that 

it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 

period for public comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for public comment (but 

within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this 

rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to 

EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 11 of 494

Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel 

(Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled, “Solid Waste 

Combustion,” requires EPA to develop and adopt standards 

for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 

111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish performance standards, including emission 

limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 

129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration unit” as 

“a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts 

any solid waste material from commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general public” (section 129(g)(1)). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 12 of 494

Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid waste” 

shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its 

authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sections 

111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new 

units (i.e., NSPS), and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) 

address emissions from existing units (i.e., EG). The NSPS 

are directly enforceable federal regulations, and under CAA 

section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after 

promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not themselves 

directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implemented and 

enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a 

promulgated federal plan. States are required to submit a 

plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval 

not later than one year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA 

section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at least as 

protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance with all 

applicable requirements not later than three years after 

the state plan is approved by EPA, or five years after 

promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is sooner. 

EPA’s procedures for submitting and approving state plans 

are set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state 

plan is approved by EPA, the plan requirements become 

federally enforceable, but the state has primary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 13 of 494

responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan. 

However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce 

a federal plan for solid waste incineration units located 

in any state which has not submitted an approvable state 

plan within two years after the date of promulgation of the 

relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal plan must 

assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to 

the federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of 

the EG not later than five years after the date the

relevant guidelines are promulgated. EPA views the federal 

plan as a “place-holder” that remains in effect only until 

such time as a state without an approved plan submits and 

receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an 

applicable state plan has been approved, the requirements 

of the federal plan no longer apply to solid waste 

incineration units covered by that state plan. 

The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating 

emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute 

also provides EPA with substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of incineration 

units within a category while setting standards. In the 

first stage of setting standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

requires EPA to establish technology-based emission
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 14 of 494

standards that reflect levels of control EPA determines are 

achievable for new and existing units, after considering 

costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then directs 

EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary 

every five years. In the second stage, CAA section

129(h)(3) requires EPA to determine whether further

revisions of the standards are necessary in order to 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to 

establish the first-stage technology-based standards for 

the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that 

standards “applicable to solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this section shall 

reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 

[certain listed air pollutants] that the Administrator, 

taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines 

is achievable for new and existing units in each category.” 

This level of control is referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 15 of 494

calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and

existing solid waste incineration units in a category, 

generally based on levels of emissions control achieved or 

required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum 

level of stringency is called the MACT “floor,” and CAA 

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

stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or 

existing sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA 

section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for existing 

units may be less stringent than standards for new units, 

but “shall not be less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in the category.” 

MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emissions 

from the best performing unit or units in a source 

category. The assessment can be based on actual emissions 

data, knowledge of the air pollution control in place in 

combination with actual emissions data, or on state 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 16 of 494

regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the 

actual performance of the regulated units, or other 

emissions information. For each source category, the 

assessment involves a review of actual emissions data with 

an appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Other 

methods of estimating emissions can also be used, if the 

methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the 

actual emissions performance of a source or sources. Where 

there is more than one method or technology to control 

emissions, the analysis may result in a series of potential 

regulations (called regulatory options), one of which is 

selected as MACT.

In addition to the MACT floor limit, Each regulatory 

option EPA considers must be at least as stringent as the 

CAA’s minimum stringency “floor” requirements. EPA must 

examine, but is not required to adopt, the whether more 

stringent “beyond-the-floor” standards should be adopted

regulatory options to determine MACT. In considering 

whether such standards are appropriate,Unlike the floor 

minimum stringency requirements, EPA must consider the cost 

of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air 

quality health and environmental impacts and energy

requirements various impacts of the more stringent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 17 of 494

regulatory options in determining whether MACT standards 

are to reflect “beyond-the-floor” requirements. If EPA 

concludes that the more stringent regulatory options have 

unreasonable impacts, EPA selects the “floor-based” 

regulatory option as MACT. However, if EPA concludes that 

impacts associated with “beyond-the-floor” levels of 

control are reasonable in light of additional emissions 

reductions achieved, EPA selects those levels as MACT.

The CAA requires that the MACT floor for new sources 

be no less stringent than the emissions control achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar unit. Under CAA 

section 129(a)(2), EPA determines the best control 

currently in use for a given pollutant and establishes one 

potential regulatory option at the emission level achieved 

by that control with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability. EPA is also required to consider 

beyond-the-floor standards for new sources, consistent with 

the factors described above. More stringent potential 

beyond-the-floor regulatory options might reflect controls 

used on other sources that could be applied to the source 

category in question.

For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no 

less stringent than the average emissions limitation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 18 of 494

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in a 

source category. EPA must determine some measure of the 

average emissions limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory 

option. More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options 

reflect other or additional controls capable of achieving 

better performance.

Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies five 

categories of solid waste incineration units: 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity 

greater than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal 

to or less than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious 

waste. 

• Units that combust commercial or industrial waste. 

• Units that combust waste and which are not 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) 

through (D) are referred to in section 129(a)(1)(E) as 

“other categories” of solid waste incineration units. 

A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 19 of 494

that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through 

(D), have been interpreted to be part of the broader 

category of “other categories” of solid waste. EPA has 

issued emission standards for large and small MWC, HMIWI, 

CISWI, and OSWI units; however, as explained further below, 

none of those emission standards apply to SSI units. 

EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on 

December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74870). Based on with EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA at that time, tThe OSWI standards 

did not include emission standards for SSI units. EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI

standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of 

certain categories, including SSI1. While EPA granted the 

petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final 

review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded 

that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005 OSWI 

rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being 

held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the 

 

1Sierra Club v. EPA; D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.

Comment [E2]: OMB 

EPA Response: Agreed 

with minor edits 

deleted “in Line” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 20 of 494

emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that 

rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI units. 

In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA 

stated that it had decided not to regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regulate SSI 

units under CAA section 112, pointing to a statement in 

EPA’s 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating that sewage 

sludge incinerators do not combust waste from a commercial 

or industrial establishment or the general public. because

we interpreted CAA section 129(h)(2) as giving EPA the 

discretion to choose the section of the CAA (i.e., section 

112 or section 129) under which to regulate these sources. 

We declined to revise reiterated that decision to regulate 

SSI units under 112 in the response to the petition for 

reconsideration on this issue for five reasons, including 

our position that section 129(a)(1)(E) did not require

regulation of all “other” solid waste incineration units 

and that section 129(g)(1)’s enumerated exemptions to the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” were not 

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

discretion to choose whether to regulate incinerators under 

section 112 or section 129 of the Act.. In addition, in 

the final action, on January 22, 2007, EPA stated that the 

Comment [E3]: OMB: Please 

check this. The 

rationale given in 

“Section 7. Sewage 

Sludge Incinerators” 

(70 FR 74880)of the 

rule was “The Agency 

believes that sewage 

sludge generated by 

publicly-owned 

treatment works (POTWs) 

and combusted in SSIs 

is ‘solid waste.’ 

However, this sludge is 

from a municipal 

source, and not from 

‘commercial or 

industrial 

establishments or the 

general public.’ 

Therefore, SSI that 

combust this sludge are 

not “solid waste 

incineration units” and 

section 129 does not 

apply to them. 

Virtually all of the 

SSIs that would be 

candidates for 

regulation combust 

sludge from POTWs, and 

thus are not covered 

under Section 129.” 

As well as the 

explanation that they 

had been listed under 

12©(30 and 

112(k)(3)B(ii0 and that 

source categories 

regulated by CAA 

section 112 may not 

also be subject to a 

CAA section 129 ... [1]
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 21 of 494

four specific statutory exemptions from the definition of 

“solid waste incineration unit” in CAA section 129(g)(1) 

were not exclusive, and that section 129(a)(1)(E) does not 

require EPA to establish emission standards for all other 

types of incineration units in addition to those identified 

in section 129(a)(1)(A) through (D)(72 FR 2620). In June 

2007, in a separate decision related to EPA’s December 1, 

2000, emission standards for CISWI units, the Court2, held 

that any unit combusting any solid waste must be regulated 

under section 129 of the CAA. The impact of this decision 

on EPA’s regulation of SSI’s is explained in detail in the 

NPRM.3

EPA considers SSI units to be “other solid waste 

incineration units,” since that category is intended to 

encompass all solid waste incineration units that are not 

included in the first four categories identified in CAA 

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

standards for the remaining OSWI units at a later time. 

EPA is taking final action on emission standards for SSI 

units at this time in advance of its re-issuance of 

 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.

3NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.

Comment [E4]: OMB 

EPA Response:Agreed 

with minor edits - - 

deleted ‘of’ and added 

‘at a later time’ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 22 of 494

emission standards for the remaining OSWI units because 

these emission standards are needed as part of EPA's 

fulfillment of its obligations under CAA sections 112(c)(3) 

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

section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for EPA to identify at least 

30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, 

pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest 

number of urban areas. EPA must then ensure that sources 

representing 90 percent of the aggregate area source 

emissions of each of the 30 identified HAP are subject to 

standards pursuant to section 112(d)4. Sewage sludge 

incineration units are one of the source categories

identified for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. EPA is 

ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation under CAA 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 20115. 

In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of 

source categories for regulation under CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA 

requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven 

 

4 CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 

5Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First

line: 0.5", Line spacing: Double
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 23 of 494

specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for 

not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each 

such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 

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

Incineration units are one of the recently identified 

source categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in 

the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meeting the 

Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prior 

to taking action on the remaining source categories that 

will be regulated under CAA section 129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI 

units. 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions?

Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by

municipalities or other entities. Incineration continues 

to be used to dispose of sewage sludge. Combustion of 

solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the 

release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which 

exist in the waste feed material and are released unchanged 

during combustion, and some of which are generated as a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 24 of 494

result of the combustion process itself. The pollutants 

for which numerical limits must be established, as 

specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, HCl, 

Hg, NOx, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO2; and, where 

appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be 

established. These emissions come from the SSI unit’s 

stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by the 

associated visible emissions, also occur from ash handling. 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge and associated air emissions?

Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, 

as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated 

regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 503 

designed to protect public health and the environment from 

any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain 

pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 

503 regulations establish requirements for the final use 

and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge is 

applied to the land for a beneficial use (e.g., for use in 

home gardens); 2) the sludge is disposed on land by placing 

it on surface disposal sites; and 3) the sewage sludge is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 25 of 494

incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate or 

treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who 

uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment 

works. 

The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in 

a SSI are in subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E 

includes general requirements; pollutant limits; 

operational standards; management practices; and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the 

National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The 

regulations also require that the allowable concentration 

of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated using 

equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants 

included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the 

equations must be determined on a case-by-case basis, 

except for the risk-specific concentration for the 

inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when 

these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific variables 

for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor, 

control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be 

used to calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, 

Comment [E5]: OMB Since a 

source regulated under 

129 cannot also be 

subject to 112 (CAA 

112(h)(2)), if these 

sources are covered by 

other 112 standards, 

what is the Agency 

doing to remove 

overlapping 

regulations? 

EPA Response: This is a 

CWA issue. We have not 

regulated SSI under 

section 112. If Office 

of Water regulations 

refer to our section 

112 regulations and we 

decide that is a 

problem, that should be 

fixed in the Office of 

Water regulations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 26 of 494

Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.

Also included in subpart E of part 503 is an 

operational standard for THC. The value for THC in the 

final part 503 regulation cannot be exceeded in the exit 

gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and frequency 

of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

are also included in this subpart. 

Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing 

limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covered by the 

current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and the 

following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NOx, SO2, PM, 

and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covered here, 

there are other differences between the part 503 

regulations and these final standards. The emission limits 

for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based 

numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 503 does 

not distinguish between new and existing units or between 

incinerator types (i.e., MH or FB incinerator) for setting 

emission limits since emission limits are based on risks to 

a highly exposed individual. 

Because both part 503 and these final standards cover 

the same universe of facilities, there are certain issues 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 27 of 494

that arise in terms of potential impacts to current SSI 

facilities. First, we expect that the regulation of sewage 

sludge under CAA section 129 willould result in stricter 

emission standards than under the current CWA rule. 

Additional pollution controls will increase costs for 

facilities that continue to use the incineration disposal 

method. If the additional costs are high enough, many 

entities may choose to adopt alternative disposal methods 

(e.g., surface disposal in landfills or other beneficial 

land applications). Consequently, a potential impact of 

this rule is that some of the estimated 110 facilities that 

operate SSI as the primary means of disposal could 

discontinue this practice and would instead landfill or 

land apply their sewage sludge. Second, one must consider 

the available capacity of surface disposal sites to receive 

additional sewage sludge and the potential for added costs 

if the use of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI willould be 

subject to two different sets of requirements (numeric 

standards, operational standards, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting) under the two different 

statutes, creating an additional burden to these facilities 

unless alternative regulatory approaches are implemented. 

EPA plans to evaluate the requirements under both statutes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 28 of 494

to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the 

part 503 regulations. 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

This preamble discusses the final standards as they

apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI 

unit. This preamble also describes the major requirements 

of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the 

final requirements and compliance times, see the SSI 

standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM. 

A. What units are affected by the final standards?

The final standards and guidelines apply to owners or 

operators of SSI units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 

CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facilities 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI unit is an 

enclosed device or devices using controlled flame 

combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. The affected facility is each 

individual SSI unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL 

and MMMM apply to new and existing SSI units that burn 

sewage sludge as defined in the subparts. The final 

standards define two subcategories for new and existing SSI 

units: MH incinerators and FB incinerators. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 29 of 494

The combustion of Ssewage sludge that is not burned in 

an SSI unit located at a wastewater treatment facility 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to 

other section 129 standards, such as the CISWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the 

OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), 

the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, 

AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous Waste

Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources?

The final emission limits for existing sources in the 

MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory 

are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existing 

sources may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB 

emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 1. Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900800 6458

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.28 0.037 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 30 of 494

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 220 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 15 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources?

The final emission limits for new sources in the MH

incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are 

presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing sources 

may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emission 

limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 2. Emission Limits for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0024 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 52 1827

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.15 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 30 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 31 of 494

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0035 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.045 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 60 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 5.3 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?

These final standards require all new and existing SSI 

units to demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the 

emission limits using EPA-approved emission test methods. 

The final standards also provide an option for less

frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their 

emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresholds of 

the emission limits. 

For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, continuous 

parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air

pollution control devices, if they that may beare used to 

meet the emission limits. Additionally, existing units are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 32 of 494

required to conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-7) visible emissions test of the ash handling operations 

during each compliance test. 

For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, as well as 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. The final rule requires all new SSI units 

to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are also 

required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions testing of 

the ash handling operations during each compliance test. 

For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOx, PM, 

Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling 

with periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to 

parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing. For 

new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl, 

NOx, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous 

sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approved 

alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance 

testing. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 33 of 494

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units?

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to meet operator training and qualification 

requirements, which include: ensuring that at least one 

operator or supervisor per facility complete the operator 

training course, that qualified operator(s) or 

supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course 

specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding training. 

Owners or operators of new SSI units are required to 

conduct a siting analysis, which includes submitting a 

report that evaluates site-specific air pollution control 

alternatives that minimize potential risks to public health 

or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors related to 

the practicability of the alternatives. 

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to submit a monitoring plan for any continuous 

monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to 

comply with the rule. They must also submit a monitoring 

plan for their ash handling system that specifies the 

operating procedures they will follow to ensure that they 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 34 of 494

meet the fugitive emission limit. 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS 

tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data,

continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspections of 

the air pollution control devices, the siting analysis (for 

new units only), monitoring plan and operator training and 

qualification must be maintained for five years. The 

results of the stack tests and PS tests and values for 

operating parameters are required to be included in initial 

and subsequent compliance reports. 

G. What are the SSM provisions?

The Court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

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

“General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 35 of 494

comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 

emission standard during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA

directly affects only the subset of CAA section 112(d) 

rules that incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by 

reference and that contain no other regulatory text

exempting or excusing compliance during SSM events, the 

legality of source category-specific SSM provisions is 

questionable. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is requiring 

that emission limitations in these final standards apply at 

all times the unit is operating. In establishing these 

standards, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 

periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

established different standards for those periods. 

We are not promulgating a separate emission standard 

for the source category that applies during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Based on the information available 

at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to 

meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units 

we have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or 

distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the 

unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 36 of 494

burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil 

are expected to generally be lower than from burning solid 

wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also 

generally lower than emissions during normal operations 

because the materials in the incinerator would be almost 

fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked 

individual SSI units based on actual performance for each 

pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting 

of emissions variability. Because we accounted for

emissions variability, we believe we have adequately 

addressed any minor variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown

are predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined 

as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 37 of 494

129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 

Nothing in CAA section 129 or in case law requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the innumerable types of

potential malfunction events in setting emission standards.6 

Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 129 

as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 

129 uses the concept of “best controlled” or “best 

performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying 

the concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a 

source that is malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best controlled or best 

performing sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of their units. 

 

6 See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (“ In the nature of things, no general limit,

individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, 

sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety 

of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 38 of 494

Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting 

CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, 

and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be 

reported in deviation reports. We will then review the 

deviation reports to determine if the deviation is a 

violation of the standards. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the

applicable CAA section 129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 

rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether 

the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 129 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 39 of 494

standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.”7 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is

properly designed and maintained can fail and that such 

failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard.8 EPA is therefore finalizing the 

proposedadding to the final rule an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of emissions limits that 

are caused by malfunctions., with some revisions to the 

proposed regulatory provision.9 We also added other 

regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are 

necessary to establish this affirmative defense Under this 

 

7 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction).

8 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(Feb. 15, 1983).

9 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR

§60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense 

put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 40 of 494

provision;, the source must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 

40 CFR 60.4860 and in 40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria ensure 

that the affirmative defense is available only where the 

event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets 

the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not 

caused by poor maintenance and or careless operation). For 

example, to successfully assert the affirmative defense, 

the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that excess emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, short, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual manner....” The 

criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken 

to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL and 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart MMMM and to prevent future malfunctions. 

For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of 

the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when the applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible steps were taken 

to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient 

Comment [E6]: OMB This 

section needs to be 

revised. EPA proposed 

an affirmative defense 

on Oct 14, 2010 in the 

proposed rule and 

further clarified the 

affirmative defense 

applicability on Nov 5, 

2010. How has the 

agency responded to the 

comments received on 

the affirmative defense 

provision? 

Is this in the response 

to comments documents? 

If the Agency has not 

addressed/considered 

these comments, will 

this provision be a 

part of the 

reconsideration notice? 

EPA Response: Agree 

this needs to be 

revised to reflect that 

we proposed an 

affirmative defense 

provision, not added 

one in the final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 41 of 494

air quality, the environment and human health....” In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator 

may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of 

the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of 

the CAA (see also 40 CFR part 22.77). 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements?

All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final 

SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

permit. These Title V operating permits assure compliance 

with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, 

including all applicable CAA section 129 requirements10. 

The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 

source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on 

when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title 

V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit 

and is not subject to an earlier permit application

deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before the relevant date below. 

• For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

 

10 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 42 of 494

source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR

part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a 

complete Title V permit application no later than 12 

months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL; or 

• For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new 

source after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title 

V permit application no later than 12 months after the 

date the SSI unit commences operation as a new 

source11. 

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject 

to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source 

must submit a complete Title V permit application by the 

earlier of the following dates: 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan

(i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that 

implements the SSI EG); or 

 

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

71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 43 of 494

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan; or 

• Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part

60, subpart MMMM. 

For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any applicable 

federal plan is effective, or whether or when any 

applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is 

approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA sections 

129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

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

If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of 

some triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned 

above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or 

part of a major source), then you may be required to apply 

for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specified 

above. If more than one requirement triggers a source’s 

obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time 

frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered 

by the requirement which first causes the source to be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 44 of 494

subject to Title V12. 

For additional background information on the interface 

between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s 

interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating 

existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing 

Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 

(68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0156). 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?

New SSI units that commence construction after October 

14, 2010, or that are modified six months or more after the 

date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission limits of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within six months after the 

promulgation date of the standards or upon startup,

whichever is later. 

Under the final EG, and consistent with CAA section

129 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 60, subpart B, states are required to 

submit state plans containing the existing source emission 

 

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

70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 45 of 494

limits of subpart MMMM of this part, and other requirements 

to implement and enforce the EG within one year after 

promulgation of the EG. States must submit state plans to 

EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (including 

SSI that are modified prior to and including the date six 

months after promulgation) and must be at least as 

protective as the EG. 

The final EG requires existing SSI to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards as expeditiously as 

practicable after approval of a state plan, but no later 

than three years from the date of approval of a state plan 

or five years after promulgation of the EG, whichever is 

earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects 

states to require compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable. However, because we believe that many SSI 

units will find it necessary to retrofit existing emissions 

control equipment and/or install additional emissions 

control equipment in order to meet the final limits, EPA 

anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3-year 

compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA 

does not approve a state plan or issue a federal plan, then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 46 of 494

the compliance date is five years from the date of the 

final rule. 

EPA intends to develop a federal plan that will apply 

to existing SSI units in any state that has not submitted 

an approved state plan within two years after promulgation 

of the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject 

to the federal plan up to five years after promulgation of 

the EG to demonstrate compliance with the standards, as 

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

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA?

Electronic data collection is commonly employed to 

collect and analyze data for a variety of applications, 

such as the CAA Acid Rain Program. Both industry and the 

public benefit from electronic data collection in that it 

increases the ease of submitting the data, as well as 

increasing the accessibility and transparency of these 

data.

EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 

Comment [E7]: OMB Does EPA 

have a sense of how 

many states this will 

apply to? 

EPA Response: This rule 

affects (based on our 

current inventory) 

units in 24 states + 1 

in Puerto Rico. At 

this time we do not 

know how many states 

will choose to elect 

developing a state 

plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 47 of 494

reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, 

not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators to locate, collect, and submit 

emissions test data because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. One improvement 

that has occurred in recent years is the availability of 

stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement 

for cumbersome paper copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve

data accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of 

reporting for sources. Owners and operators of SSI

facilities are required to submit, to EPA’s ERT database,

the electronic copies of reports of certain performance

tests required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Data entry will 

be Facilities must enter data through an electronic 

emissions test report structure called the Emissions 

Reporting Tool (ERT) whenever conducting performance tests. 

EPA developed theThe ERT was developed with input from 

industry, stack testing companies who generally collect and 

compile performance test data electronically and offices 

within state and local agencies that perform field test 

assessments. The ERT is currently available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html, and access 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 48 of 494

to direct data submittal to EPA’s electronic emissions 

database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 

2011. 

The requirement to submit source test data 

electronically to EPA would not require any additional 

performance testing and would apply to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The website listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT. In 

addition, when a facility submits performance test data to 

WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for 

emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we believe 

industry will benefit from development of improved emission 

factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and better 

regulation development as discussed below. The information 

to be reported is already required for the existing test 

methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the 

test method. 

One major advantage of submitting source test data 

through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and 

store much of the documentation required to be reported by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 49 of 494

this rule that also clearly states what testing information 

would be required. Another important benefit of submitting 

these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted 

is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved 

in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has 

source category performance test data in hand, there will 

likely be fewer or less substantial data collection

requests in conjunction with prospective required residual 

risk assessments or technology reviews. This should 

results in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in 

terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection 

requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing 

data collection requests and assessing the results). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that 

their review may be more streamlined and accurate because

they would not have to re-enter the data to assess the 

calculations and verify the data entryfrom the reduced 

burden associated with receipt of electronic information 

opposed to having to process paper forms. Finally, another 

benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE electronically 

is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality 

of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing 

the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 50 of 494

factor is based and by ensuring that data are more 

representative of current industry operational procedures. 

A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is 

that emissions factors are outdated or not representative 

of a particular source category. Receiving and 

incorporating data for most performance tests will ensure 

that emissions factors, when updated, represent accurately 

the most current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development, and other air pollution 

control activities, receiving test data already collected

for other purposes and using them in the emissions factors 

development program will save industry, state/local/tribal 

agencies, and EPA, significant time and, money, and work 

effort whileto improve improving the quality of emission 

inventories and related regulatory decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that 

will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a website 

accessible through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE website was 

constructed to store emissions test data for use in

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 51 of 494

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for 

storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is not the 

only electronic interface that can be used to submit source 

test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes 

submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A

description of the ERT can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

EPA received over 90 public comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public hearing 

to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. 

After consideration of publicIn response to these comments

received, EPA is making several changes to the standards. 

Following are the major changes to the standards since the 

proposal. The rationale for these and any other 

significant changes can be found in section V of this 

preamble or in the “Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Rule: 

Summary of Public Comments and Responses” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

A. Applicability

 The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of sewage 

sludge is burned in an incinerator at a wastewater 

Formatted: No underline, Font

color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 52 of 494

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI standards in 

subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning sewage 

sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge 

that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous 

Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. Subcategories

 The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new sources. 

In the final NSPS, SSI units at new sources are 

subcategorized into two subcategories: MH and FB. 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits

At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation to 

determine variability. For the final rule, for existing FB 

units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calculation 

to account for the biasing of emissions data from one 

facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH units. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 53 of 494

In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, 

skewness and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the 

data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or lognormally distributed. If both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values had skewness and 

kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis 

of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the 

reported values and the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the reported data values was 

chosen to be conservative. We have modified our 

assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests 

do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal 

distribution better represents the data, or when there are 

not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the lognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond the 

floor emission standards for Hg emissions from existing MH 

units. In the final rule, we are establishing the MACT 

floor emission limits but are not setting beyond the floor 

standards. Also, we are not finalizing the proposed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 54 of 494

opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limits for 

both PCDD/PCDF TMB and PCDD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units 

to meet both limits. In the final standards, we are 

allowing affected sources to comply with either the

PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits.

In the proposed rule, we did not compare the CO span 

of the test to the measured CO values to determine if the 

values were consistent. For the final rule, we reviewed 

the CO values obtained from emission test reports to 

determine whether the span of the test used was capable of 

accurately reading the reported value. If the span was 

inconsistent with the reported value, the CO levels were 

adjusted to provide a value that was more consistent with 

the span. We revised the CO limits based on the results of 

this analysis. 

The final emission limits resulting from the revised 

MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 through 6 

of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emission 

limits. 

Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

FB SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 55 of 494

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0019 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 56 5864

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.49 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0033 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 63 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0098 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.056 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.61 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 12 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 22 15 

Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

MH SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.095 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900 3,8900 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.0 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.02 0.28 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 220 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 5.0 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 80 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 26 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 56 of 494

Table 5. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New FB SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 1827

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00220.024 0.0130.0044

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00220.024 0.00440.013

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 5.3 

Table 6. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New MH SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0024 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 52 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.15 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 210 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.0035 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0240.0022 0.0450022

PCDD/PCDF, ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00220.024 0.0022045
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 57 of 494

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

TMB 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 60 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 26 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and Impacts Estimation

 For the final rule, we have revised the baseline 

emissions, costs, and impacts to incorporate information 

provided by commenters. A discussion of the changes is 

presented in section V of this preamble. The results of 

these analyses are summarized in section VI of this

preamble. 

E. Compliance Requirements

For both the standards, the following changes have been 

made: 

• SSI units must submit (at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test date) a monitoring plan to 

establish that their ash handling system will meet the 

visible emissions limit on a continuous basis. 

• The alternative to test less frequently (every third 

year) is being revised to be the following: 

o If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a 

specified threshold during the initialtwo 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 58 of 494

consecutive performance tests, they may test 

every third three years instead of annually. Any 

year that the emission threshold is not met, the 

SSI must test annually until the threshold is met

over a consecutive two year period. The 

alternative in the standards no longer requires 

that SSI units establish that they meet the lower 

thresholds for three consecutive years. 

o For all pollutants (except Cd and Pb), less 

frequent testing is allowed if emissions are no 

greater than an emissions threshold of 50 75

percent of the emission limit. 

o The alternative to test less frequently for Cd 

and Pb now includes a provision that allows less 

frequent testing for these pollutants if an SSI 

is meeting the lower threshold of 50 percent for 

both Cd and Pb.

o For fugitive emissions from ash handling, less 

frequent testing is allowed as long as visible 

emissions of combustion ash occur less than or 

equal to two percent of each hourly observation 

period (the standard is five percent of each of 

three hourly observation periods). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 59 of 494

• The final rule removes the requirements in the 

standards to maintain sludge feed rate and moisture

content within specified parameters. However, sludge 

feed rate and sludge moisture content are still 

required to be monitored during performance test runs, 

and daily records of sludge feed rate and sludge 

moisture content are required to be kept. 

• At proposal, operating limits were calculated based on 

a specified percentage of the average parameter value 

recorded during pollutant performance tests. In the 

final standards, operating parameter limits are 

determined on a site-specific basis as the minimum or 

maximum operating parameter value for the parameter, 

as applicable, recorded during pollutant performance 

tests. 

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annual 

performance tests was each 10-12 months. This has 

been changed to specify that performance tests must be 

conducted on a calendar year basis (no less than nine 

calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months

following the previous performance test); and you must 

complete five performance tests for each such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 60 of 494

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. 

• The averaging time for demonstrating compliance with 

the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed from 

a 4-hour rolling averaging period to a 24-hr block 

averaging period. The averaging times for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, has 

been changed from a 4-hour rolling averaging period to 

a 12-hour block averaging period.

• During each compliance test run, SSI units must be 

operated at a minimum of 85 percent of their maximum 

permitted capacity. 

F. Definitions

The following definition has been revised: 

• Process change means a significant permit revision,

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific 

emission units for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary 

treatment at the facility, which changes the 

method used for disposing of process solids and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 61 of 494

processing of the sludge prior to incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent 

used for activated carbon injection). 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. EPA received many comments on this 

subpart covering numerous topics. EPA’s responses to all 

comments, including those below, can be found in the 

comment response document for SSI units in the docket. 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI’s Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129

 Comment: Many commenters contended that SSI’s are 

within the CWA definition of POTW; therefore, according to 

CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA must regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 112(d), and not CAA section 129. The 

commenters emphasized that SSI units are located within 

each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the 

solids handling and treatment processes at each POTW. 

 Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be 

regulated under CAA section 129 because they are combusting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 62 of 494

material that is generated by the POTW, which is neither a 

commercial or industrial establishment nor the general 

public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The 

commenters added that, based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste, even if they had a new point of generation 

within the POTW where they were generating solid waste, the 

POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and does not 

pass the broad applicability for solid waste incineration 

under CAA section 129. Another commenter added that CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set standards 

for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal 

waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipal waste, 

the unit must first be a solid waste incineration unit. 

The commenters concluded that this would not include SSI 

units. 

 Several commenters stated that EPAs determination to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradicts 

previous decisions where EPA has stated that regulations 

were being developed for SSI under CAA section 112. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s revision to the list of 

source categories under CAA section 112 to delete SSI units 

was because there were no major sources in the source 

category. One commenter added that EPA’s decision to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 63 of 494

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 is based on an 

overly broad reading of the NRDC case. 

Response: As explained in the NPRM, EPA issued 

emissions standards for POTW in 1999 pursuant to section 

112(d), and those emissions standards did not include 

standards for SSI units. In the proposed POTW emissions 

standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge incineration 

will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA[.]” See 63 

FR 66084, 66087 (December 1, 19989). Therefore, EPA 

disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that regulation of 

SSI units under section 129 is inconsistent with past EPA 

statements. EPA also explained in the NPRM for today’s 

action that the EPA’s statements regarding SSI units during 

its promulgation of emissions standards for OSWI units are 

squarely in conflict with the Court’s decision in NRDC v. 

EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The commenter’s does

not appear to disagree with that conclusion, but instead 

simply argues that EPA cannot regulate SSI units under 

section 129 because it previously stated that it would 

regulate them under section 112. However, the NRDC

decision precludes EPA from doing so. Additionally, 

section 112 (c)(6) requires that EPA promulgate emission 

standards assuring that sources accounting for not less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 64 of 494

than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the 

HAP identified in section 112(c)(6) are subject to emission 

standards. EPA has determined that section 129 source 

categories can be included to meet our 90 percent 

obligations. Therefore, EPA has included SSI units in the 

section 112 (c)(6) list of sources because SSI units are 

need to meet our 90 percent requirement for mercury. This 

decision is documented in the memorandum “Emission 

Standards for Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under 

Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559)

Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to

issue emissions standards for SSI units under section 

112(d). Rather, it simply governs the schedule for the 

issuance of section 112(d) emissions standards for POTW. 

Section 112(e), titled “Schedule for Standards and Review,” 

generally requires EPA to establish emissions standards for 

initially listed source categories as expeditiously as 

practicable, with certain specific deadlines in section 

112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EPA shall 

prioritize source categories for regulation, and requires 

EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissions 

standards for section 112 listed source categories. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 65 of 494

Finally, Congress specified a different schedule for POTW 

in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standards 

shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. Thus, 

section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI 

units under section 112(d), but rather simply identifies 

the date by which EPA must issue emissions standards for 

POTW. 

Additionally, the commenter’s interpretation of 

section 112(e)(5) would conflict with section 129(g) and 

with the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of section 129(g) as 

explained in NRDC v. EPA. Section 129(g) defines “solid 

waste incineration unit” to include any unit combusting any 

solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s 

position that it could choose to regulate certain units, 

combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead of under 

section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid waste, EPA 

does not have the discretion under section 129 to create an 

exemption for SSI units from the statutory definition of 

solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) itself 

specifies certain units that combust solid waste but are 

exempt from the definition, and noted that where Congress 

created such enumerated exemptions, the EPA lacks 

discretion to create additional ones. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 66 of 494

EPA further disagrees that regulation of SSI units 

under section 129 is unnecessary because SSI units are 

already regulated under section 405 of the CWA and that 

section 129 regulation will therefore provide no public 

health or environmental benefit. As explained in section 

VI of this preamble, today’s action will achieve reductions 

of the section 129 pollutants from SSI units beyond those 

required by regulations issued pursuant to the CWA. EPA 

further notes that section 405 of the CWA expressly

provides that nothing in that section is intended to waive 

more stringent requirements of any other law. Therefore, 

Congress clearly did not intend for regulation of SSI units 

under the CWA to preclude any other regulations, including 

regulation under CAA section 129. 

Overlap with Other Standards

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that 

other types of solid waste incineration units could be 

considered SSI units and subject to the SSI standards if 

they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some commenters 

added that the definition of an SSI does not have a de 

minimus level of sewage sludge burned. Other commenters 

requested clarification on whether SSI units burning nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SSI and 

Formatted: Font: Italic, No

underline, Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 67 of 494

CISWI. Some commenters suggested that SSI units be

consistent with the MWC standards and provide an exemption 

for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less by weight 

of sewage sludge. 

Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide

exclusions for all solid waste incineration units that meet 

the applicability requirements of other CAA section 129 

standards, including MWCs regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, 

Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters noted that the CISWI 

standards specifically exempted MWC units and other units 

subject to CAA section 129 standards. 

Several commenters contended that EPA should exempt

incineration units subject to hazardous waste combustor 

regulations and/or hazardous waste management permits under 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The commenters added that 

CAA section 129(g)(1) states that a solid waste 

incineration unit does not include incinerators or other 

units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the 

SWDA. Other commenters requested EPA include an exemption 

for hazardous waste combustion units that are affected 

sources under 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE. 

 Response: Section 129 defines solid waste incineration 

unit to include any unit combusting any solid waste. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 68 of 494

Therefore, EPA is not setting de minimus levels for solid 

waste burned in incinerators. Any amount of sewage sludge 

combusted in aAn incinerator located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

that combusts any amount of sewage sludge is subject to the 

final SSI standards. We have clarified that the final 

standards and guidelines do not apply to sewage sludge that 

is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. Sewage 

sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous 

Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to 

have a permit under CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standards per 

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

exemption is needed for this rule. 

 Comment: Several commenters objected to EPA issuing 

Formatted: Font: Italic, No

underline, Font color: Auto, Check

spelling and grammar
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 69 of 494

the proposed SSI standards prior to making determinations 

regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. 

Response: EPA is not making determination in this rule 

about the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. Section 

129 of the CAA states that “solid waste” shall have meaning 

promulgated by the Administrator under RCRA. Therefore, 

today’s action is consistent with using the defintion of 

non-hazardous secondary materials promulagted RCRA rule, 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. The EPA is issuing 

a final rule defining solid waste for non-hazardous 

secondary materials under RCRA in a separate notice in 

today’s Federal Register.

Comment: Several commenters contended that sewage 

sludge is not a solid waste, as the CAA defines solid waste 

by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. 

The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage sludge in 

what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage

exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states that 

solid waste does not include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage. 

Response: This comment is not relevant to EPA’s 

establishment of emissions standards for SSI units. 

Rather, it is relevant to EPA’s proposed Identification of 

Comment [E8]: OMB 

EPA Response: Agreed 

with minor edits. 

Deleted ‘The’, ‘but 

are’, and ‘The final 

rule defining solid 

waste for non-hazardous 

secondary materials is 

in today’s Federal 

Register in a separate 

notice.’ 

 Added “Section 129 of 

the CAA states that 

“solid waste” shall 

have meaning 

promulgated by the 

Administrator under 

RCRA.” And “Therefore, 

today’s action is 

consistent with using 

the defintion of nonhazardous secondary 

materials promulagted 

RCRA rule, elsewhere in 

today’s Federal 

Register.” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 70 of 494

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste 

rule, and is addressed in the EPA’s final action on that 

proposed rule. 

B. Subcategories

 Comment: Many commenters agreed with the development 

of separate EG for existing MH and FB units. The 

commenters also requested adding the same subcategories for 

the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappropriate 

to consider the best performing FB SSI as the best 

performing similar source for the MH SSI new source

category. They also stated that, as proposed, the NSPS 

standards would discourageseverely restrict a POTW ability 

to modify existing MH units, including modifications to 

improve combustion efficiency or boost steam output for 

electricity generation. Some commenters stated that, by 

using the best performing FB unit as the basis for the NSPS 

for MH units, EPA was effectively setting a beyond the 

floor MACT limit for SSI units without considering any 

criteria that the statute requires. Other commenters 

agreed with the decision to use the best-performing FB unit 

as the best similar source for the MH SSI source category. 

 Other commenters requested further subcategorization 

based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 71 of 494

incinerated, limited use units, and distance over which the 

SSI would need to transport its sludge for disposal. 

Response: We have considered the commenters concerns 

and are setting separate standards for FB and MH units at 

new sources in the final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, 

there are two types of incinerators currently used to 

combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. The 

differences between the two combustor designs result in 

significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas 

stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control 

of temperature and other process variables, auxiliary fuel 

use and other characteristics. To reflect the differences 

in their combustion mechanisms, two subcategories, FB and 

MH, were developed in the NPRM for new and existing SSI 

sources. 

At proposal for the MH new source subcategory, we 

considered the best-performing FB incinerator to be the 

best-performing similar source because we were not aware of 

any new MH sources that have been constructed in the last 

20 years, and information provided by the industry 

indicates that future units that will be constructed are 

likely to be FB incinerators. 

We have re-evaluated our decision. Although few MH
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 72 of 494

units have been constructed over the last 20 years, there 

is no technical reason that would preclude a source from 

constructing a MH unit. The same design differences that 

distinguish existing FB and MH units also apply to new 

units, and provide a similar basis for subcategorizing 

between the two types of units. Therefore, we are setting 

separate standards for MH units at new sources in order to 

not limit potential options POTW can use to dispose of 

waste. Even though we are identifying two subcategories of

new sources, Wwe still expect believe that new SSI units 

constructed will be FB units because of the many 

advantageous of FB units over MH units. However, many MH 

units have a long equipment life and may undergo

modification, including energy efficiency improvements that 

may subject them to new source standards. These units 

would not be able to meet the new source standards based on 

FB units.

We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any other 

basis because we do not have data that would differentiate 

emissions based on the size of the unit or whether it was a 

limited use unit. We also do not have data on the 

different types of sludge incinerated or distances for 

transporting to landfills. Without such information, we do 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 73 of 494

not have a basis for concluding that these types of units 

should be placed in a different subcategory based on class, 

type, or size.

C. MACT Floor Analysis

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach

Comment: Many commenters objected to setting the MACT 

floors using a pollutant by pollutant approach because none 

of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneously meet 

all the proposed standards. One commenter stated that 

EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review 

of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability". However, the commenter contended 

that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practical 

manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units and that 

this results is unrealistically stringent limits that are 

not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters noted that 

this was especially true for the new source standards. 

Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis violates the statute and its own views of the

statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot 

demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneously meet 

all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 

129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards because 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 74 of 494

the "floor standards would force industry-wide 

technological upgrades without consideration of the factors 

(cost and energy in particular) which Congress mandated for 

consideration when establishing beyond-the-floor 

standards." 

Many commenters specifically mentioned that EPA's 

pollutant-by-pollutant, lowest emission methodology for 

setting the CO and NOx standards is flawed because EPA did 

not take into account the inherent conflict in complying 

with two standards. The commenters noted that CO and NOx

emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters 

explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NOx and vice 

versa. The commenters added that high temperature 

combustion with long residence times and high oxygen 

concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that 

those same operating conditions favor high NOx emissions. 

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize 

CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel 

and produce more CO2 emissions. 

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most

advanced control technologies, and those EPA indicated were 

costed in the impacts analysis, would not meet the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 75 of 494

limits for all of the pollutants all of the time. The 

commenter provided an example showing that of 11 of 30 test 

data points from the SSI unit in EPA’s database would not 

comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points would not 

comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not comply with 

the HCl standard, six of six data points would not comply 

with the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ, 86 of 105 would not comply 

with the CO standard, and eight of 15 would not comply with 

the NOx standard. The commenter concluded that data 

variability has not been appropriately accounted for and 

that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor based on 

the best performing unit for each pollutant is not 

reasonable. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters who object 

to setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. 

EPA previously has explained that although CAA section 129 

does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors must be 

established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying the 

requirement to set MACT floors based on what has been 

achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonable 

interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provision (62 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 76 of 494

FR 48363-64). 

 EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a)(2) 

to support establishing emissions standards based on the 

actual emissions of “the best controlled similar unit” or 

“best-performing 12 percent of units in the category” for 

each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclude that 

the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonable under 

the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ 

interpretation is certainly not compelled by the statute. 

We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable under the 

statute and appropriate given the problems associated with 

implementing the commenters’ approach. 

 The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “establish 

performance standards and other requirements pursuant to 

section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each 

category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursuant to 

CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). 

Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance standards 

promulgated under section [111] of this title and this 

section [129] and applicable to solid waste incineration 

units shall specify numerical emissions limitations for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 77 of 494

following substances or mixtures: PM (total and fine), 

opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 

chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, 

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.” Thus, the statute 

requires EPA to set individual numeric performance 

standards based on the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions actually achieved for each of nine listed

pollutants. Based on this, EPA believes – and has long 

believed – the statute supports, if not requires, that MACT 

floors be derived for each pollutant based on the emission 

levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, although the 

provisions do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress singled 

out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of devices 

that only control some of these pollutants well. 

 Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in the 

1997 rulemaking for medical waste incinerators “The EPA 

does not agree that the MACT floors are to be based upon 

one overall unit” (62 FR 48364). Pointing for instance to 

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

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified pollutant. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 78 of 494

Moreover, although the provisions do not state 

whether there is to be a separate floor for each 

pollutant, the fact that Congress singled out 

these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of 

devices that only control some of these 

pollutants well. 

Id.

 Since 1997, the courts have consistently repeated that 

EPA must set emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. See, e.g., Cement 

Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (D.C. Cir.) (“[T]he Agency first 

sets emission floors for each pollutant and source 

category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach has, as outlined above, been in place since 1997 

for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under section 129. See, 

e.g., 59 FR 48198 (September 20, 1994) (municipal waste

combustors). In addition, such an approach has been upheld 

in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing 

CWA best available technology standards on a pollutant-by-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 79 of 494

pollutant basis was a rational interpretation of EPA’s 

obligations under that similar statute). We note that the 

CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA program. S. 

Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. 

 Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would likely 

result in EPA setting the standards at levels that could, 

for some pollutants, actually be based on emissions

limitations achieved by the worst-performing unit, rather 

than the best-performing unit, as required by the statute. 

See 61 FR 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363-64 

(September 15, 1997). For example, if the best performing 

12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF 

as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, the floor 

for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflecting best 

performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach would 

require EPA to make value judgments as to which pollutant 

reductions are most critical in working to identify the 

single unit that reduces emissions of the nine pollutants 

on an overall best-performing basis. Such value judgments 

are antithetical to the command of the statute at the MACT 

floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to 

prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relative risk 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 80 of 494

to human health of each pollutant, a criterion that has no 

place in the establishment of MACT floors. Sierra Club v. 

EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 

The fact that the statute does not contain the phrase 

“for each pollutant” does not compel any inference that 

Congress was sub silentio mandating a different result when 

it left the provision ambiguous on this issue. The

argument that MACT floors set pollutant-by-pollutant are 

based on the performance of a hypothetical facility, so 

that the limitations are not based on those achieved in 

practice, just re-begs the question of whether CAA section 

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

pollutants. All of the emission limitations in this rule 

reflect actual performance and are achieved in practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level of control must 

be limited by the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively “guts the standards” 

by including worse performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident 

Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the 

average performance of best performing sources. Since 

Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 81 of 494

and EPA’s interpretation effectuates statutory goals and 

policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation must be 

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

Commenters made much of the fact that no single 

facility is presently achieving all of the nine pollutant 

limits proposed. However, the available information 

compared to the final standards disputes this assertion. 

For the final standards, based on the data we have, our 

estimate of baseline emissions, and the revised emission 

limits, we are estimating that 155 of 204 existing SSI 

units can meet standards for all nine pollutants, without 

installing additional pollution control. We cannot make 

this assessment for new sources, because none have been 

constructed. However, we are not aware of any technical 

reason that new units could not install the most advanced 

pollution control techniques or reduce the pollutant 

concentrations in the sludge to meet the new source

standards. 

We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in this 

case, increase the overall cost of the regulation compared 

to what would result under a unit-based methodology. We 

interpret CAA section 129 to require that the MACT floor be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 82 of 494

determined in this manner, and we believe that Congress 

did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regulations 

developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limits that 

are achieved by the best controlled unit for each 

pollutant, as long as the control systems are compatible 

with each other. To our knowledge, there is no technical 

reason why these air pollution control systems cannot be 

combined. 

Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and NOx

with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the 

SSI facility to determine whether combustion conditions can 

be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install NOx

controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, 

FGR, or low NOx burners). In the proposed rule, we 

conjectured reasons why SCR and SNCR were not used or may 

not be able to be used at SSI units. While we are not 

aware of any SSI unit that currently uses SNCR or SCR, we 

also do not know of technical reason why they could not be 

used. Given the limited data available on SSI units with 

FGR, we could not definitely determine how effective the 

technology was on SSI units. However, we also do not know 

of a technical reason why they could not be used, if 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 83 of 494

necessary, to meet NOx limits, and commenters did not 

provide any reasons they could not be used. 

Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis

Comment: Many commenters urged EPA to collect more 

information to set the standards. Many commenters 

contended that EPA does not have sufficient actual emission 

data from enough SSI units to properly set the MACT floor. 

Some commenters contended that the floor-setting provision 

in section 129 requires them to set the existing floor 

standards "based on the best performing 12 percent of 

sources in the category" and not just based on the sources 

for which they have information. The commenters contended 

that EPA did not have emissions data from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources or even from 12 percent of 

sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is 

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collected data 

are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EPA is 

using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a 

subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determine how 

the top 12 percent perform. 

Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit its 

ICR to just nine entities because collecting information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 84 of 494

from ten or more entities would have triggered the PRA 

obligations and a more rigorous OMB review. The commenters 

concluded that EPA’s plan to circumvent the PRA and OMB 

review resulted in an inadequate dataset for this 

rulemaking that leaves EPA unable to reliably take the 

first necessary step in a section 129 rulemaking: to 

determine which of the SSI units are the best performing 

sources. 

Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted its 

ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest emissions 

based on the type of unit and the installed air pollution 

controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targeted 

approach to collecting data from expected top performers 

undermines its ability to presume the data is a random 

sample representative of the entire source category or 

subcategory. The commenters stated that if the data 

gathered are not representative at the outset, then the 

data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equation to 

predict the emissions data across the source category or 

subcategory. 

Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has used 

permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed 

rate control, and other information to establish MACT 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 85 of 494

standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenters stated 

that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method 

in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actual 

emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at 

least 12% of the units. 

Another commenter stated that EPA used emission data 

from state databases for an additional nine MHs. The 

commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Court to 

collect data from the best-performing 12% of existing 

sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emissions data 

from the state databases for the additional nine MHs were 

the 12% best performing MHs. 

Response: EPA began data collection efforts in 2009 

for the SSI rulemaking. EPA planned to follow the data 

collection procedures used for the Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers MACT standards and the CISWI 

standards. For those rulemakings, EPA sent an ICR to 

affected sources. The ICR had two components. The first 

component of the ICR solicited information from all

potentially affected units in the form of a survey to 

collect available emission test reports, operating 

information, and other data necessary to characterize 

affected sources. EPA then evaluated the information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 86 of 494

received in response to the survey and identified data gaps 

in the emissions information. The second component of the 

ICR consisted of emissions testing at sufficient sources to 

collect enough data, in combination with the test reports 

submitted with the ICR, to determine the best performing 12 

percent of sources. This data collection effort lasted 

over 24 months. Additionally, because the ICR for those 

rulemakings was sent to more than nine entities, the 

requirements of the PRA applied, and required EPA to seek 

public input on a draft ICR as well as obtain approval from 

OMB to collect the information. This data collection 

effort lasted over 24 months. 

EPA determined that it needed to collect information 

on the best-performing sources to establish MACT floor 

standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent ICRs to nine 

entities that own and operate SSI units. EPA identified 

SSI units that were expected to be the best-controlled 

sources and the best performers for further emissions 

testing. The Agency acknowledges that this selection 

methodology targets identifying the best-performing sources 

rather than selecting a representative sample of sources. 

However, given the court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue 

the final SSI rule, it was not possible to undertake the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 87 of 494

time-consuming process of sending an ICR to all the

affected SSI units consistent with the requirements of the 

PRA. 

To select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the 

inventory of SSI units for the control devices being 

operated, and identified a subset of units expected to have 

the lowest emissions based on the type of unit and the 

installed air pollution controls. These controls generally 

achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA section 

129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify for each 

pollutant the units with the lowest emissions. For

example, units were selected that operated more than one of 

the following technologies: activated carbon injection to 

reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to 

reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; 

high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and 

impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, 

particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO2; and 

units with multiple control devices that could reduce PM, 

Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi scrubber in

combination with impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or with 

another particulate control device. The 9 owners or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 88 of 494

operators selected were from different states in different 

regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum of 

sources for sludge generatedwastewater being treated. 

Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, 

resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the nine 

operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some 

owners of multiple units at a facility provided information 

for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit 

instead of 2, because not all units were in operation 

during the test period. Of those 20 units from the nine 

surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 17 units 

that were in operation (11 MH units and 6 FB units). While 

testing was being undertaken, the EPA also collected 

emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collected from 

state environmental agencies public databases. For some 

pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental test 

reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sources. 

The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use all the 

emissions information from these test reports in the MACT 

floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test reports 

that were older than 15 years. The older reports were 

determined to not be appropriate for this rulemaking 

because they were unlikely to represent current emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 89 of 494

performance, due to their age and because they predatedwere prior to sources coming into required compliance 

with the CWA part 503 standard. In total, emissions 

information were collected from 6 FB units and 20 MH units 

from facilities responding to the ICR and additional test 

reports provided by state environmental agencies. 

As discussed in the NPRM and background documentation, 

the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the 

minimum number of observations needed to accurately

characterize the distribution of the best-performing 12 

percent of units in each subcategory. The results showed 

that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the number 

of observations necessary to provide an accurate 

representation of that data distributed from the bestperforming 12 percent of the source population. The EPA 

maintains that the emissions information that we have 

collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor for the 

best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to use other types of data, such 

as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate controls 

with the emissions information to calculate the MACT floor. 

The other types of data mentioned do not represent the 

actual emissions or operation of the unit but are potential 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 90 of 494

values in their permits or limits. Most units are 

typically operating at lower than permitted levels or 

emission limits. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to incorporate 

such data into the EPA’s UPL calculation because the UPL 

calculation is based on emission test runs of actual data, 

rather than limits based on permits. The permit or

emission limits would be on a different basis and 

potentially skew the MACT floor UPL calculation. 

The EPA has also updated the inventory of sources 

based on additional data provided in the comment letters. 

The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB units and 

144 MH units. Given this change in population, 12 percent 

of each subcategory are equal to 8 FB units and 18 MH 

units. Although we do not have any more emissions 

information than at proposal, the change in inventory 

results in more than 12 percent of MH units with data for 

PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT 

floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of emissions 

data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). The EPA 

solicited additional emission test reports in the NPRM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 91 of 494

Although many commenters summarized the results of their 

most recent emission tests when comparing their sitespecific emissions to EPA’s baseline emissions, none of the 

commenters actually provided the emissions test reports. 

The emission test reports are necessary for the EPA to 

review the test methods and procedures to ensure 

consistency with other emissions data, and to verify the 

tests represent a valid test result that can be used in the 

MACT floor analysis. Additionally, the test reports 

provide information necessary to correct the emissions 

measured into the units used for the MACT floor analysis. 

Therefore, these additional test result summaries, without 

background documentation, could not be used in the MACT 

floor UPL calculation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, to fill the data 

gap caused by the lack of actual emissions data from the 

required number of units in each subcategory, EPA applied 

statistical analysis to single test run results. Several 

commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data 

available for MACT development, EPA counted each test run 

as a separate data point. 

Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on 

test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The commenters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 92 of 494

noted that CAA section 129 states that MACT standards for 

existing sources must be as stringent as the "emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in, the category." The commenters added that, 

assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limitation" 

with the concept of emission level (as often stated by 

EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emission 

levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floors. The 

commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes 

a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid emissions 

level test. The commenter stated that a test run is not an 

accurate measure of the performance of the unit and should 

not be used as if it were. Commenters added that EPA 

should use the results of the test for each unit (comprised 

of at least three test runs) to represent what is being 

achieved by a unit. 

Several commenters contended that EPA must go back and 

reset the process based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI sources 

(not individual incinerators). The commenters added that 

it is important that individual sources, not units, be 

utilized because the composition of the sludge varies 

greatly from source to source and utilizing multiple units 

at one source skews the data development process and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 93 of 494

ultimately provides the basis for a flawed MACT standard at 

best. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 

percent UPL values were calculated for each pollutant and 

for each subcategory using the test run data for those 

units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consistent with 

EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as HMIWI, 

CISWI, and boilers, the MACT floor emission limits were 

calculated on a run basis since compliance is based on the 

average of a 3-run test. The 99 percent UPL represents the 

value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run

performance tests form the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample observations 

from the same best-performing sources. 

Variability Calculation

For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are 

incorporating variability in the MACT floor calculation for 

this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also 

following the same procedures for establishing limits and 

incorporating non-detect values as discussed in the NPRM. 

We have made two three revisions to the variability 

calculation for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 94 of 494

floor variability calculation to incorporate weighted UPL’s 

for existing FB units. Second, we selected log-normal 

results when it is not clear that data are normally

distributed. Lastly, we revised the CO limits based on an 

analysis of the span of the test. The weighted UPL’s and 

log-normal results are discussed in responses to comments. 

The revision to the CO limits based on reviewing the CO 

span was done to correct errors in the CO values provided 

in test reports and to be consistent with the calculation

methods used in the CISWI and boilers rules. 

Carbon monoxide values obtained from emission test 

reports were reviewed to determine whether the span of the 

test used was capable of accurately reading the reported 

value. If the span was inconsistent with the reported 

value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a value that 

was more consistent with the span. EPA Method 10 is 

structured such that measurement data quality relative to 

the calibration span of the instrument can be assessed. 

For a measurement made using an instrumental test method, 

the equivalent of the method detection level can be

assessed using: a square root formula, the reported

calibration span value, and the allowable data quality 

criteria (i.e. the allowable calibration error, bias, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 95 of 494

drift values). The estimated CO measurement error resulting 

from the square root formula was adjusted by a factor of 

three to be consistent with the methodology EPA applied for 

non-detect data (where limits no less than three times the 

method detection level were established).

In order to develop a basis for measurement error, 

instrument calibration spans in available test reports were 

reviewed. Where no span values could be found, it was 

assumed that if the test was conducted on or before May, 

2008, the associated CO span would be 1000 ppm, and tests 

conducted after May 2008 would have a CO span of 100 ppm. 

This assumption was made because, before revisions were 

made to Method 10 in May of 2008, it was common that units 

were using the prescriptive span guidance that was listed 

in the old method. The current version of EPA Method 10 

does not include these span requirements but instead 

requires the tester to choose calibration ranges that 

reflect the range of expected emission concentrations at 

the unit. In cases where the reported emission 

concentrations were lower than their corresponding 

measurement errors, the default measurement errors were 

used in lieu of the reported concentration. 

These revisions are discussed in the following 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 96 of 494

comments and further documented in the memorandum “Revised 

MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator 

Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 7 of this preamble shows the revised results of the 

MACT floor analysis for existing sources, and Table 8 of 

this preamble shows the results for new sources. 

Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0016 0.095 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

5864 3,900800

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.51b 1.2 

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.037 0.28 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

150 220 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.0074 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.1 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

1.2 5.0 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

18 80 

SO2 ppmvd 15 26 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 97 of 494

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

@7% O2

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0011 0.0024 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

1827 52 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.24 1.2 c

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0010 0.15 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

30 210 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.00062 0.0035 

CDD/CDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.0044 0.0022 

CDD/CDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.013 0.045 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

9.6 60 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

5.3 26 c

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 98 of 494

c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less 

stringent than EG. 

Comment: One commenter contended that because the CAA 

section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floors 

reflecting the “average” emission level achieved by the 

best sources, setting floors that instead reflect a UPL for 

those sources is unlawful. The commenter, added that by 

claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top 

twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider 

variability under the CAA and relevant case law. The 

commenter explained that, although EPA may consider

variability in estimating an individual source’s actual 

performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case law 

even suggests that EPA may account for differences in 

performance between sources except as section 129 provides, 

by averaging the emission levels achieved by the sources in 

the top twelve percent. 

 Response: In assessing sources’ performance, EPA 

may consider variability both in identifying which 

performers are “best” and in assessing their level of 

performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 

875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 99 of 494

(D.C. Cir 2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, based on 

an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, 

to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources considering these 

sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision 

indicated that floors for existing sources must reflect the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision 

also reiterated that EPA may account for variability in 

setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA erred in 

assessing variability because it relied on data from the 

worst performers to estimate best performers’ variability. 

The Court held that “EPA may not use emission levels of the 

worst performers to estimate variability of the best 

performers without a demonstrated relationship between the 

two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. 

In determining the MACT floor limits, we first 

determine the floor, which, for existing sources, is the 

emissions limitation achieved in practice by the average of 

the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the level 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest

emissions limitation as the measure of best performance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 100 of 494

We then assess variability of the best performers by using 

a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor 

level based onthat can be met by the average of the best 

performing sources usingbased on the expected distribution 

of future compliance tests. We used the UPL to perform 

this calculation, as explained below. 

Variability can be accounted for using different 

statistical methods. For example, recent standards have 

used the UL or the UPL to determine the MACT floor emission 

limits. A UL is based on the distribution of the available 

emission observations (e.g., test runs), and does not 

embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A prediction 

interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an 

interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomly 

selected observation from a population. In other words, 

the prediction interval estimates what future values will 

be, based on present or past background samples taken. 

Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the 

mean of three future test run observations (three-run 

average) can be expected to fall below, based on the 

results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same 

population. Therefore, should a future test condition be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 101 of 494

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

of three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the 

reported level will fall below a MACT floor emission limit 

calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an appropriate 

statistical tool to use in determining variability in the 

SSI data. For this source category, where there is a 

limited sampling of the source category and we do not have 

test data from all of the SSI units in the best performing 

12% for each subcategory, the predictive aspect of the UPL 

calculation is especially important. 

Because the UPL represents the value which we can 

expect the mean (i.e., average) of three future 

observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon the 

results of the independent sample size from the same 

population, the UPL reflectsadequately gets at the notion 

of average emissions. The UPL is also consistent with 

other recent rulemakings, such as the boiler and CISWI 

standards. 

Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting 

MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized 

data from all available test runs for the best performing 

units without regard to the number of data points available 

for each unit. The commenters added that, for all 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 102 of 494

pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to 

unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases 

the statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by 

over-weighting the performance of the units that have more 

data. The commenter suggested that EPA should employ an 

alternate methodology which determines the emissions 

limitation achieved for each best performing unit first, 

and then averages these limitations to determine the least 

stringent standard, or MACT floor. 

Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed 

units contains data from six units at four facilities. The 

entities surveyed were requested to provide recent (within 

the previous 5 years) emissions test reports. Most survey 

recipients provided only the most recent report. One 

facility, with three units, provided results of emissions 

test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year 

period. This facility also uses the most advanced 

pollution controls on their fluidized bed units in the 

subcategory. This facility constitutes 70 percent of the 

Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and 75 

percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the 

existing source MACT floors calculated using the UPL 

methodology, and all the test run data from the one
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 103 of 494

facility, effectively results in calculating more stringent 

limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an

existing source MACT floor, because it is based primarily 

on only the emissions performance of the best-performing

single source, rather than the average of the bestperforming 12 percent of sources.. In order to adequately 

incorporate the emissions from all the best-performingthe

SSI units in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL 

was used for calculating the existing source MACT floors 

for the final rule. The weighted UPL is calculated from a 

weighted mean and weighted variance as described below. 

There are many different types of weighting 

procedures. We have chosen the most straightforward 

methodology, to base it on the number of data points (i.e., 

test runs) from each SSI unit.13 This weighting scheme 

ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool 

is over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. 

The first step in weighting procedure is to assign a 

weighting factor to each test run by multiplying each 

 

13 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIST Handbook 148: 

DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June 2003. [Available at 

www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 104 of 494

observation for source i and run j with a weight term, wij, 

as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble: 













×















=

M N

w

i

ij

1 1

 (Eq. 1)

 

Where: 

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

N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool. 

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance 

for the weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 

2 and 3 of this preamble: 

Weighted Mean: 

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

=

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

ij ij

weighted

i

i

w

w x

x

1 1

1 1

 Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

( )

( )

K

K w

w x x

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

weighted

ij ij U

weighted

i

i

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

−

−

=

1 1

1 1

2

1

ν

Equation 3

Where: 

∑=

=

N

i

K Mi

1

is the total number of observations in the MACT best 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 105 of 494

performers pool. 

When the weights are equal to one, the above equations 

reduce to those for un-weighted data, as expected. As 

shown in Equation 4 of this preamble, the weighted mean and 

weighted variance are then used in the UPL calculation 

(discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e., unweighted) mean and variance. 

( ) ( ) 















= + − × × +

i i

weighted

i

weighted

n m

UPL x t n

1 1

99.0 , 1 ν Equation 4 

For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions

data from a larger number of facilities/units. For

example, we have data on Cd and Pb from 11 facilities with 

14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT 

floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units or 

facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing 

multiple hearth units does not need to be calculated using 

a weighted UPL. 

The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are 

discussed in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 106 of 494

Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should 

determine the MACT floor emission limits to be consistent 

with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Manual, 

which holds that it is more likely that environmental data 

are distributed log-normally. The commenter considered it 

reasonable to believe that environmental emission 

distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots

typically show many readings approaching zero and fewer 

large readings forming an elongated tail to the right. The 

commenter concluded that normal distributions may exist for 

certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many

standard deviations away from zero, and values are 

controlled by an air pollution control process with set 

points and feedback and control loops. 

Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and 

agree with the commenter that the referenced document shows 

that environmental data are more likely to be log-normally 

distributed than normally distributed. In the proposed 

rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used to calculate the 

MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed. If 

both the reported values and the natural-log transformed 

reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 107 of 494

indicated neither were normally distributed, the reported 

dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis 

hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the 

natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done 

on the reported data values was chosen to be conservative. 

Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: 

Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/084, July 

2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whether a 

normal or log-normal distribution better represents the 

data, or when there are not enough data to complete the 

skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have 

chosen to use the log-normal results for the final MACT 

floor calculation. 

 Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA 

incorrectly presumes that stack test results account for 

the full variability of an SSI’s performance. Several 

commenters stated that emissions from SSI units are

affected not just by control technology but also by other 

factors including the contents of the sludge that a unit is 

burning. Many commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT 

floor limits by incorporating the variability of the sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 108 of 494

contents. The commenters added that the methodology in 

developing the proposed standards does not take into 

account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions are a 

function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and 

sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits 

were based on test results obtained with sludge containing 

very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and sulfur. 

The commenter explained that if the sludge burned during an 

emissions test was not at or near the maximum constituent 

concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a 

new source emission limit based on these data could not be 

achieved over the full range of expected normal operating 

conditions confronted by the best performing source. 

The commenters contended that EPA must consider all

available data (including Part 503 data) for the best 

performing source and use that to establish a variability 

factor applied to the stack test data. The commenters 

added that EPA’s request for metals data during the stack 

test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source 

variability. The commenters added that variability for the 

compounds not regulated by Part 503 must also be accounted 

for as well before setting the new source limit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 109 of 494

The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI 

units, are statutorily obligated to manage all of the 

sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, 

resulting in highly variable and often unpredictable spikes 

in concentrations. The commenters continued that POTW inlet 

concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of 

dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat 

wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial 

dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment 

opportunities also vary because POTW authority to control 

discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way 

that authority is exercised varies. The commenters also 

noted that the nature of sewage entering the POTW changes 

over time as the character of a community changes, the age 

of the population changes, and commercial and industrial 

dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without 

the use of long-term data to support the level of emission 

standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based 

limits impractical and infeasible. The commenters also 

explained that POTW also face significant regional and 

seasonal variability that is not captured by EPA’s dataset. 

The commenters stated that initial high flow periods in the 

spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier material 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 110 of 494

that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow 

periods, which often results in a spike in metals 

concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage sludge. The 

commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in January and 

February that were used for the EPA database would not have 

captured these events. The commenter also noted that 

northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways

experience significant increases in chlorides during the 

winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known 

to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at existing wet 

scrubbers. 

Response: The variability analysis is based on 

emissions information gathered from nine different 

facilities located in nine different states. The 

facilities we collected emissions information from are 

located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and 

western states. Each facility has its own unique sludge 

characteristics from different residential and commercial 

populations. We agree that the emissions data represents a 

“point in time”. However, combined together, they 

represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and 

populations that adequately incorporates variability in 

wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We have also 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 111 of 494

incorporated variability using the UPL. We maintain that 

tThe variability analysis based on the emissions data

collected adequately characterizes the potential 

differences in sludge contents and regional differences. 

Because we have a mixture of southern and northern states 

in the emissions database, we believe that it also 

adequately considers differences between cold and warm 

weather climates. Additionally, we did not have sufficient 

information at proposal to consider if it were appropriate 

to incorporate variability based on sludge content. We

requested additional information in the NPRM, but did not 

receive adequate sampling data from the best-performing 

sources.

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s 

identification of the relevant best performing units for 

both existing and new unit standards is both unlawful and 

arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control technology 

as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pollution 

control technology is the only factor determining emission 

levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated that, in 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. 

Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Club's 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 112 of 494

challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely on 

the performance of one method: add-on technology. The 

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule because 

EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities control 

emissions. The commenters stated that this requirement is 

consistent with doing a more complete study as required by 

section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based 

solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this 

fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of 

control. The commenters concluded that EPA's performance 

data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did 

not check for all methods that sources use to reduce 

pollution. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges 

that EPA has not properly identified the best performing 

SSI units for purposes of calculating MACT floor limits. 

As explained above, EPA targeted its emissions testing 

requests to units it believed have the lowest emissions, 

while accounting for factors such as sludge content and 

seasonal variation by selecting units in different 

geographic areas of the country. 

EPA further notes that SSI units are currently taking 

non-technology measures to reduce emissions to comply with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 113 of 494

CWA regulations at 40 CFR Part 503. These regulations

establishes daily average concentration limits for Pb, Cd, 

and other metals in sewage sludge that is disposed of by 

incineration. Part 503 also requires that SSI meet the 

National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. In 

order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 standards, facilities are 

already incorporating management practices and measures to 

reduce waste and limit the concentration of pollutants in 

the sludge sent to SSI units, such as segregating 

contaminated and uncontaminated wastes and establishing 

discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for nondomestic users discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus, the 

facilities from which EPA received emissions test results 

are already applying non-technology measures to reduce 

emissions are already being taken. 

Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs 

the statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it 

should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated 

that the 99.9 percent UPL represents a 0.1 percent 

probability of a failure for individual tests, or a one 

percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual 

performance test program. The commenter concluded that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 114 of 494

this value better encompasses unit emissions variability 

and represents a manageable risk to the responsible

facility operator. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the 

final standards, we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is 

appropriate and sufficiently addresses variability in the 

emissions information. Our analysis of variability is 

explained in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source 

CategoryRevised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI 

Units” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit 

of zero percent because opacity is a subjective measurement 

and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. 

Another commenter suggested that control and monitoring of 

PM is sufficient. 

Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero 

opacity) limit for combustion processes is impractical for 

both compliance and enforcement purposes. We also believe 

that a measurable opacity may or may not be indicative of 

compliance with a PM emissions limit when applied to 

multiple sources within the category. That is, an opacity 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 115 of 494

limit applied to one facility could very readily correspond 

to a PM emissions level different than that same opacity 

limit applied to another facility and one or both may be 

emitting above the PM limit. That opacity limits do not 

apply very well when wet control devices are used further 

confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. We also

agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific parametric 

monitoring approaches applicable to various control devices 

that can be more closely aligned with PM control and 

compliance with the PM emissions limit than would an 

opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of

establishing opacity limits that may or may not assure 

compliance with PM emissions limits, the final rules 

include rigorous requirements for establishing sitespecific operating limits derived from the results of

performance testing. The rules also include a requirement 

that sources update those enforceable operating limits with 

each repeated performance test. Re-establishing operating 

limits periodically will assure that the monitoring will 

continue to indicate compliance with the PM emissions 

limits. The rules also provide the source the option of 

apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of interest in 

lieu of parametric monitoring. We believe that continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 116 of 494

compliance with operating limits and periodic stack testing 

to verify the operating limits plus the CEMS option will 

ensure that sources demonstrate continuous compliance with

the PM emission limits more effectively than would periodic 

or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable opacity 

limit. 

The final rule does not set opacity limits. We believe 

that, with continuous parametric monitoring and stack 

testing, facilities will be able to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the PM emission limits.

Format of the Standards

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

develop emission limits for some pollutants in different 

units or to provide a control efficiency alternative. The 

commenters expressed concern that the use of concentration 

limits would not reflect the variability of the unique 

sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly 

penalize units with very low or very high feed 

concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or 

Pb. Some commenters suggested establishing limits similar 

to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided emission limits 

based on control efficiencies coupled with feed 

concentration limits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 117 of 494

 Response: We did not have sufficient data to set 

alternative control efficiency standards or standards in 

other units at proposal. We requested additional 

information in the proposal. However, sufficient data were 

not provided in response to our request for alternative 

formats to be developed. 

D. Baseline Emissions

 Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated 

baseline emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate 

parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge 

feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters provided 

stack test data, emission estimates, and corrections to the 

EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters noted that 

EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate 

factors in combination with pollutant concentrations 

corrected to seven percent oxygen. 

 Response: We have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. In some cases, commenters did not 

provide information sufficient for us to revise the

inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter’s

facility. For example, commenters may have provided an 

average concentration for a pollutant, but did not provide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 118 of 494

run-specific information that would allow us to convert the 

concentration information provided to standardized units (7 

percent oxygen). Other commenters may have provided 

emission rates in pounds per hour, but did not provide vent 

gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to 

convert to concentration units. None of the commenters 

provided test reports that would have include this 

information.,...

 We have also revised the calculation of baseline 

emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI units 

where information was not available. Defaults were

necessary to be assigned because, even after new data were 

received in comments, a significant number of units did not 

have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A 

detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate 

baseline emissions for the final standards is presented in 

the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emissions 

from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other 

corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions 

shown in Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range 

of emissions for each pollutant. The lower bound 

represents an estimation of actual emissions based on the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 119 of 494

actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their 

units were running. The upper bound represents an 

estimation of potential emissions if the sludge feed rate 

was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We estimated 

the potential emissions because the amount of wastewater 

treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantly based 

on changes in population or sources of wastewater. 

Facilities have the potential to burn up to their units 

permitted capacity although they may not be doing so 

currently. 

Table 9. Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

FB MH 

Cd 0.0022-0.0015 0.91-1.2 0.91-1.2 

CO 73-100 8,400-11,500 8,500-11,600 

HCl 1.6-2.2 26-41 28-43 

Hg 0.040-0.058 0.85-1.15 0.9-1.2 

NOx 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 

Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQa

0.00012-

0.00016 

0.00076-0.0010 

0.0009-0.0012 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMBa

0.0014-0.0020 

0.011-0.015 

0.013-0.017 

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 120 of 494

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

FB MH 

SO2 43-57 660-1,020 700-1,100 

a Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF. 

E. Beyond the Floor Analysis

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the beyond the floor Hg limit for MH units 

because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and costs for 

Hg control were understated. Many of the commenters 

contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology 

for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility 

with FB units. The commenters added that the facility is 

undergoing significant issues with the technology. 

Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon 

injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, 

such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. 

The commenters added that the high moisture content in the 

form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will plug FFs, 

and additional equipment may be necessary to keep the 

temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner. 

Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 121 of 494

analysis to incorporate changes made to the baseline 

emissions, new facility specific data and inputs provided 

by commenters, and revised control options. We have 

analyzed severalthree control requirement options for as 

beyond-the-floor controls requirements for the final rule. 

Option 1 remains the MACT floor level of control. Option 2 

First, we evaluated the use of an afterburner for control 

of CO at MH units. Wwe then evaluated whether additional 

control of Hg should be required at MH units. [at MH units? 

All units?]is an afterburner for control of CO at MH units. 

We have reviewed the commenters concerns regarding Hg 

control technologies and agree that applying carbon

injection to existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated 

to be effective at removing Hg. We note that EPA is 

still undertaking the process of researching the use of 

oxidizing agents in combination with wet scrubbers for Hg 

control. This control scheme has been demonstrated in 

other countries, but not in the U.S., and has not been 

demonstrated anywhere for SSI units.

For other combustion sources that are not SSI, such as

boilers ... , carbon injection in combination with a FF has 

proven to be highly effective in removing Hg. However, we 

also agree that for high moisture flue gas streams, such as 

Formatted: No underline, Font

color: Auto, Check spelling and

grammar, Highlight
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 122 of 494

emitted from SSI units, the use of FFs is problematic due 

to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with 

a FF with high moisture streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, 

or afterburner is necessary to maintain a high enough 

temperature to keep the stream above the dew point prior to 

sending the stream to the FF. 

Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of using 

Option 3 is an RTOafterburner, carbon injection, and FF for 

additional control of Hg at MH units. Additional equipment 

may also be necessary to reduce the temperature of the flue 

gas to prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. 

Sufficient information was not collected to estimate this 

cost. Table 10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for 

existing SSI units to comply apply with different controls

that were analyzed.the MACT control options. 

Table 10. Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units to Comply 

Apply with MACT Controls Options Analyzed(2008$) 

OptionControl 

Requirement Analyzed

Total Capital 

Costs 

(million $) 

Total Annualized 

Costs (million 

($/Yr)a

1 - MACT Floor 55 18

2 - MACT FloorOption 1

+ Afterburner for MH 

units

155 46
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 123 of 494

OptionControl 

Requirement Analyzed

Total Capital 

Costs 

(million $) 

Total Annualized 

Costs (million 

($/Yr)a

3 – MACT FloorOption 2 

+ Afterburner and

Activated carbon 

injection and FF for 

MH units

490 138

a Calculated using a seven percent discount factor. 

Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions of each pollutant for various controls analyzed

configurationsthe MACT control options. 

Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units 

to Comply Applywith the MACT Controls Options Analyzed

Sources

Pollutant

Emission Reductions for Each MACT Option Controls 

Analyzed (TPY) 

MACT 

FloorOption 1

MACT Floor + 

AfterburnerOption

for MH Units 2

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner + ACI

and FF for MH 

UnitsOption 3

Cd 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.87-1.1 

CO 0 6,900-9,300 6,900-9,300 

HCl 19-30 19-30 19-30

Hg 0.0022-0.0025 0.0022-0.0025 0.67-0.89 

NOx 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16 

Pb 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 2.3-2.9

PCDD/PCDF TEQ 0 0 0.0000003-

0.0000004

PCDD/PCDF TMB 0 0 0.000005-0.000007 

PM 58-70 58-70 300-400 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 124 of 494

Pollutant

Emission Reductions for Each MACT Option Controls 

Analyzed (TPY) 

MACT 

FloorOption 1

MACT Floor + 

AfterburnerOption

for MH Units 2

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner + ACI

and FF for MH 

UnitsOption 3

SO2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this 

preamble were calculated using data gathered for each 

source (e.g., emissions, vent gas flow rates, controls 

currently used), as well as default values for emissions, 

sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate information for 

sources where data were unavailable. We estimate, that to 

apply MACT control option 2, which wouldthat requiring

require either the use of an afterburner for MH units not 

already having an afterburneror thermal oxidizer, could 

require as much as 1,700 010 million cubic feet of natural 

gas a year to be burned, resulting in NOx and CO emissions 

of 84 51 and 70 43 TPY, respectively. We estimate that 

applying activated carbon injection with a FF and an 

afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg and 

PCDD/PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 

million dollars (using a discount rate of seven percent) 

and would achieve Hg reductions of 0.67-0.89 TPY. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 125 of 494

incremental cost-effectiveness of adding afterburners/RTO, 

activated carbon injection, and FFs to all MH units is 

estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per pound of Hg

removed. Costs would increase if equipment necessary to 

cool the flue gas is also necessary. Therefore, given these 

factors, we are not finalizing any going beyond-the-floor 

requirements for MHSSI unitswith options 2 or 3. 

We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require 

packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, 

a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR 

for additional NOx reduction. We determined that it was 

not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater 

reduction of HCl, SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOx considering the 

cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor 

analyses for the final standards are documented in the 

memorandum “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for 

Existing SSI Units” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts

 Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

underestimated the cost of the proposed rule for the beyond 

the floor option of Hg control as well as for the MACT 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 126 of 494

floor for other pollutants because it only has information 

for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The commenters 

added that EPA used information from these limited sources 

and applied it to remaining sources for which they did not 

have. The commenters contended that this results 

inaccurate determinations of which units could meet the 

proposed emission limits and which could not. The 

commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of 

sources that could meet the proposed standards resulting in 

a significant underestimation of controls. 

 Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of 

controls to cost for compliance with the proposed standards 

were inappropriate for SSI units. Many commenters stated 

that the high moisture content of flue gas streams in some 

applications may mean that FFs would not be an appropriate 

control for PM, Cd, or Pb. 

 Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control 

technology or method. A source is required to meet the 

final emissions limits in these standards, and has the 

flexibility to use the control method or technology that is 

best suited for their individual facility. EPA’s costs are 

estimated based on technologies we believe may be 

appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions limits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 127 of 494

At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated 

costs and emissions reductions based on the best available 

information to us. We acknowledge that the inventory 

database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI 

units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flue gas 

flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other 

inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses 

using data provided by the commenters as summarized in 

section IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following 

Proposal. However, for a number of inputs, we are still 

assigning default values where data were not available for 

each SSI. For the final rule, we have correlated some of 

the defaults to populations served by the facilities in 

order to better estimate costs and emission reductions more 

specifically to each facility. Sources will have the best 

idea of the costs of controls for their site specific 

conditions. For some sources, the costs and emission 

reductions estimated by EPA may be higher than what the 

source estimates, and for others they will be less. EPA’s 

estimates are estimates based on the best information 

available to us. We also note that the MACT floor costs 

and emission reductions, and determination of the number of 

sources estimated to require control, estimated for the 

Comment [E9]: OMB Can EPA 

be more specific about 

what was changed as a 

result of the comments, 

e.g. a list of the 

major changes? 

EPA Response: EPA does 

list the major changes 

already in IV. Summary 

of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal 

(Around page 47). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 128 of 494

final rule are also based on the revised MACT floor limits. 

 For the final standards we have also revised the types 

of controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For 

SSI’s that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, 

or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as 

a more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. 

We have also costed out SNCR for SSI’s that we estimate 

will need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor 

limits. As at proposal, we have costed out packed 

scrubbers for SSI’s that we estimate will need further 

control of HCl or SO2. At the MACT floor level, we do not 

estimate that any SSI’s will need to add control for Hg, 

PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A detailed discussion of the costs and 

emissions reductions estimates for the final standards is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

incorrectly calculated the costs of the landfilling

alternative because it used dry tons of sewage sludge 

instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is 

the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 129 of 494

dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent 

moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimates for 

landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The 

commenters added that because of the error, EPA has

significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting 

sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not 

evaluated the negative social impact of hauling sludge to a 

landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not consider 

the additional costs for specific state landfilling

regulations. 

 Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly 

estimated the on-site sludge storage requirements because 

calculations were not done on a wet basis. Commenters 

added that the cost of the storage units would be 

significant and would need to include odor control as well 

as a settling basin. 

 Other commenters expressed concern regarding the 

availability of landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. 

The commenters contended there was insufficient landfill 

capacity to handle the influx of sewage sludge. 

Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the 

landfill alternative based on comments received on the 

proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 130 of 494

this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of 

this alternative if small entities choose to landfill 

rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed 

discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

The selection of a management option for sewage sludge is 

often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs,

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources,

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

 Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA’s 

proposed language requiring facilities to meet the proposed 

SSI standards “at all times” because it would be difficult 

to comply with certain proposed emission limits during 

startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters were 

specifically concerned about not being able to meet the 

Comment [E10]: OMB Again, 

EPA received comments 

on the affirmative 

defense provision that 

was proposed from at 

least NACWA, 

Earthjustice, and the 

SSM coalition. How are 

those comments being 

addressed? Those 

comments and EPA’s 

response should be 

included in this 

preamble. 

EPA Response: We are 

still working on the 

comment responses, 

which affect a number 

of rules. The 

responses will be in 

the RTC. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 131 of 494

proposed CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI 

because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold 

vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combustion is 

completed creating a small flow of CO. One commenter 

contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard 

without any evidence that it can be achieved during

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. This commenter provided 

an example of CO data from one hazardous waste combustor 

that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal operations but

averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during

shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters 

stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to increase 

during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combustion 

that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and noted that 

the influence of unstable combustion may be more pronounced 

during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining 

sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters 

recommended that EPA account for situations where higher 

emissions occur during the time it takes to bring control 

equipment from startup to steady-state operations. 

 Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a 

separate emission standard for the source category that 

applies during periods of startup and shutdown. We do not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 132 of 494

have data that would allow us to set a separate standard 

during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested 

information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. 

Based on the information available at this time, we believe 

that SSI units will be able to meet the emission limits 

during periods of startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to start 

the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill 

gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be 

lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions during 

periods of shutdown are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the materials in the 

incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown 

occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT 

floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on 

actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with 

an appropriate accounting of emissions variability. 

Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe 

we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may 

potentially occur during startup or shutdown. 

 Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 133 of 494

operations. However, by contrast, EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

were not needed to be factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at 

all times. We note that continuous compliance is 

demonstrated using continuous parametric monitoring, except 

for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are required for new 

source using a 24-hour block average. 

 Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly 

claims that its authority to prescribe unique standards for 

SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated that EPA 

has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur 

during SSM periods. One commenter contended that the 

Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA 

section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 

111), and pointed out that this interpretation is not 

merely a technical distinction. The commenter pointed out 

that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions during SSM 

events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111 

(referenced 40 CFR §60.8(c)). The commenter argued that 

Congress enacted the continuous basis language in section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 134 of 494

302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 

111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that there is 

nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amendments 

to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that 

practice. 

 Response: As explained above, EPA believes the 

reasoning in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA applies equally to section 129. Additionally, EPA 

explains above the reasons it is not establishing different 

emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the 

proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pressure 

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion 

temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) would not 

be achievable. They explained that these ranges are too 

narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the 

operating standards already required by 40 CFR 60 subpart 

O, 40 CFR 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed 

with the proposed operating parameter ranges. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 135 of 494

the commenters and determined that proposed procedure for 

establishing the operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the 

average of three test runs and as 90 percent of the minimum 

value recorded during the applicable performance tests) may 

be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of 

energy or other operating needs. We determined that the 

operating limits should be more appropriately based on 

values recorded during the performance test runs. The 

final rule requires that operating limits be established on 

a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, as 

appropriate) operating parameter value measured during the 

performance test. This approach has been incorporated into 

the final rule for all operating parameters and will result 

in achievable operating ranges that will ensure that the 

control devices used for compliance will be operated to 

achieve continuous compliance with the emissions limits. 

Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed 

operating range for sludge feed rate would not be 

achievable, that it results in the EPA changing the current 

state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and that it could 

force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum 

rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach 

fails to take into account the normal feed condition and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 136 of 494

rate variation that occur on a daily and seasonal basis. A 

few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent 

to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a steadier 

state of control and more efficient combustion of the 

sludge. 

Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating 

range for sludge moisture content would not be achievable 

and that EPA does not need sludge moisture content to 

determine whether SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. They explained that sludge moisture is 

very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, 

seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by an 

SSI, temperature changes, the biological systems that treat 

the sewage, and to operational changes, and that these 

changes cannot always be anticipated and are not always 

immediately correctable. 

Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to 

require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge within 

specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit 

for temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner 

temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion 

practice, and that moisture content is not needed to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 137 of 494

establish that SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture content, 

the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with their 

operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber. 

We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge 

moisture content within specified ranges. We are also no 

longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates 

within specified ranges due to the seasonal variability at 

wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate information 

is necessary during performance test runs to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that 

they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We 

are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of 

sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI units 

should already be keeping records of these parameters, and 

this information will be useful in establishing 

representative operating limitations for a SSI unit. 

EPA added a requirement that performance tests be 

conducted at 85 percent of the permitted maximum capacity. 

This level has been selected based on the performance test 

operating information provided by the commenters and 

previous EPA standards. 

Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 138 of 494

rolling averaging period selected in the proposed rule for 

determining compliance with the operating parameters and CO 

limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They 

explained that the recordkeeping and compliance burden is 

less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both 

based on a 24-hour block average. They also explained that 

the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis 

would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to 

achieve with FB incinerators. 

Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block 

averaging period for compliance with the CO CEMS 

requirement for new sources will provide a sufficient 

indication of compliance and will allow more flexibility 

for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission 

guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI 

units has changed in the final guidelines to 18 27 ppm, and 

this change is discussed in Section IV of this preamble. 

We have also revised the averaging periods for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, to be on a 

12-hour block average instead of a All other operating 

parameter limits remain on a 4-hour rolling average basis 

because this averaging period is necessary to determine 

continuous compliancein order to relate the averaging time 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 139 of 494

for operating limits to the duration of the performance 

tests (e.g., a three run test of 4 hour test runs would 

equal a 12-hour averaging time). For scrubber liquid pH, 

we chose 3-hour averages to be consistent with the 

performance test duration for acid gas scrubbers. 

In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the 

alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 129 

requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regulated 

pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be used in 

place of the regulated pollutants. 

Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the 

requirement in the proposed rule for annual testing, and 

argued that annual testing of each SSI is not needed to 

demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsistent with 

current Title V permits. They also argued that Method 22 

compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not 

feasible or difficult to conduct due to space constraints, 

and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash removal 

systems that do not require annual testing. They explained 

that the cost for emissions testing may be significantly 

higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They 

further explained that Title V permits require facilities 

to test each of its SSI units once per five years. They 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 140 of 494

pointed out that current management practices and strict 

health-based sludge content limits under the CWA section 

405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help ensure 

that SSI units are in compliance with their emission 

limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed 

compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will 

essentially shorten the testing year by one month each 

year. 

Response: The proposed standards included provisions 

for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has 

revised these provisions, making it easier for facilities 

to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less

frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that 

facilities that do less frequent testing are well below 

their emission limits. In the final standards, owners or 

operators are required to establish that emissions of a 

given pollutant are under a specified threshold for only 

two consecutive yearsone year, rather than three years as 

proposed, to qualify for less frequent testing for that 

pollutant. For less frequent testing of Cd and Pb, they 

must establish that both pollutants are under their

respective thresholds to qualify for less frequent testing. 

We have also extended the option to do less frequent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 141 of 494

testing to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. 

The threshold is 50 75 percent of the emission limit for 

each of the nine regulated pollutants. In order to allow a 

decrease in testing frequency, EPA must have assurance that 

SSI units can meet a more stringent threshold than the 

limits. This is particularly necessary because of the 

variability in sludge that may occur at wastewater 

treatment facilities. We have determined that units that 

meet a threshold of 50 percent of the emission limit have a 

high degree of assurance that the emission level will be 

continuously met using the continuous parametric monitoring 

requirements in the rule. Additionally, in the final 

standards we are also providing assurance that the SSI unit 

is being operated properly and emission limits are being 

met continuously by requiring stringent parametric 

monitoring requirements. Specifically, exceedances of the 

minimum or maximum values established during the 

performance tests are considered deviations. For fugitive 

emissions from ash handling, owners or operators must 

demonstrate that visible emissions occur no more than two 

percent of the time during each Method 22 1-hour 

observation period. This allowance for fugitive ash 

emissions has been included in the final standards with a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 142 of 494

new requirement that all facilities must submit a 

monitoring plan at least 60 days before their initial 

compliance test to establish that their ash handling system 

will continuously meet the visible emissions limit. 

Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility 

regarding their test dates, to ensure that facilities are 

not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months, and to 

ensure that facilities are testing once per year, we have 

revised the testing schedule provisions. In the final 

standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that 

qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a 

calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar months and 

no more than 15 calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and facilities must complete five 

performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that the 

definition of “process change” be revised to exclude the 

provision that a process change include an increase in the 

allowable wastewater received from an industrial source. 

They pointed out that any such increase would trigger a 

performance test, as required by the proposed standards, 

and that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 143 of 494

explained that industrial discharges often constitute only 

a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3.5 

percent, four to eight percent), that such discharges are 

sometimes from sources that do not discharge the pollutants 

regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food 

processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities 

regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from other 

regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it 

is difficult for impossible to anticipate some industrial 

load changes ahead of time. Several commenters argued that 

this proposed requirement would be redundant to the

National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, which are 

incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require them to 

establish local limits on industrial discharges to prevent 

interference with sludge processes, use, and disposal. The 

commenters anticipate that they would establish similar 

limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission 

limits. A few commenters suggested that the proposed 

provision for industrial discharges is vague and open to 

interpretation. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process 

change” and agrees with the commenters that there are some 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 144 of 494

situations where an increase in the allowable wastewater 

received from an industrial source should not trigger a 

performance test. We have revised the definition of 

“process change” to more specifically and clearly identify 

the type of process change that will trigger a performance 

test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” 

as pollutant-specific and as including only situations 

where the SSI has undergone a significant permit revision. 

This revision will ensure that facilities retest whenever 

they have a significant change in the process that could 

trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

 As discussed in sections IV and V of this preamble, we 

have made several revisions to the impacts analyses for the 

final rules. We have incorporated revisions to the 

variability calculation. These revisions include: 

incorporating weighted UPL’s for existing FB units,

selecting log-normal results when it is not clear that data 

are normally distributed, and revising CO limits based on 

an analysis of the span of the test. The result of these 

changes increased UPL values for most pollutants. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 145 of 494

Additionally, we have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. We have also revised the calculation of 

baseline emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI 

units where information was not available. These changes

resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for each of 

the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL and 

decreased baseline emissions resulted in less SSI units 

estimated to need additional control to meet the MACT floor 

limits. 

For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floor 

level of control for both subcategories instead of 

selecting a beyond-the-floor optionrequirement. 

For the final rules we have also revised the types of 

controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSIs 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSIs that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed-bed scrubbers for 

SSIs that we estimate will need further control of HCl or 

SO2. 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 

0.5"

Formatted: No underline
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 146 of 494

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits. As discussed in section V of this

preamble, we have revised the estimation of baseline 

emissions and emission reductions to present a range to 

show the variability in the emission calculations between 

estimated actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. 

Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The 

analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis 

of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI 

Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits 

Pollutant 

Range of Reductions Achieved 

Through Meeting MACT By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Reductions 

FB MH (TPY) 

Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 

CO 0 0 0 

HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 

Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 

NOx 6.8-16 0 6.8-16 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 147 of 494

Pollutant 

Range of Reductions Achieved 

Through Meeting MACT By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Reductions 

FB MH (TPY) 

Pb 0 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

0 

0 

0 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

0 

0 

0 

PM 0 58-70 58-70 

SO2 17-21 420-680 430-700 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, 

which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 234 million gallons per year of additional 

wastewater will be generated as a result of operating 

additional controls or increased sorbents. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 

Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the 

proposed emission limits consist primarily of additional 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 148 of 494

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. We 

anticipate that an additional 5,420 megawatt-hours per year 

will be required for the additional and improved control 

devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The combustion of fuel needed to generate

additional electricity will yield slight increases in 

emissions, including NOx, CO, PM and SO2 and an increase in 

CO2 emissions. Since NOx and SO2 are covered by capped 

emissions trading programs, and methodological limitations 

prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do 

not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for this 

rule from additional electricity demand. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 149 of 494

5. What are the cost and economic impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing

units to add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, 

inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to 

comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standards). 

Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $55 million with an associated total 

annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and using 

a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of 

this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will 

need to install one or more air pollution control devices 

for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission 

limits. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in 

the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 13. Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities 

Comply With Proposed Emission Limits (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory

Capital Cost 

($million)

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 10.1 3.1 

MH 45.0 14.7 

Total 55.0 17.8 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 150 of 494

Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At 

proposal, we evaluated landfilling as an alternative 

disposal method. We have revised our costs and impacts of 

this alternative based on comments received on the proposal 

and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of this 

preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this 

alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather 

than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of 

the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

However, the selection of a management option for sewage 

sludge is often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs,

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources,

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 151 of 494

Table 14. Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that 

Landfill in Lieu of Incineration (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 278 38 

MH 313 42.7 

Total 591 80.7 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units

As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI 

units constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB 

incinerators, and information provided by the industry on 

likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI units 

constructed are likely to be FB incinerators. 

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits on two new FB incinerators potentially 

being constructed in the next five years. Table 15 of this 

preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT 

compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 

Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SSI docket 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 152 of 494

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 15. Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., 

Fluidized Bed Incinerators) Constructed 

Pollutant Emission Reduction (TPY) 

Cd 0 

CDD/CDF, TEQ 0.0000000033 

CDD/CDF, TMB 0.000000051 

CO 0.26 

HCl 0 

Hg 0.0026 

NOx 14 

Pb 0.00053 

PM 0 

PM2.5 0 

SO2 0 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources would need to apply 

controls in addition to what they would have planned to 

include in the absence of this rule to meet the final 

emission limits. These controls may utilize water, such as 

wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate 

an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of 

additional wastewater will be generated as a result of 

operating additional controls or increased sorbents for the 

two new units expected to come on-line in the next five 

years. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 153 of 494

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Likewise, the application of PM controls results in

particulate collected that would require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be used by some 

sources, which would result in solid waste needing 

disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will 

require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY 

from activated carbon injection for the two units. 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the final 

emission limits would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our 

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 megawatthours per year will be required for the additional and 

improved control devices for the two new units modeled to 

come on-line in the next five years. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of Secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 154 of 494

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category 

Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 

5. What are the cost impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units 

coming on-line in the next five years. This analysis is 

based on a model plant, the assumption that two new units 

will come on-line and will add the necessary controls, 

monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI

standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an 

overall total capital investment of $8 million (2008$) with 

an associated total annualized cost of $2 million (2008$ 

and using a seven percent discount rate). This analysis 

assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB 

incinerators. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 155 of 494

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this 

action is a "significant regulatory action” because it was 

likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more based on the proposed standards. However, 

the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed 

standards we are simply updating the RIA rather than 

revising it. 

A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the 

proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on the 

lower costs associated with the selected alternative in 

this final action we are providing an update of the RIA 

Field Code Changed
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 156 of 494

rather than completely revising the RIA. Within this 

update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the 

options controls analyzed and have provided a comparison of 

the selected option controls with the alternatives.14 While 

the characteristics of the options controls analyzed have 

changed, we have also provided a comparison of the costs 

and benefits of the proposed option controls analyzed with 

the selected alternative in this final action. A summary 

of the differences are presented below. 

• Costs for the selected option controls analyzed for 

promulgation are 80% lower and benefits are 81% lower 

than they were for the selected option controls analyzed

for proposal. 

• Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a 

government provided service that does not involve a

market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts were 

estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impact 

analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to 

total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% 

lower for the selected option controls analyzed for 

promulgation compared to the proposed optioncontrols

analyzed, the control costs are expected to be a smaller 

portion of government revenues for the selected option 

controls for promulgation than they were for the 

proposed optioncontrols. 

 

14 In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred to as Option 1 (MACT 

floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and 

Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated carbon injection 

and fabric filter for MH units).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 157 of 494

• Because of insufficient information, employment changes 

due to the requirements for operating and maintaining 

control equipment were not estimated. Also, we did not 

have the information needed to estimate any labor 

changes related to governmental decisions to switch from 

incineration to landfilling. 

• Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the 

selected option by $3 million to $34 million at three 

percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven percent. 

The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NOx and SO2, ecosystem effects, and 

visibility impairment have not been monetized, including 

reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of 

Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd. 

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and 

EG (millions of $2008) 

Option 1 : MACT Floor 

(Selected) 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

Costs $18 to $18 $18 to $18 

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

Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

NSPS and EG 

Total Monetized Benefits for 

Final Options Controls 

Analyzed (millions of 2008$)

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

Option 1: MACT Floor 

(Selected) 

$21 to $52 $19 to $47 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 158 of 494

Option 2: MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for MH unitsBeyond 

the Floor

$20 to $50 $18 to $45 

Option 3: Beyond the FloorMACT 

Floor + Afterburner +and

Activated carbon injection 

+and fabric filter for MH 

units

$55 to $140 $50 to $130

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

MACT Floor (millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

Selected Options Controls

Analyzed (millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG 

Total Costs for Final Options 

Controls Analyzed (millions of 

2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

MACT Floor (Selected)Option 1: 

MACT Floor (Selected)

$18 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 159 of 494

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH unitsOption 2: Beyond the 

Floor

$46 

MACT Floor + Afterburner + and

aActivated carbon injection + 

fabric filter for MH 

unitsOption 3: Beyond the 

Floor

$138 

Costs Changes for MACT Floor 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$63 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -71% 

Cost Changes for Selected 

Options Controls Analyzed

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$92 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -80% 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

information collection requirements are not enforceable 

until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 160 of 494

have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, 

and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. 

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

rule are based on the information collection requirements 

in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provisions (40 

CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory 

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

information other than emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The requirements in this action result in industry 

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review 

of the amendments for all SSI and initial and annual 

compliance with the emission limits using EPA approved 

emissions test methods. The burden also includes 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. Operators are required to obtain 

qualification and complete annual training. New units are 

also required to submit a report prior to construction, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 161 of 494

including a siting analysis. 

The annual average burden associated with the emission 

guidelines over the first 3 years following promulgation is 

estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours 

at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and total 

annualized capital/startup and operation and maintenance 

costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the

monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and 

photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. 

The annual inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor costs 

The annual average burden associated with the NSPS 

over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated 

to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost of 

$40,000. The total annualized capital/startup costs are 

estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumulative 

annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 162 of 494

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in this final. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action 

on small entities, a small entity is defined as follows: 

1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; or 

3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

In the proposal, we certified that there would not be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 163 of 494

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The economic analysis conducted at

proposal identified 18 small entities none of which had 

cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost 

analysis for the final standards showed a significant 

decrease (35 to 98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 

small entities and the same decrease in annualized costs 

for the remaining small entities while their estimated 

capital costs stayed at the same level as those estimated 

at proposal. Therefore, given the decrease in costs from 

the proposed rule, we consider the final rule to have no 

significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. 

After considering the economic impacts of this final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, this is not 

considered to be a significant impact. 

Although the final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule 

on small entities by allowing optional CEMS instead of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 164 of 494

requiring them, allowing information from tests conducted 

in recent years to show compliance rather than require all 

new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued 

compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, this final rule is 

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the 

UMRA a written statement that is summarized in section 

VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, October 14, 

2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found 

in the docket. 

At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the 

estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA 

prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of costs and 

benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. Based on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 165 of 494

estimated compliance costs associated with the final rule 

and the predicted change in prices and production in the 

affected industries, the estimated social costs of the 

final rule are $55 million ($). 

At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities 

expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consistent 

with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 

section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are discussed 

in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260). 

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Because this final rule’s requirements 

apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by

governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private 

entities, there would be no requirements that uniquely 

apply to such government or impose any disproportionate 

impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 166 of 494

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an 

action that has federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 

incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults 

with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated expenditures of 

greater than $100 million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA 

consulted with elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national organizations, 

when developing regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state and local 

governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local government officials, 

as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 

FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on 

the action. The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 167 of 494

proposed standards and EG for SSI units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have 

federalism implications, as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’s 

direct compliance costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or 

operated by an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, 

Executive Order 13175 did not appear to have implications. 

However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outreach and 

discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts. 

EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and 

specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed 

action from tribal contacts in the proposal period via the 

NTAA conference calls. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 168 of 494

EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; 

those comments can be reviewed in the public docket, 

document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559-0130.1. Commenters 

expressed that SSI units located in proximity to Indian 

country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger 

tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from 

the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA 

failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the 

standards and have failed to fully assess the potential 

impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly, 

commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that 

accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can 

acquire a better understanding on how they might be

affected by such sites and these standards in general. 

EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to 

discuss the rule development process, first to provide 

general information on the development of the SSI standards 

and second providing more specific background information 

on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locations of 

units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying 

questions and requested information if any NTAA members 

were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge 

in Indian Country. EPA will provide a map overlay for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 169 of 494

SSI docket so that tribes can acquire a better 

understanding on how they might be affected by SSI sites 

and the standards in general. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This final action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 

solely on technology performance. We note however, that 

reductions in air emissions by these facilities will 

improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Orders 12866

and 13563. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 170 of 494

104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Service 

Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted 

VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 

decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses," for its manual methods of measuring the 

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These 

parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to 

EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the 

ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 171 of 494

Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), 

"Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, ParticleBound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)" is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also decided to 

use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, l0A, l0B, 22, 23, 

26A, 29 and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 

22. 

During the search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference 

method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it 

as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards 

were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires significant method

validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA 

reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

The search identified other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 172 of 494

After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined 

that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 

(2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC¬38-1980 (1985), ASTM 

D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981, IS0 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM 

D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 

(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 

(2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/CSA 

Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 

1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA 

Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final rule and any 

amendments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 173 of 494

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs, policies and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection 

for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on any population, including any 

minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the 

Agency has reviewed this final rule to determine if there 

was existing disproportionately high and adverse human 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 174 of 494

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An 

analysis of demographic data showed that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus 

most likely to be effected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national averages. The results 

of the demographic analysis are presented in “Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy of which 

is available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, EPA used census data at 

the block group level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near affected sources, 

such that they have notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the 

distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the 

locations of the expected emission reductions from this 

rule. The review identified those census block groups 

within a circular distance of a half, three, and five miles 

of affected sources and determined the demographic and 

socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income, education, 

etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of three 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 175 of 494

miles (or approximately five kilometers) has been used in 

other demographic analyses focused on areas around 

potential sources.15,16,17,18 EPA’s demographic analysis 

has shown that these areas in aggregate have similar 

proportions of American Indians, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, Whites, and “Other and Multi-racial” 

populations, and similar proportions of families with 

incomes below the poverty level as the national average.19

This final action establishes national emission 

standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 204 such units 

 

15 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities.

Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995.

16 Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research.” 

Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399.

17 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to 

Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and 

Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis.” Social Science 

Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297.

18 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic 

Waste and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of 

Christ. March, 2007. 

19 The results of the demographic analysis are presented 

in “Review of Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a 

copy of which is available in the docket. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 176 of 494

covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions 

of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This 

includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. Adverse health 

effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of 

the lungs, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central 

nervous system and damage to the kidneys and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NOx, PM and 

PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NOx are precursors for 

the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions 

will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health 

effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and 

acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. For additional information, 

please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. EPA defines “Environmental Justice” in the 

August 9, 2001 Memorandum entitled, “EPA’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice,” to mean the fair treatment of 

people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to 

the development, implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws and policies, and their meaningful 

involvement in the decisionmaking process of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 177 of 494

governmentinclude meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To 

promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a

communication and outreach strategy to ensure that 

interested communities have access to this final rule, are 

aware of its content and have an opportunity to comment 

during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA 

publicized the rulemaking via environmental newsletters, 

tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and 

the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will 

also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is 

this important for my community) for environmental justice 

community groups and conduct conference calls with 

interested communities. In addition, state and federal 

permitting requirements will provide state and local 

governments and members of affected communities the

opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions 

associated with permitting the sources affected by this 

rulemaking. 

J. Congressional Review Act
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 178 of 494

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

states. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

_______________________ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 179 of 494

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 494 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to

read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

2. Section 60.17 is amended as follows. 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93). 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

c. Adding paragraph (o). 

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved April 1, 2008, IBR 

approved for §§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 

to subpart CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 181 of 494

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4), §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), §60.106(e)(2), 

§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), 

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), §60.105a(d)(4), 

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

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

(a)(3)(v), and §60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§§60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii), 60.4900(b)(4) and 

(viii), 60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii), 60.5220(b)(4)

and (viii), 60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart

LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * 

(o) The following material is available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 182 of 494

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 272-0167, 

http://www.epa.gov. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997, IBR approved for 

§§60.2145(r)(2), §60.2710(r)(2), §60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

§60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B). 

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and 

MMMM to read as follows: 

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit? 

60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart? 

60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 

60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured? 

60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 183 of 494

performance standards apply at the same time? 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis? 

60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

Operator Training and Qualification 

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of

60.4835(a)? 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits? 

60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 184 of 494

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 185 of 494

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.4910 What records must I keep? 

60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

Title V Operating Permits 

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit? 

Definitions 

60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.4760 What does this subpart do?

This subpart establishes new source performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 186 of 494

standards for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To 

the extent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent 

with the requirements of subpart A of this part, the 

requirements of this subpart will apply. 

§60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Some of the requirements in this subpart apply to planning 

an SSI unit and must be completed even before construction 

is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e., the preconstruction 

requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). Other requirements 

such as the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

§60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit?

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets 

all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for which 

construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 187 of 494

(b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as defined in 

§60.4930. 

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under §60.4780. 

§60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?

(a) A new SSI unit is an SSI unit that meets either 

of the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010.

(2) Commenced modification after [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER]. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI 

unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM 

of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not qualify 

as a modification under this subpart. 

§60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 188 of 494

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

§60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by 

the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If 

the Administrator has delegated authority to your state, 

local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the 

Administrator) has the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal 

agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in 

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

(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and

operating limits established under §60.4850. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 189 of 494

(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(5) The requirements in §60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in §60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 and 

§60.4805. 

§60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured?

These new source performance standards contain the 

nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) 

of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 190 of 494

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 

performance standards apply at the same time?

No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence construction of the SSI 

unit. The operator training and qualification, emission 

limits, emission standards, operating limits, performance 

testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to 

commence construction of an SSI unit after October 14, 

2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are 

required to submit an initial application for a 

construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the modification of your 

SSI unit. 

§60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 191 of 494

(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution 

control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific 

basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks 

to public health or the environment, including impacts of 

the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visibility, 

soils, and vegetation. In considering such alternatives, 

the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair 

environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s impacts that are 

prepared to comply with state, local, or other federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to satisfy the 

requirements of this section, provided they include the 

consideration of air pollution control alternatives

specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the siting 

requirements of this section as required under 

§60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 192 of 494

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4835. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 193 of 494

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.4815 When must the operator training course be

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 

(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 194 of 494

(b) The date before an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2). 

§60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 195 of 494

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the two 

methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section. 

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.4825. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.4820(a). 

§60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 196 of 494

review of the information specified in §60.4840 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.4915(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 197 of 494

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of

§60.4835(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the

information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 198 of 494

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee’s 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

§60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating, and during 

periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards 

apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage 

sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 199 of 494

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, reestablished in §60.4890. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.4890(a)(2)(i). 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

an emission limit, you must meet the site-specific 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 200 of 494

operating limits that you establish in §60.4870 for each 

operating parameter associated with each air pollution 

control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag 

leak detection system such that the alarm does not sound 

more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month 

period. You must calculate the alarm time as specified in 

§60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.4880(d) to ensure that your ash

handling system will meet the emission standard for

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed 

rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its 

initial startup, whichever comes first. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 201 of 494

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and

requirements, reestablished according to §60.4890(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.4855. 

§60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 202 of 494

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions in some 

other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requirements 

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

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.4870. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 203 of 494

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters,

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 204 of 494

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.4845, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 205 of 494

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices. 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that

could have been foreseen and avoided, or taken into 

accountplanned for. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible

when the applicable emission limitations were being
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 206 of 494

exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs. 

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions. 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe personal 

injury, or severe property damage. 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health. 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices. 

(7) All of Yourthe actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs. 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared

Formatted: No underline, Do not

check spelling or grammar, Not

Highlight
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 207 of 494

You have prepared a written root cause analysis the purpose 

of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The

analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods 

and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions 

that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the If 

your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its emission 

limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if you 

wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to assert an 

affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report 

to the Administrator within 3045 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in §60.4845 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that you have met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

Formatted: No underline, Do not

check spelling or grammar, Not

Highlight
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 208 of 494

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance.

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission

limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and

fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option 

to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 209 of 494

requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as 

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

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). Except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate, or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that your SSI 

unit meets the emission limits and standards specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from 

ash handling using the performance test. The initial 

performance test must be conducted using the test methods, 

averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or 

durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and 

according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §60.4900(a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 210 of 494

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system specified in §60.4900(b). 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 

substitute the use of a continuous monitoring system in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 211 of 494

lieu of conducting the initial performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, 

you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 212 of 494

appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 213 of 494

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems according to the provisions of 

§60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be conducted 

using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 

§60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, you must determine dioxins/furans 

toxic equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section, mMultiply the isomer concentration

of each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octa-chlorinated) 

isomer by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

paragraph (c)(2) of this section to obtain the total 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 214 of 494

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must sSubmit an initial compliance report, as 

specified in §60.4915(c). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using athe

performance test as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.4855, as applicable, during 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 215 of 494

your initial performance tests required in §60.4865. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.4890(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or reestablish new operating limits using 

the most recent performance tests required in §60.4885. 

You must follow the data measurement and recording 

frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 3 

to this subpart or as established in §60.4855, and you must 

follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §§60.4900 and 60.4905 or 

established in §60.4855. You are not required to establish 

operating limits for the operating parameters listed in 

Table 3 to this subpart for a control device if you use a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for the 

applicable pollutants, as follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride andor sulfur dioxide, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

pressure drop across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow 

rate, and or scrubber liquid pH if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 216 of 494

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber, or scrubber liquid flow rate, and 

scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, orand lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates,

secondary amperage of the collection plates, orand effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, orand lead. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor mercury sorbent 

injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas 

pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 217 of 494

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow 

rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the 

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic

equivalency basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hourly average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber recordedmeasured during three most recent 

performance test run periodsdemonstrating compliance with 

the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission 

limitations. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-

hourly average liquid flow rate recordedmeasured during 

three most recent performance test run 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 218 of 494

periodsdemonstrating compliance with all applicable 

emission limitations. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 1-hourly average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the three most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limitations run periods at the inlet to each 

applicable wet scrubber. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hourly average combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or afterburner temperature) recordedmeasured during three 

most recent performance test run periodsdemonstrating 

compliance with all applicable emission limitations. 

(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-

hourly average power input recordedmeasured during three 

most recent performance test run periodsdemonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limitations. Power input must be calculated as 

the product of the secondary voltage and secondary amperage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 219 of 494

to the electrostatic precipitatorcollection plates. B, 

both the secondary voltage and secondary amperage must be

recorded during three performance test run periods. 

(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-

hourly average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator recordedmeasured during 

three most recent performance test run periodsdemonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limitations. 

(h) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hourly average mercury sorbent injection rate 

recordedmeasured during three most recent performance test 

run periodsdemonstrating compliance with the mercury 

emission limitation. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hourly average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate recordedmeasured during three most recent 

performance test run periodsdemonstrating compliance with 

the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 220 of 494

basis) emission limitation. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest 4-hourly average carrier gas flow rate 

recordedmeasured during three most recent performance test 

run periodsdemonstrating compliance with the applicable 

emission limitation. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest 4-hourly average carrier gas flow rate 

recordedmeasured during three most recent performance test 

run periodsdemonstrating compliance with the applicable 

emission limitation. 

(i) You must confirm your operating limits or 

reestablish new operating limits according to §60.4890(d).

§60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of 

installing an air pollution control device or within 180 

days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollution 

control device, whichever comes first. 

Comment [E11]: This is 

stated in (a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 221 of 494

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 222 of 494

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan.

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 223 of 494

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria willmust

include, but is not be limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not be limited to the following:, the 

associated performance specifications and quality assurance 

procedures.

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 224 of 494

this section.

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate.

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances.

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of this 

section.

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure

(e.g., PM scrubber pressure drop).

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 225 of 494

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less.

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily).

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually.

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new

pressure sensor.

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 226 of 494

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan

at least once each process operating day.

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a twopoint calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating limit) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

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

section.

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature.

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 227 of 494

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.

 (4) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

performance evaluation at the time of each performance test 

but no less frequently than annually.

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(E)(1) through (2) of this section.

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage

and current to the precipitator collection plates.

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually.

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(F)(1) through (2) of this section.

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 228 of 494

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate.

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually.

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13.

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous emissions monitoring system is out 

of control if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or 

(a)(7)(i)(B) of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 229 of 494

(B) The continuous emissions 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 emissions monitoring system 

is out of control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of 

this section, you must take the necessary corrective action 

and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems in accordance with your site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 230 of 494

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system. in 

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(A) and (B).

(A) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.

(B) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less.

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level 

is detected. The alarm must be located where it is

observed readily and alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel.

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 231 of 494

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided

in EPA–454/R–98–015 (incorporated by reference, see

§60.17).

(34) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(45) Maintenance ofHow the bag leak detection system

will be maintained, including a routine maintenance 

schedule and spare parts inventory list. 

(65) Recordkeeping (including record retention) ofHow

the bag leak detection system dataoutput will be recorded 

and stored. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a device to continuously record the output signal from the 

sensor.

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan, according to and §60.13(c). For the 

purposes of this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also 

apply to the bag leak detection system. You must conduct 

the initial performance evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the 

monitoring system.

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 232 of 494

ash handling system operating procedures for your ash 

handling system that you will follow to ensure that that 

your meet the fugitive emissions limit specified in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 233 of 494

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 234 of 494

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 235 of 494

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow 

the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have 

the option to demonstrate continuous compliance using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 236 of 494

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You 

must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section, according to the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and 

(b). You may also petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed, you 

must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on 

a calendar yearand annual basis (no less than 9 calendar 

months and no more than 15 calendar between 11 and 13 

calendar months following the previous performance test); 

and you must complete 5 performance tests for each such 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. The performance 

test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 237 of 494

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §60.4900(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60

days of a process change, as defined in §60.4930. 

(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test 

for any pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart except 

carbon monoxide demonstrates that the emission level for 

the pollutant is no greater than the emission level

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

section, as applicable, and you are not required to conduct 

a performance test for the pollutant in response to a 

request by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section or a process change in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, you may elect to skip conducting a performance 

test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You must 

conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the 

third year and no more than 36 months following the

previous performance test for the pollutant. For cadmium 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 238 of 494

and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted at emission 

levels no greater than their respective emission levels 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to 

qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, the emission level equal to 50 percent of the 

applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of

combustion ash from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent 

of the time during each of the 3three 1-hour observation 

periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant

indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emission 

level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of 

this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual 

performance tests for the pollutant according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until 

you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollutant as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 239 of 494

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system specified 

in §60.4900(b). 

(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 240 of 494

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

emission limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements specified in 

§60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to 

§60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission

concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 241 of 494

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 242 of 494

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 243 of 494

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation 

report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 244 of 494

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.4880 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.4880(e). 

§60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits?

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

requirements in §60.4905. You must confirm and reestablish 

your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 or 

established in §60.4855. You must use the averaging period 

established in Table 3 of this SubpartFour-hour rolling 

average values are used to determine compliance (except for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 245 of 494

alarm time of the baghouse leak detection system) unless a 

different averaging period is established under §60.4855. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.4855 and 

60.4870 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 246 of 494

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.4850(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during anythe most recent performance test 

conducted to comply with this subpart or anythe most recent
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 247 of 494

performance evaluation required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.4900(c), within 10 tono later than

12 months following the previous annual air pollution 

control device inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 248 of 494

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 249 of 494

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging methods specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 250 of 494

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the

Administrator’s satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 251 of 494

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 252 of 494

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator’s 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 253 of 494

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before starting use of the continuous monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before stopping use of the continuous monitoring system, in 

which case you must also conduct a performance test prior 

to ceasing operation of the system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 254 of 494

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with the modifications shown in 

Tables 1 and 2.

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems,

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 255 of 494

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

Comment [E12]: Robin S. 

Delete; don’t need Proc 

1 for mercury. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 256 of 494

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs of the 

monitoring system and resume operation of your monitoring 

system as expeditiously as possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph 

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

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous 

emissions monitoring systemss and the test methods 

specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of 

this section. Relative accuracy testing must be at

representative operating conditions while the SSI unit is 

charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 257 of 494

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used., or as an 

aAlternatively for mercury, Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and 

Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)(incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), mayshall be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17) must be used. For sources that have actual inlet 

emissions less than 100 parts per million dry volume, the 

relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide 

continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data 

in terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts 

per million dry volume absolute value of the mean 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 258 of 494

difference between the method and the continuous emissions 

monitoring system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments 

and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 259 of 494

— Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and 

Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used to determine the oxygen 

concentration at the same location as the carbon dioxide 

monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions defined in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect 

data using the continuous monitoring system constitute a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 260 of 494

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 261 of 494

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation, if applicable. 

(2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, 

sorbent feed systems, and any other monitoring equipment.

(32) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(34) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

Comment [E13]: Robin S. - 

Wondering why the 

sorbent trap-based 

mercury monitoring 

system of Performance 

Specification 12B 

coupled with Procedure 

5 is not offered as a 

option here. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 262 of 494

according to the requirements in §60.4880. This 

requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under 

§60.13(i). Ensure that the air pollution control device 

meets manufacturer recommendations.

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any 

time that sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is 

an emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The use of the bypass 

stack during a performance test invalidates the performance 

test. 

§60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

measuring flow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section: 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 263 of 494

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions defined in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect 

data using the continuous monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in your annual deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 264 of 494

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all 

recorded readings, except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section.

(vii) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

(2) Meet the following requirements for each type of 

measurement device:Operate and maintain your continuous 

monitoring system according to your monitoring plan

required under §60.4880. Additionally:

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 265 of 494

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy.

(i) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the

following requirements:

(A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow.

(B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of 2 percent of the flow rate.

(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.

(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semi-annually.

(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 266 of 494

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.

(ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements:

(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure.

(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion.

(C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(D) Ensure continuous acceptable operation (e.g., 

check pressure tap for pluggage).

(E) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly.

(F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor

exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor.

(G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 267 of 494

(iii) If you have an operating limit that requires

the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements:

(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.

(B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured.

(C) Check the pH meter’s calibration at least two 

points every 8 hours of process operationdaily.

(iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements:

(A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

temperature.

(B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range.

(C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.

Comment [ERG/TDP14]: Verif

y. Based on guidance 

from Amy Hambrick 

received 2/2/11. 

Comment [ERG/TDP15]: Per 

guidance from Amy 

Hambrick r’cvd 2/2/11. 

Comment [ERG/TDP16]: See 

above. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 268 of 494

(D) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

calibration check at least every 3 months.

(b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak detection 

system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of 

this section.

(1) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use secondary voltage and secondary amperage 

monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator.

(2) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent 

injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the following 

requirements:

(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate.

(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer’s procedures and specifications.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 269 of 494

(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s procedures and 

specifications.

(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

requirements of this subpart, you must:

(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your

bag leak detection system as follows:

(A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.

(B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer’s written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance

provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, 

see §60.17).

(C) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less.

(D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 270 of 494

(E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor.

(F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must be located such 

that the alert is detected and recognized easily by an 

operatorwhere it is easily heard by plant operating 

personnel.

(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally:

(Gi) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(Hii) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 271 of 494

(iii) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process producing the PM 

emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

(d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 272 of 494

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.4910 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result 

of the siting requirements of §§60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 273 of 494

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the

provisions of §60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 274 of 494

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.4840(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.4810, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including any required 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 275 of 494

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs, as specified in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that

the performance test was conducted under conditions

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 276 of 494

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid 

flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with the 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and liquid flow rate 

and scrubber liquid pH as introduced tofor each wet 

scrubber used to comply with an emission limit in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen

chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage and secondary 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 277 of 494

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, or amperage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas 

flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.4850(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.4890. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.4855, you must

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 278 of 494

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.4900(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.4915(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibrations, and validations checks of any monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 279 of 494

devices as required under §§60.4900 and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.4880, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to 

document that your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent 

testing under §60.4885(a)(3). 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.4905(d). 

§60.4915 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs

(a) through (j) of this section. See Table 5 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a 

notification prior to commencing construction that includes 

the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 

of this section: 

(1) A statement of intent to construct. 

(2) The anticipated date of commencement of 

construction. 

(3) All documentation produced as a result of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 280 of 494

siting requirements of §60.4805. 

(4) Anticipated date of initial startup. 

(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit 

the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: 

(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity. 

(2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry sludge 

feed rate. 

(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits specified in §60.4855. 

(4) The anticipated date of initial startup. 

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash

handling system required under §60.4880, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 281 of 494

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.4875, including a

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 282 of 494

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(15) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.4920.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 283 of 494

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest

average parameter value and lowest average parameter value

recorded 3-hour average and the lowest recorded 3-hour 

average during the reporting period, as applicable. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.4910(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

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

did not conduct a performance test during the reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 284 of 494

period, you must include the dates of the last three 

performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you 

achieved in the last three performance tests to the 50 

percent emission limit threshold specified in 

§60.4885(a)(3)(i), and a statement as to whether there have 

been any process changes and whether the process change 

resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI 

unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but 

less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring system was out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 285 of 494

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(e) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling operatingaverage 

parameter level is above the maximum operating limit or 

below the minimum operating limit established under this 

subpart, based upon the averaging time specified in Table 3 

of this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 286 of 494

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated

from any emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items

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

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 287 of 494

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring

data during each deviation and any test report that

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 288 of 494

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 289 of 494

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items: 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI 

during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 290 of 494

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standard. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(f) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

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

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 291 of 494

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within 5 days of meeting 

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

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 292 of 494

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit.

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

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

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 293 of 494

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

previously made in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(i) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database.

After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date 

of completing each performance evaluation or performance 

test conducted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, 

you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 294 of 494

performance test data to EPA by successfully submitting the 

data electronically into EPA’s Central Data Exchange by 

using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/).

(j) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semi-annual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit 

unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption 

specified in §60.4780. 

§60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit?

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a 

complete title V permit application must be submitted on or 

before one of the dates specified in paragraph (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean 

Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 295 of 494

(1) For an SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

SSI unit as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title V permit 

application must be submitted not later than [INSERT THE 

DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operation 

as a new SSI unit until after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title 

V permit application must be submitted not later than 12 

months after the date the unit commences operation as a new 

source. 

(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

subject to title V as a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than this subpart (for example, a unit 

subject to this subpart may be a major source or part of a 

major source), then your unit may be required to apply for 

a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one 

requirement triggers a source’s obligation to apply for a 

title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V 

permit application is triggered by the requirement that 

first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 296 of 494

section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and 

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

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

(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Definitions 

§60.4930 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 297 of 494

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 298 of 494

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 299 of 494

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 300 of 494

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control or 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner (e.g., to provide valid 

data for monitoring systems). Failures that are caused, in 

part, by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 

malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the operator 

shall operate within established emissions and operating 

limits and shall continue monitoring of all applicable 

operating parameters until sewage sludge is no longer in 

the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed 

to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not 

less than the sewage sludge incineration residence time) or 

until the malfunction ceases, whichever comes first. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that meets one of 

two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 301 of 494

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means 

an existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as 

defined in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

New sewage sludge incineration unit means an SSI unit 

the construction of which is commenced after October 14, 

2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a modified 

solid waste incineration unit. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 302 of 494

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 303 of 494

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 304 of 494

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 4 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 305 of 494

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an SSI unit that 

meets the criteria in §60.4770. 

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Particulate 

matter 

9.6 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

13 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 306 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.24 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 200 

liters per run. 

For Method 26A, 

(cCollect a 

minimum volume of 

13 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Comment [E17]: Robin S. - 

- Have deleted Method 

26 as it won’t perform 

that well at these low 

levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 307 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

18 27 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system.

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a RA of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of 

Procedure 1, +/-

15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 308 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.013 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter (total 

mass basis); or

0.0044 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Comment [E18]: Robin s. - 

- This limit is less 

than the MDL of the 

method for TEQ. By our 

estimate, one would 

have to sample for over 

12 hours to get 

adequate sample to 

definitely should 

compliance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 309 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.0010 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-02

(Reapproved 

2008)c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect 

a minimum volume 

of 3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02

(Reapproved 

2008)c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

30 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 310 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 5.3 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 6, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 1200 

liters per run. 

For Method 6C, 

collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC

19.10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus]

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17)).

c

Cadmium 0.0011 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Lead 0.00062 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 311 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)Incorporated by reference, see §60.17.

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 312 of 494

Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Particulate 

matter 

60 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

0.753 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 2060 

liters per run. 

For Method 26A, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 0.753

dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 313 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

52 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a RA of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of 

Procedure 1, +/-

15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 314 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.045 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter (total 

mass basis); or

0.0022 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Comment [E19]: Robin SThis limit is less than 

the MDL of the method 

for TEQ. By our 

estimate, one would 

have to sample for over 

24 hours to get 

adequate sample to 

definitely should 

compliance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 315 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.15 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-02

(Reapproved 

2008)c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect 

a minimum volume 

of 3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02

(Reapproved 

2008)c, 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

210 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 316 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 6, 

collect a minimum 

volume of 200 

liters per run. 

For Method 6C, 

collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC

19.10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus]

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17)).

c

Cadmium 0.0024 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Lead 0.0035 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 

Use GFAAS or 

ICP/MS for the 

analytical 

finish.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 317 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)Incorporated by reference, see §60.17.

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 318 of 494

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

412-hour 

rollingblock.

c

Fugitive 

emissions 

from ash 

handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not applicable

Scrubber

Pressure drop 

across each 

wet scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

412-hour 

rollingblock.

c

Scrubber 

liquid flow 

rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

412-hour 

rollingblock.c

Scrubber 

liquid pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

43-hour 

rollingblock.c

Fabric Filter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 319 of 494

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Alarm time of 

the bag leak 

detection 

system alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system

alarm (this operating limit is provided in §60.4850

and is not established on a site-specific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 320 of 494

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary 

voltage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Secondary 

amperage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent water 

flow rate at 

the outlet of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Activated carbon injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 321 of 494

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection rate

Carrier gas 

flow rate or 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

aAs specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate 

compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.

cCalculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating 

hours.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 322 of 494

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 323 of 494

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

Notification of 

construction 

Prior to 

commencing 

construction 

1. Statement of 

intent to 

construct 

2. Anticipated 

date of 

commencement of 

construction 

3. Documentation 

for siting 

requirements 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(a) 

Notification of 

initial startup 

Prior to initial 

startup 

1. Maximum design 

dry sewage 

sludge burning 

capacity 

2. Anticipated and 

permitted 

maximum feed 

rate 

§60.4915(b) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 324 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

3. If applicable, 

the petition 

for sitespecific 

operating 

limits 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

5. Site-specific 

monitoring plan

6. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

3. Date of report 

4. Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

5. Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

6. The values for 

§60.4915(c) Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 325 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods, as 

applicable, 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

7. Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

8. Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

Annual 

compliance 

report 

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

3. Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

4. If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

§§60.4915(d) Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 326 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

5. For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

6. If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7. If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms 

8. If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 327 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

associated 

calculations 

9. If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.4885(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs 

12. If there 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 328 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions 

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control 

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The calendar 

dates and times 

§60.4915(e) Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 329 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(1)) 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits 

4. The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

5. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

6. Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents 

7. A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels 

8. For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(3)(

viii) 

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 330 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

3. The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI 

4. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits 

5. The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

6. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

7. A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards 

8. A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken 

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation 

2. Description of 

§60.4915(f) 

Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 331 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more) 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available 

3. The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible 

2. The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

3. Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.4835(b)(2)(i

) 

Within 5 days of 

obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event 

§60.4915(g) 

Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers

Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers

Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 332 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

following the 

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

2. Rationale for 

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure 

3. Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

4. Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test 

Notification of 1 month before 1. Intent to start 

or stop use of §60.4915(h) 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0",

Hanging: 0.21", Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25",

Adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 333 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

a CMS 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

Notification of 

intent to

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 

Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states? 

60.5015 What must I include in my state plan? 

60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan? 

60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable? 

60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0",

Hanging: 0.21", Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25",

Adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0",

Hanging: 0.21", Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25",

Adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 334 of 494

declaration letter? 

60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan? 

60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations? 

60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies? 

60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state? 

Applicability of State Plans 

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan? 

60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan? 

Use of Model Rule 

60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 

60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan? 

60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule? 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of 

progress and achieving final compliance? 

60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress? 

60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 335 of 494

60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

submittal of a control plan? 

60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

achieving final compliance? 

60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it? 

60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it? 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)? 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and

Operating Limits and Requirements 

60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 336 of 494

with the emission limits? 

60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 337 of 494

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.5230 What records must I keep? 

60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit? 

Model Rule—Definitions 

60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

TABLES 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic

Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 338 of 494

Introduction 

§60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes emission guidelines and 

compliance schedules for the control of emissions from 

sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollutants 

addressed by these emission guidelines are listed in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are 

developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent 

any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, the requirements of 

this subpart will apply. 

§60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality

program in a state or United States protectorate with one 

or more SSI units that commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010, you must submit a state plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSERT 

THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 339 of 494

§60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?

No. You are not required to submit a state plan if

there are no SSI units for which construction commenced on 

or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you submit a 

negative declaration letter in place of the state plan. 

§60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?

(a) You must include the nine items described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section in your 

state plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those 

that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in 

your state. 

(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit. 

(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator 

training and qualification requirements, and operating 

limits for affected SSI units that are at least as 

protective as the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan 

was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 340 of 494

affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or written submission. 

(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms

that you selected for implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your state’s legal authority to 

carry out the sections 111(d) and 129 state plan. 

(b) Your state plan may deviate from the format and 

content of the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. However, if your state plan does deviate in 

content, you must demonstrate that your state plan is at 

least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory 

applicability, increments of progress for retrofit,

operator training and qualification, emission limits and 

standards, performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of 

this part (Adoption and Submittal of state plans for 

Designated Facilities) in your state plan. 

§60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?

Yes. The EPA will review your state plan according to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 341 of 494

§60.27. 

§60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?

If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a

negative declaration letter) by [INSERT THE DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA 

will develop a federal plan according to §60.27 to 

implement the emission guidelines contained in this

subpart. Owners and operators of SSI units not covered by 

an approved state plan must comply with the federal plan. 

The federal plan is an interim action and will be 

automatically withdrawn when your state plan is approved. 

§60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter?

No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative 

declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter 

has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public 

docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register. If, 

at a later date, an SSI unit for which construction

commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your 

state, the federal plan implementing the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart would automatically 

apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is approved. 

§60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 342 of 494

state plan?

(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or 

before October 14, 2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require SSI units to achieve 

final compliance as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later than the earlier 

of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) Three years after the effective date of state 

plan approval. 

(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 

year following the effective date of state plan approval, 

state plans must include dates for enforceable increments 

of progress as specified in §60.5090. 

§60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B?

Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for 

developing and processing section 111(d) state plans. This 

subpart applies instead of the requirements in subpart B of 

this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 343 of 494

section: 

(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

must be as protective as the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to 

comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This applies 

instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

are required to include two increments of progress for the 

affected SSI units. These two minimum increments are the 

final control plan submittal date and final compliance date 

in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of the 

requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a state plan 

to include all five increments of progress for all SSI 

units. 

§60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there 

other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations?

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations by submitting an acceptable written 

request for delegation of the federal plan that meets the 

requirements of this section. This is the only other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 344 of 494

option for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request 

must include the following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under §60.5015(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(a)(7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on the state 

delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan 

submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation 

or written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date of the delegation 

and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of 

authority. Additional guidance and information is given in 

EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) federal 

plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved SSI Clean Air
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 345 of 494

Act section 111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation request for the 

revised federal plan, provided the requirements of 

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

the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal 

of EPA's previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

obligations are separate from its obligations under title V 

of the Clean Air Act. 

§60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies?

The authorities that will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and

operating limits established under §60.5175 or §60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in §60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in §60.5155(b)(2). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 346 of 494

(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

§60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state?

(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI

unit owners and operators in your state. However, SSI unit 

owners and operators must comply with the state plan you 

develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. States may choose to incorporate the model 

rule text directly in their state plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 

subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA will implement 

and enforce a federal plan, as provided in §60.5025, to 

ensure that each unit within your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010 reaches 

compliance with all the provisions of this subpart by the 

dates specified in §60.5035. 

Applicability of State Plans 

§60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) Your state plan must address SSI units that meet 

all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 347 of 494

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition of an SSI unit 

as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under §60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes 

changes that meet the definition of modification after 

[INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSI unit becomes subject to 

subpart LLLL of this part and the state plan no longer 

applies to that unit. 

(c) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes 

physical or operational changes to an SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER] primarily to comply with your state plan, subpart

LLLL of this part does not apply to that unit. Such 

changes do not qualify as modifications under subpart LLLL 

of this part. 

§60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 348 of 494

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

Use of Model Rule 

§60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart?

(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission 

guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. The model 

rule provides these requirements in regulation format. You 

must develop a state plan that is at least as protective as 

the model rule. You may use the model rule language as 

part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used 

in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the model rule 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250, 

“you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specified in 

§60.5250. 

§60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan?

Use the model rule to satisfy the state plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 349 of 494

requirements specified in §60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5). 

§60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule?

The model rule contains the nine major components 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward compliance. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments 

of progress and achieving final compliance?

If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year 

following the effective date of state plan approval, you 

must meet the two increments of progress specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 350 of 494

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?

Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for 

each increment of progress. 

§60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Your notification of achievement of increments of 

progress must include the three items specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of progress has 

been achieved. 

(b) Any items required to be submitted with each 

increment of progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Notifications for achieving increments of progress 

must be postmarked no later than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?

If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 351 of 494

submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment 

of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must inform 

the Administrator that you did not meet the increment, and 

you must continue to submit reports each subsequent

calendar month until the increment of progress is met. 

§60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for submittal of a control plan?

For your control plan increment of progress, you must 

satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the 

four items described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of 

this section. 

(1) A description of the devices for air pollution

control and process changes that you will use to comply 

with the emission limits and standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

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

than sewage sludge is burned in the unit. 

(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning 

capacity. 

(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 352 of 494

operating limits under §60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control 

plan. 

§60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for achieving final compliance?

For the final compliance increment of progress, you

must complete all process changes and retrofit construction 

of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, 

so that, if the affected SSI unit is brought online, all 

necessary process changes and air pollution control devices 

would operate as designed. 

§60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it?

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it

prior to the final compliance date in your state plan, you 

must meet the increments of progress specified in §60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it

after your final compliance date, you must complete

emission control retrofits and meet the emission limits, 

emission standards, and operating limits on the date your 

unit restarts operation. 

§60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 353 of 494

If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply 

with the state plan, submit a closure notification,

including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the 

date your final control plan is due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 354 of 494

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 355 of 494

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.5135 When must the operator training course be

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the three dates specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2). 

§60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 356 of 494

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the two 

methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section. 

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.5145. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.5140(a). 

§60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 357 of 494

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 

review of the information specified in §60.5160 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 358 of 494

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 359 of 494

under §60.5230(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the

information listed in §60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.5155(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee's 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and

Operating Limits and Requirements 

§60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by the final 

compliance date under the approved state plan, federal 

plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission limits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 360 of 494

and standards apply at all times the unit is operating and 

during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and 

standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent 

while sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., 

until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut 

off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge 

incineration residence time. 

§60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I 

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, reestablished in §60.5210. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 361 of 494

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you establish in §60.5190 

for each operating parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag 

leak detection system such that the alarm does not sound 

more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month 

period. You must calculate the alarm time as specified in 

§60.5210(a)(2)(i). 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.5200(d) to ensure that your ash

handling system will meet the emission standard for

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 362 of 494

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section by the final compliance date under the

approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and

requirements, reestablished according to §60.5210(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 363 of 494

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.5175. 

§60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to 

comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.5190. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 364 of 494

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 365 of 494

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters,

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 366 of 494

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.5165, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to meet your 

burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 367 of 494

practices. 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that

could have been foreseen and avoided, or taken into 

accountplanned for. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible

when the applicable emission limitations were being

exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs. 

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions. 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe personal 

injury, or severe property damage. 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health. 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 368 of 494

and good air pollution control practices. 

(7) All of theYour actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs. 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared

the purpose of which is You have prepared a written root 

cause analysis to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The

analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods 

and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions 

that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the If 

your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its emission 

limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if you 

wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to assert an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 369 of 494

affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report 

to the Administrator within 3045 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in §60.5165 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that you have met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance.

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission

limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, you have the option to demonstrate initial 

compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 370 of 494

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in 

§60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and

fugitive emissions from ash handling using the performance 

test. The initial performance test must be conducted using 

the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 371 of 494

emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to 

this subpart). 

(2) You may use the results from a performance test 

conducted within the 2 previous years that was conducted 

under the same conditions and demonstrated compliance with 

the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, provided no process changes have been made since 

you conducted that performance test. However, you must 

continue to meet the operating limits established during 

the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance test must have 

used the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 372 of 494

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.5220(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 373 of 494

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use 

the continuous emissions monitoring system and follow the 

requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 374 of 494

with the mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems by your final compliance date 

(see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures and acceptance 

criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart, you must determine dioxins/furans 

toxic equivalency as follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 375 of 494

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 5

to this subpart. For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with 

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor

specified in Table 5 to this subpart.

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must sSubmit an initial compliance report, as 

specified in §60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using athe

performance test as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 376 of 494

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (jh) of this 

section or established in §60.5175, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.5185. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.5210(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or reestablish new operating limits using 

the most recent performance tests required in §60.5205. 

You must follow the data measurement and recording 

frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 4 

to this subpart or as established in §60.5175, and you must 

follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §§60.5220 and 60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. You are not required to establish 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 377 of 494

operating limits for the operating parameters listed in 

Table 4 to this subpart for a control device if you use a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for the 

applicable pollutants, as follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride and or sulfur dioxide, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

pressure drop across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow 

rate, andor scrubber liquid pH if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber, or scrubber liquid flow rate, and 

scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, orand lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 378 of 494

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates,

secondary amperage of the collection plates, andor effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

lead, orand cadmium. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor mercury sorbent 

injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas 

pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow 

rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the 

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 379 of 494

equivalency basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hourly average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limitations.recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-

hourly average liquid flow rate measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limitations. recorded during three 

performance test run periods.

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 1-hourly average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the most recentthree performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limitationsrun periods at the inlet to each 

applicable wet scrubber. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 380 of 494

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limitations.

If you do not use an afterburner to comply with the

requirements of this rule, minimum combustion chamber 

operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly average 

combustion chamber operating temperature recorded during 

three performance test run periods.

(f) If you use an afterburner to comply with the 

requirement of this rule, minimum afterburner combustion 

chamber operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly

afterburner combustion chamber temperature recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(gf) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour

average secondary electric power measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limitations. 

Power input must be calculated as the product of the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 381 of 494

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. Both the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage must be recorded 

during the performance test. Minimum power input to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates, equal to the 

lowest hourly average power input recorded during three 

performance test run periods. Power input must be 

calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator, both 

recorded during three performance test run periods.

(gh) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet 

of the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-

hour average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limitations.

Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest hourly

average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator recorded during three 

performance test run periods.

(ih) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(hi)(1) through (ih)(23) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 382 of 494

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission 

limitationlowest hourly average mercury sorbent injection 

rate recorded during three performance test run periods. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission 

limitationhourly average dioxin/furan sorbent injection 

rate recorded during three performance test run periods. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limitation.hourly average 

carrier gas flow rate recorded during three performance 

test run periods. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 383 of 494

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limitationhourly average 

carrier gas flow rate recorded during three performance 

test run periods. 

(j) You must confirm your operating limits or 

reestablish new operating limits according to §60.5210(d).

§60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, federal plan, or 

delegation, as applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final compliance date, you must 

conduct the air pollution control device inspection within 

60 days after installation of the control device. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

Comment [E20]: Already in 

(a) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 384 of 494

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 385 of 494

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan.

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria willmust

include, but is not be limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 386 of 494

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not be limited to, the following associated 

performance specifications and quality assurance 

procedures.:

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section.

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate.

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 387 of 494

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances.

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of this 

section.

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure

(e.g., PM scrubber pressure drop).

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less.

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily).

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 388 of 494

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually.

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new

pressure sensor.

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan

at least once each process operating day.

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a twopoint calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 389 of 494

having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating limit) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

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

section.

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature.

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range.

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.

 (4) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

performance evaluation at the time of each performance test 

but no less frequently than annually.

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 390 of 494

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(E)(1) through (2) of this section.

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage

and current to the precipitator collection plates.

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually.

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(F)(1) through (2) of this section.

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate.

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually.

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 391 of 494

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13.

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous emissions monitoring system is out 

of control if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or 

(a)(7)(i)(B) of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous emissions 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 emissions monitoring system 

is out of control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of 

this section, you must take the necessary corrective action 

and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 392 of 494

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems in accordance with your site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(A) and (B).

(A) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 393 of 494

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.

(B) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less.

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level 

is detected. The alarm must be located where it is

observed readily and alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel.

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in EPA–454/R–98–015 (incorporated by reference, see

§60.17).

(34) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(4) Maintenance ofHow the bag leak detection system

will be maintained, including a routine maintenance 

schedule and spare parts inventory list. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 394 of 494

(56) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of

the bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak

detection system equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the sensor. How the bag leak 

detection system output will be recorded and stored.

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan, according and to §60.13(c). For the 

purpose of this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also 

apply to the bag leak detection system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

operating procedures for your ash handling system that you 

will follow to ensure that that your meet the fugitive 

emissions limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 395 of 494

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 396 of 494

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 397 of 494

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a

case-by-case basis that additional or alternative operating 

limits, or alternative approaches to establishing operating 

limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 398 of 494

limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and

fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the 

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

applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, 

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). You may 

also petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a 

performance test for each such pollutant on an annual basis 

(between 11 and 13 calendar months following the previous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 399 of 494

performance test)a calendar year basis (no less than 9 

calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months 

following the previous performance test); and you must 

complete 5 performance tests for each such pollutant in 

each 5-year calendar period. The performance test must be 

conducted using the test methods, averaging methods, and 

minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart and according to the testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements specified in 

§60.5220(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60

days of a process change, as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test 

for any pollutant in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

demonstrates that the emission level for the pollutant is 

no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, and 

you are not required to conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant in response to a request by the Administrator in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 400 of 494

paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process change in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you may elect to skip 

conducting a performance test for the pollutant for the 

next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant during the third year and no more than 36 months 

following the previous performance test for the pollutant. 

For cadmium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted 

at emission levels no greater than their respective

emission levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section for you to qualify for less frequent testing under 

this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon 

monoxide, dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, the emission level equal to 50 

percent of the applicable emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of

combustion ash from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent 

of the time during each of the 3three 1-hour observation 

periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 401 of 494

and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant

indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emission 

level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of 

this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual 

performance tests for the pollutant according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until 

you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollutant as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 402 of 494

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the 

annual performance test required in paragraph (a) of this 

section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

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

must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 403 of 494

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 404 of 494

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required in your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 405 of 494

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as

specified in §60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation 

report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instance that 

you did not meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 406 of 494

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.5200 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.5200(e). 

§60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits? 

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

requirements in §60.5225. You must confirm and reestablish 

your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 407 of 494

according to the procedures specified in §60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. You must use the averaging period 

established in Table 4 of this Subpart Four-hour rolling 

average values are used to determine compliance (except for 

alarm time of the baghouse leak detection system) unless a 

different averaging period is established under §60.5175. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.5175 and 

60.5190 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 408 of 494

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.5170(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 409 of 494

specified in §60.5170(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any the most recent performance test 

conducted to comply with this subpart or any the most 

recent performance evaluation required under 

§60.5205(b)(4). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.5220(c), no later than within 10 

to 12 months following the previous annual air pollution 

control device inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed.

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 410 of 494

§60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 411 of 494

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging method specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 412 of 494

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 413 of 494

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator's authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 414 of 494

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 415 of 494

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 416 of 494

starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, 

in which case you must also conduct a performance test 

within prior to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with spans appropriate to the 

applicable emission limit.

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 417 of 494

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems,

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of 

Comment [E21]: Robin S- - 

See my comment in 

Subpart LLLL 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 418 of 494

this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part.

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 

possible.

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of this 

section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 

60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions 

monitoring systems and the test methods specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this section. 

Relative accuracy testing must be at representative

operating conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage 

sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 419 of 494

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. Alternatively for 

as an alternativemercury, either Method 30B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8 or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008)Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and 

Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)(incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), shall may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative American 

National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated 

by reference, see §60.17) must be used. For sources that 

Comment [E22]: Roy please 

check is this right to 

delete? This change 

was by robin S. also 

see nsps...b/c it is 

reapproved do we need 

another ibr? I think 

our ibr took care of 

it? Just match 

whatever the IBR is..... 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 420 of 494

have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million 

dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for the inlet 

of the sulfur dioxide continuous emissions monitoring 

system should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean 

value of the method test data in terms of the units of the 

emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume 

absolute value of the mean difference between the method 

and the continuous emissions monitoring system, whichever 

is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated 

by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 421 of 494

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated 

by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 422 of 494

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions defined in 

§60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect 

data using the continuous monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report.

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 423 of 494

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction as defined in §60.5250, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

Comment [E23]: Robin s- - 

See my comment in 

Subpart LLLL 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 424 of 494

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation, if applicable. 

(2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, 

sorbent feed systems, and any other monitoring equipment.

(3) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(43) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

according to the requirements in §60.5200. This 

requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA 

Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under 

§60.13(i). Ensure that the air pollution control device 

meets manufacturer recommendations.

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any 

time that sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is 

an emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of the bypass 

stack during a performance test invalidates the performance 

test. 

§60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 425 of 494

measuring flow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section: 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions defined in 

§60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect 

data using the continuous monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report.

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 426 of 494

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be included in calculations used 

to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods 

that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction, 

as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all 

recorded readings, except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section.

(vii) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 427 of 494

(2) Meet the following requirements for each type of 

measurement device:

(i) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the

following requirements:

(A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow.

(B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of 2 percent of the flow rate.

(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.

(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semi-annually.

(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.

(ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements:

(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 428 of 494

provides a representative measurement of the pressure.

(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion.

(C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum 

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(D) Ensure continuous acceptable operation (e.g., 

check for or provide high reverse gas pressure periodically 

to minimize pressure tap pluggage).

(E) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly.

(F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor

exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor.

(G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.5205, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy.

(iii) If you have an operating limit that requires

the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements:

(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 429 of 494

(B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured.

(C) Check the pH meter's calibration at least two 

points every 8 hours of process operationdaily.

(iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements:

(A) Locate the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature.

(B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range.

(C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.

(D) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

calibration check at least every 3 months.

(b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak detection 

Comment [ERG/TDP24]: Verif

y. Based on guidance 

from Amy Hambrick 

received 2/2/11. 

Comment [ERG/TDP25]: Per 

guidance from Amy 

Hambrick r’cvd 2/2/11. 

Comment [ERG/TDP26]: See 

above 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 430 of 494

system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of 

this section.

(1) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use secondary voltage and secondary amperage 

monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator.

(2) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent 

injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the following 

requirements:

(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate.

(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer's procedures and specifications.

(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and 

specifications.

(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

requirements of this subpart, you must:
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 431 of 494

(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your

bag leak detection system as follows:

(A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.

(B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer's written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance

provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, 

see §60.17).

(C) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less.

(D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings.

(E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor.

(F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 432 of 494

increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where 

it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.

(G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each

baghouse compartment or cell.

(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors.

(I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.5200.

(ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following:

(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions.

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 433 of 494

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device.

(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system.

(F) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions.

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.5200.

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration.

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally:

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 434 of 494

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy.

(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally:

(i) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each

baghouse compartment or cell.

(ii) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors.

 (iii) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following:

(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 435 of 494

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions.

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device.

(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment.

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process producing the PM 

emissions.

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880.

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration.

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.5230 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 436 of 494

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final 

control plan and any additional notifications, reported 

under §60.5235. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 437 of 494

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the

provisions of §60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.5160(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 438 of 494

§60.5130, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.5140, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports.

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 439 of 494

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs as specified in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that

the performance test was conducted under conditions

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 440 of 494

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system and,

liquid flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with 

the emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH as introduced to each wet 

scrubber used to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen

chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates orand 

secondary amperage of the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates, and effluent water flow rate at the 

outlet of the wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas 

flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 441 of 494

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.5170(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.5210. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.5175, you must

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.5220(b)(5) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 442 of 494

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.5235(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibration, and validation checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.5200, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to 

document that your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 443 of 494

testing under §60.5205(a)(3). 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.5225(d). 

§60.5235 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs

(a) through (i) of this section. See Table 6 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to 

achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective 

date of state plan approval, you must submit the following 

reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085(a) 

and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification of achievement 

of increments of progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the increment as specified in 

§§60.5095 and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you 

must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment, 

as specified in §60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 444 of 494

comply with the state plan, submit a closure notification 

as specified in §60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 445 of 494

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.5195, including a

description of repairs. 

(9) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.5200, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 446 of 494

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.5240.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average parameter value and lowest average parameter value 

recorded recorded 3-hour average and the lowest recorded 3-

hour average during the reporting period, as applicable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 447 of 494

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.5230(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you met the requirements of §60.5205(a)(3) and 

did not conduct a performance test during the reporting 

period, you must include the dates of the last three 

performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you 

achieved in the last three performance tests to the 50 

percent emission limit threshold specified in 

§60.5205(a)(3)(i), and a statement as to whether there have 

been any process changes and whether the process change 

resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified 

sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unavailable 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 448 of 494

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control§, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems were out of 

control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(d) Deviation reports.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 449 of 494

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling averageoperating

parameter level is above the maximum operating limit or 

below the minimum operating limit established under this 

subpart, based upon the averaging time specified in Table 4

of this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated

from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 450 of 494

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items

described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of 

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 451 of 494

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring

data during each deviation and any test report that

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 452 of 494

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 453 of 494

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items:. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected 

source during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standards. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 454 of 494

reported in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i)(A) through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. 

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 455 of 494

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within five days of meeting 

§60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming operation.

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence, should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 456 of 494

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit.

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in §60.5220(a)(8), you must notify 

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

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

(h) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

Formatted: ___GHG

PARAGRAPH, Line spacing: 

single, No bullets or numbering,

Adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers, Tab stops:

Not at 0.5"
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 457 of 494

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. 

After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance evaluation or 

performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with 

this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test 

audit data and performance test data to EPA by successfully 

submitting the data electronically into EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/).

(i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 458 of 494

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved 

and effective Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or 

tribal plan or an applicable and effective federal plan, 

you are required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for your existing SSI unit unless you meet 

the relevant requirements for an exemption specified in 

§60.5065. 

§60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit?

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an

earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted on or before the 

earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 

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

(1) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state or tribal plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date of any 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 459 of 494

applicable federal plan. 

(3) [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of this subpart applies 

regardless of whether or when any applicable federal plan 

is effective, or whether or when any applicable Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is approved by 

EPA and becomes effective. 

(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a 

result of some triggering requirement(s) other than those 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (for 

example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major 

source), then your unit may be required to apply for a 

title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requirement 

triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V 

permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit 

application is triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 

503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 

CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 460 of 494

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

(d) A “complete” title V permit application is one

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Model Rule—Definitions 

§60.5250 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the federal plan, the 

Administrator of the EPA or his/her authorized 

representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved state plan, the 

director of the state air pollution control agency or 

his/her authorized representative. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 461 of 494

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 462 of 494

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 463 of 494

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 464 of 494

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction, the 

operator shall operate within established emissions and 

operating limits and shall continue monitoring all 

applicable operating parameters until sewage sludge is no 

longer in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time) or until the malfunction ceases, whichever 

comes first. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that meets one of 

two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 465 of 494

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an 

existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as defined 

in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 466 of 494

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 467 of 494

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 468 of 494

mining, agricultural operations, and from community

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 469 of 494

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI 

unit. 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Comply with these increments 

of progress By these datesa

Increment 1—Submit final 

control plan 

(Dates to be specified in 

state plan) 

Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in 

state plan)b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the 

state. 

bThe date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date 

of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that 

commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 470 of 494

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Particulate 

matter 

18 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 13 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.51 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, cCollect a 

minimum volume of 

13 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Comment [E27]: Robin s- - 

Removed method 26 as it 

won’t perform that well 

at these low levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 471 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

58 64 parts 

per million by 

dry volume 

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 10, 10A, 

or 10B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix 

A-4). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

1.2 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter(total 

mass basis); 

or 

0.10 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter (toxic

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 23 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 472 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.037 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02

(Reapproved 2008)c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect a 

minimum volume of 

13 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02

(Reapproved 

2008)c 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

150 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 473 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 15 parts 

per million by 

dry volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC19. 10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus])

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17).

c

Cadmium 0.0016 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 31 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Use GFAAS or 

ICP/MS for the 

analytical 

finish.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 474 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Lead 0.0074 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 13 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 

Use GFAAS or 

ICP/MS for the 

analytical 

finish.

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 475 of 494

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)Incorporated by reference, see §60.17.

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance using 

this method

Particulate 

matter 

80 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 13 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

13 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 476 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

3,900 800 

parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 10, 10A, 

or 10B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix 

A-4). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

5.0 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 23 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.32 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 23 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 477 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.28 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02

(Reapproved 2008)c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect a 

minimum volume of 

13 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02

(Reapproved 

2008),c 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

220 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 478 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC

19.10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus])

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17).

c

Cadmium 0.095 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 13 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Lead 0.30 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 13 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 479 of 494

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method).Incorporated by reference, see §60.17.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 480 of 494

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

(not required 

if afterburner 

temperature is 

monitored) 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

412-hour 

rollingblock.

c

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not applicable

Scrubber

Pressure drop 

across each wet 

scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Scrubber liquid 

flow rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Scrubber liquid 

pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

3-hour block4-

hour rolling.c
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 481 of 494

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Fabric Filter 

Alarm time of 

the bag leak 

detection 

system alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm (this operating limit is provided in 

§60.4850 and is not established on a sitespecific basis)

Electrostatic precipitator

Secondary 

voltage of the

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Secondary 

amperage of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Effluent water 

flow rate at 

the outlet of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 482 of 494

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury sorbent 

injection rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Carrier gas 

flow rate or 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.c

Afterburner 

Temperature of 

the afterburner 

combustion 

chamber 

Minimum 

temperature 

of the 

afterburner 

combustion 

chamber 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour 

block4-hour 

rolling.a

aAs specified in §60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 483 of 494

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate 

compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.

cCalculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating 

hours.

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic

Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.3 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 484 of 494

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of 

progress report 

No later than 10 

business days 

after the 

compliance date 

for the 

increment 

1.Final control 

plan including 

air pollution 

control device 

descriptions, 

process 

changes, type 

of waste to be 

burned, and the 

maximum design 

sewage sludge 

burning 

capacity 

2.Notification of 

any failure to 

meet an 

§60.5235(a) Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.04",

Hanging: 0.17", Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text

and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 485 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

increment of 

progress 

3. Notification of 

any closure 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

3. Date of report 

4. Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

5. Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

6. The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

7. Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

8. Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

§60.5235(b) Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Tab after: 0.25" + Indent at: 

0.25", Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 486 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

9. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

required under 

§60.5200 

10. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

required under 

§60.5200 

Annual 

compliance 

report 

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

3. Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

4. If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

5. For each 

§60.5235(c) Formatted: Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering

Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 +

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +

Tab after: 0.25" + Indent at: 

0.25", Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 487 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

6. If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7. If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms

8. If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations

9. If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.5205(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 488 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 489 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

had 

malfunctions

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.5235(e)(1)) 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits

4. The averaged 

and recorded 

§60.5235(d) 

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 490 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

of the calendar 

year 

data for those 

dates

5. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

6. Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents

7. A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels

8. For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.5235(d)(3)(

viii)

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3. The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI

4. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 491 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits

5. The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

6. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

7. A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards

8. A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation

2. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available

3. The date when a 

when a 

§60.5235(e) Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 492 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

more) qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible

2. The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

3. Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation

§60.5235(e) 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.5155(b)(2)(i

) 

Within five days 

of obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.5235(e) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2. Rationale for 

for attributing 

the delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

§60.5235(f) 

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 493 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3. Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

4. Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

1 month before 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60. 5235(g) 

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** Page 494 of 494

Report Due date Contents Reference

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"

Formatted: None, Space Before: 

0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 

single, Numbered + Level: 1 +

Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +

Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.25"

+ Indent at: 0.25", Don't keep with

next, Adjust space between Latin

and Asian text, Adjust space

between Asian text and numbers,

Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Page 20: [1] Comment [E3] EPA 2/15/2011 3:40:00 PM 

OMB: Please check this. The rationale given in “Section 7. Sewage Sludge 

Incinerators” (70 FR 74880)of the rule was “The Agency believes that sewage 

sludge generated by publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) and combusted in 

SSIs is ‘solid waste.’ However, this sludge is from a municipal source, and 

not from ‘commercial or industrial establishments or the general public.’ 

Therefore, SSI that combust this sludge are not “solid waste incineration 

units” and section 129 does not apply to them. Virtually all of the SSIs 

that would be candidates for regulation combust sludge from POTWs, and thus 

are not covered under Section 129.” 

As well as the explanation that they had been listed under 12©(30 and 

112(k)(3)B(ii0 and that source categories regulated by CAA section 112 may 

not also be subject to a CAA section 129 regulation. 

EPA Response: Please see our recommended edits. 
Attachment C. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 1 of 477 

E.O. 12866 and 13563 SSI NSPS and EG 2060-AP90 20110118 

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-____-_] 

RIN 2060-AP90 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA’s new source 

performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage 

sludge incineration units located at wastewater treatment 

facilities designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. This 

final rule sets limits for nine pollutants under section 

129 of the Clean Air Act: cadmium, carbon monoxide, 

hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur dioxide. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of certain 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 477

publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This docket 

includes previous actions including the standards proposed 

on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and a supplemental notice 

issued on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 

information (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 http://www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 477

for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, 

Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

As Arsenic 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit 

CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 477

CO Carbon Monoxide 

Cr Chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators 

FF Fabric Filter 

FB Fluidized Bed 

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste 

Incineration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System 

ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

MH Multiple Hearth 

Mn Manganese 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustion 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

Ni Nickel 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 477

of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

OTM Other Test Method 

OW Office of Water 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPM Parts per Million 

PPMV Parts per Million by Volume 

PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specifications 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 

TMB Total Mass Basis 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 477

TPD Tons per Day 

TPY Tons per Year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UL Upper Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The following outline 

is provided to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

C. Judicial Review

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what 

are the emissions? 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge? 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. What units are affected by the final standards? 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources? 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources? 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements? 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 477

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements? 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards? 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimation 

E. Compliance Requirements 

F. Definitions 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSIs Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

D. Baseline Emissions 

E. Beyond the Floor Analysis 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

H. Compliance Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units 

VII. Relationship of the Final Action to CAA Sections 

112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B)(ii), and 112(c)(6) 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 477

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by the 

final action are those that operate sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSI). Although there is no specific NAICS 

code for SSI, these units may be operated by wastewater 

treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. The following NAICS codes could apply: 

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Solid waste 

combustors and 

incinerators 

562213 Municipalities with SSI units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 477

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Sewage 

treatment 

facilities 

221320 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a general guide for identifying entities 

likely to be affected by the final action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected by the final 

action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of 

subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (www) through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final 

action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 477

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the Court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

of the CAA further provides that “only an objection to this 

final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism 

for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f 

the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that 

it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 

period for public comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for public comment (but 

within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this 

rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to 

EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 477

contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel 

(Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled, “Solid Waste 

Combustion,” requires EPA to develop and adopt standards 

for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 

111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish performance standards, including emission 

limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 

129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration unit” as 

“a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts 

any solid waste material from commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general public” (section 129(g)(1)). 

Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid waste” 

shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 477

authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sections 

111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new 

units (i.e., NSPS), and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) 

address emissions from existing units (i.e., EG). The NSPS 

are directly enforceable federal regulations, and under CAA 

section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after 

promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not themselves 

directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implemented and 

enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a 

promulgated federal plan. States are required to submit a 

plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval 

not later than one year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA 

section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at least as 

protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance with all 

applicable requirements not later than three years after 

the state plan is approved by EPA, or five years after 

promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is sooner. 

EPA’s procedures for submitting and approving state plans 

are set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state 

plan is approved by EPA, the plan requirements become 

federally enforceable, but the state has primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan. 

However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 477

a federal plan for solid waste incineration units located 

in any state which has not submitted an approvable state 

plan within two years after the date of promulgation of the 

relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal plan must 

assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to 

the federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of 

the EG not later than five years after the date the 

relevant guidelines are promulgated. EPA views the federal 

plan as a “place-holder” that remains in effect only until 

such time as a state without an approved plan submits and 

receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an 

applicable state plan has been approved, the requirements 

of the federal plan no longer apply to solid waste 

incineration units covered by that state plan. 

The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating 

emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute 

also provides EPA with substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of incineration 

units within a category while setting standards. In the 

first stage of setting standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

requires EPA to establish technology-based emission 

standards that reflect levels of control EPA determines are 

achievable for new and existing units, after considering 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 477

costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then directs 

EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary 

every five years. In the second stage, CAA section 

129(h)(3) requires EPA to determine whether further 

revisions of the standards are necessary in order to 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to 

establish the first-stage technology-based standards for 

the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that 

standards “applicable to solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this section shall 

reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 

[certain listed air pollutants] that the Administrator, 

taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines 

is achievable for new and existing units in each category.” 

This level of control is referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first 

calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and 

existing solid waste incineration units in a category, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 477

generally based on levels of emissions control achieved or 

required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum 

level of stringency is called the MACT “floor,” and CAA 

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

stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or 

existing sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA 

section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for existing 

units may be less stringent than standards for new units, 

but “shall not be less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in the category.” 

MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emissions 

from the best performing unit or units in a source 

category. The assessment can be based on actual emissions 

data, knowledge of the air pollution control in place in 

combination with actual emissions data, state regulatory 

requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the actual 

performance of the regulated units, or other emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 477

information. For each source category, the assessment 

involves a review of actual emissions data with an 

appropriate accounting for emissions variability. Other 

methods of estimating emissions can also be used, if the 

methods can be shown to provide reasonable estimates of the 

actual emissions performance of a source or sources. In 

addition to the MACT floor limit, EPA must examine whether 

more stringent “beyond-the-floor” standards should be 

adopted. In considering whether such standards are 

appropriate, EPA must consider the cost of achieving such 

emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements. The CAA 

requires that the MACT floor for new sources be no less 

stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice 

by the best-controlled similar unit. EPA is also required 

to consider beyond-the-floor standards for new sources, 

consistent with the factors described above. Clean Air Act 

section 129(a)(1) identifies five categories of solid waste 

incineration units: 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity 

greater than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 477

to or less than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious 

waste. 

• Units that combust commercial or industrial waste. 

• Units that combust waste and which are not 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) 

through (D) are referred to in section 129(a)(1)(E) as 

“other categories” of solid waste incineration units. 

A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through 

(D), have been interpreted to be part of the broader 

category of “other categories” of solid waste. EPA has 

issued emission standards for large and small MWC, HMIWI, 

CISWI, and OSWI units; however, as explained further below, 

none of those emission standards apply to SSI units. 

EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on 

December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74870). Based on EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA at that time, the OSWI standards 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 477

did not include emission standards for SSI units. EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI 

standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of 

certain categories, including SSI1. While EPA granted the 

petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final 

review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded 

that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005 OSWI 

rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being 

held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the 

emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that 

rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI units. 

In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA 

stated that it had decided not to regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regulate SSI 

units under CAA section 112, pointing to a statement in 

EPA’s 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating that sewage 

sludge incinerators do not combust waste from a commercial 

or industrial establishment or the general public. We 

declined to revise that decision to regulate SSI units 

under 112 in the response to the petition for 

reconsideration on this issue for five reasons, including 

 

1Sierra Club v. EPA; D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 477

our position that section 129(a)(1)(E) did not require 

regulation of all “other” solid waste incineration units 

and that section 129(g)(1)’s enumerated exemptions to the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” were not 

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

discretion to choose whether to regulate incinerators under 

section 112 or section 129 of the Act. (72 FR 2620). In 

June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA’s December 

1, 2000, emission standards for CISWI units, the Court, held 

that any unit combusting any solid waste must be regulated 

under section 129 of the CAA. The impact of this decision 

on EPA’s regulation of SSIs is explained in detail in the 

NPRM.2

EPA considers SSI units to be “other solid waste 

incineration units,” since that category is intended to 

encompass all solid waste incineration units that are not 

included in the first four categories identified in CAA 

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

standards for the remaining OSWI units at a later time. 

EPA is taking final action on emission standards for SSI 

units at this time because these emission standards are 

 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 477

needed as part of EPA's fulfillment of its obligations 

under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 

112(c)(6). Clean Air Act section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of 

emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA 

must then ensure that sources representing 90 percent of 

the aggregate area source emissions of each of the 30 

identified HAP are subject to standards pursuant to section 

112(d)3. Sewage sludge incineration units are one of the 

source categories identified for regulation to meet the 90 

percent requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. 

EPA is ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation under 

CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 

20114. 

In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of 

source categories for regulation under CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA 

requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven 

specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for 

 

3 CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 

4Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 477

not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each 

such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 

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

Incineration units are one of the identified source 

categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in 

the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meeting the 

Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the 

Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559).Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prior 

to taking action on the remaining source categories that 

will be regulated under CAA section 129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI 

units. 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions?

Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by 

municipalities or other entities. Incineration continues 

to be used to dispose of sewage sludge. Combustion of 

solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the 

release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which 

exist in the waste feed material and are released unchanged 

during combustion, and some of which are generated as a 

result of the combustion process itself. The pollutants 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 477

for which numerical limits must be established, as 

specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, HCl, 

Hg, NOx, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO2; and, where 

appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be 

established. These emissions come from the SSI unit’s 

stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by the 

associated visible emissions, also occur from ash handling. 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge

and associated air emissions?

Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, 

as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated 

regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 503 

designed to protect public health and the environment from 

any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain 

pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 

503 regulations establish requirements for the final use 

and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge is 

applied to the land for a beneficial use (e.g., for use in 

home gardens); 2) the sludge is disposed on land by placing 

it on surface disposal sites; and 3) the sewage sludge is 

incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 477

treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who 

uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment 

works. 

The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in 

a SSI are in subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E 

includes general requirements; pollutant limits; 

operational standards; management practices; and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the 

National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in 

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The 

regulations also require that the allowable concentration 

of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated using 

equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants 

included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the 

equations must be determined on a case-by-case basis, 

except for the risk-specific concentration for the 

inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when 

these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific variables 

for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor, 

control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be 

used to calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, 

Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 477

Also included in subpart E of part 503 is an 

operational standard for THC. The value for THC in the 

final part 503 regulation cannot be exceeded in the exit 

gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and frequency 

of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

are also included in this subpart. 

Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing 

limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covered by the 

current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and the 

following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NOx, SO2, PM, 

and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covered here, 

there are other differences between the part 503 

regulations and these final standards. The emission limits 

for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based 

numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 503 does 

not distinguish between new and existing units or between 

incinerator types (i.e., MH or FB incinerator) for setting 

emission limits since emission limits are based on risks to 

a highly exposed individual. 

Because both part 503 and these final standards cover 

the same universe of facilities, there are certain issues 

that arise in terms of potential impacts to current SSI 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 477

facilities. First, the regulation of sewage sludge under 

CAA section 129 will result in stricter emission standards 

than under the current CWA rule. Additional pollution 

controls will increase costs for facilities that continue 

to use the incineration disposal method. If the additional 

costs are high enough, many entities may choose to adopt 

alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface disposal in 

landfills or other beneficial land applications). 

Consequently, a potential impact of this rule is that some 

of the estimated 110 facilities that operate SSI as the 

primary means of disposal could discontinue this practice 

and would instead landfill or land apply their sewage 

sludge. Second, one must consider the available capacity 

of surface disposal sites to receive additional sewage 

sludge and the potential for added costs if the use of SSI 

is discontinued. Third, SSI will be subject to two 

different sets of requirements (numeric standards, 

operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting) under the two different statutes, creating an 

additional burden to these facilities unless alternative 

regulatory approaches are implemented. EPA plans to 

evaluate the requirements under both statutes to determine 

what changes, if any, should be made to the part 503 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 477

regulations. 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

This preamble discusses the final standards as they 

apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI 

unit. This preamble also describes the major requirements 

of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the 

final requirements and compliance times, see the SSI 

standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM. 

A. What units are affected by the final standards?

The final standards and guidelines apply to owners or 

operators of SSI units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 

CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facilities 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI unit is an 

enclosed device or devices using controlled flame 

combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel 

feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat 

recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI 

unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash 

system ends at the truck loading station or similar 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 477

equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal. The 

SSI unit does not include air pollution control equipment 

or the stack. The affected facility is each individual SSI 

unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply to 

new and existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as 

defined in the subparts. The final standards define two 

subcategories for new and existing SSI units: MH 

incinerators and FB incinerators. 

The combustion of sewage sludge that is not burned in 

an SSI unit located at a wastewater treatment facility 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to 

other section 129 standards, such as the CISWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the 

OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), 

the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, 

AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous Waste 

Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 477

The final emission limits for existing sources in the 

MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory 

are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existing 

sources may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB 

emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 1. Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,800 64 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.28 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 220 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 15 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 477

The final emission limits for new sources in the MH 

incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are 

presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing sources 

may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emission 

limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 2. Emission Limits for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0024 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 52 27 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.15 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0035 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.045 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 60 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 5.3 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?

These final standards require all new and existing SSI 

units to demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the 

emission limits using EPA-approved emission test methods. 

The final standards also provide an option for less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 477

frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their 

emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresholds of 

the emission limits. 

For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, continuous 

parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air 

pollution control devices, if they are used to meet the 

emission limits. Additionally, existing units are required 

to conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) 

visible emissions test of the ash handling operations 

during each compliance test. 

For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, as well as 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. The final rule requires all new SSI units 

to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are also 

required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions testing of 

the ash handling operations during each compliance test. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 477

For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOx, PM, 

Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling 

with periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to 

parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing. For 

new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl, 

NOx, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous 

sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approved 

alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance 

testing. 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units?

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to meet operator training and qualification 

requirements, which include: ensuring that at least one 

operator or supervisor per facility complete the operator 

training course, that qualified operator(s) or 

supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course 

specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding training. 

Owners or operators of new SSI units are required to 

conduct a siting analysis, which includes submitting a 

report that evaluates site-specific air pollution control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 477

alternatives that minimize potential risks to public health 

or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors related to 

the practicability of the alternatives. 

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to submit a monitoring plan for any continuous 

monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to 

comply with the rule. They must also submit a monitoring 

plan for their ash handling system that specifies the 

operating procedures they will follow to ensure that they 

meet the fugitive emission limit. 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS 

tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data, 

continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspections of 

the air pollution control devices, the siting analysis (for 

new units only), monitoring plan and operator training and 

qualification must be maintained for five years. The 

results of the stack tests and PS tests and values for 

operating parameters are required to be included in initial 

and subsequent compliance reports. 

G. What are the SSM provisions?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 477

The Court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

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

“General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 

emission standard during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA

directly affects only the subset of CAA section 112(d) 

rules that incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by 

reference and that contain no other regulatory text 

exempting or excusing compliance during SSM events, the 

legality of source category-specific SSM provisions is 

questionable. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is requiring 

that emission limitations in these final standards apply at 

all times the unit is operating. In establishing these 

standards, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 477

periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

established different standards for those periods. 

We are not promulgating a separate emission standard 

for the source category that applies during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Based on the information available 

at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to 

meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units 

we have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or 

distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the 

unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions from 

burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil 

are expected to generally be lower than from burning solid 

wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also 

generally lower than emissions during normal operations 

because the materials in the incinerator would be almost 

fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked 

individual SSI units based on actual performance for each 

pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting 

of emissions variability. Because we accounted for 

emissions variability, we believe we have adequately 

addressed any minor variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 477

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined 

as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 

129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 

Nothing in CAA section 129 or in case law requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the innumerable types of 

potential malfunction events in setting emission standards.5 

Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 129 

 

5 See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (“ In the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, 

sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety 

of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 477

as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 

129 uses the concept of “best controlled” or “best 

performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying 

the concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a 

source that is malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best controlled or best 

performing sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of their units. 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting 

CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, 

and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be 

reported in deviation reports. We will then review the 

deviation reports to determine if the deviation is a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 477

violation of the standards. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 

rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether 

the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 129 

standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.”6 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can fail and that such 

failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard.7 EPA is therefore finalizing the 

proposed affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

 

6 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction).

7 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(Feb. 15, 1983).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 477

exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by 

malfunctions, with some revisions to the proposed 

regulatory provision.8 Under this provision, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has 

met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 

40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by 

poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, 

to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess 

emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are designed 

 

8 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR 

§60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense 

put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 477

to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, 

to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs 

were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable 

emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 

excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health....” In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion 

of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 

part 22.77). 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements?

All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final 

SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

permit. These Title V operating permits assure compliance 

with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 477

including all applicable CAA section 129 requirements9. 

The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 

source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on 

when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title 

V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit 

and is not subject to an earlier permit application 

deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before the relevant date below. 

• For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a 

complete Title V permit application no later than 12 

months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL; or 

• For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new 

source after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title 

V permit application no later than 12 months after the 

date the SSI unit commences operation as a new 

source10. 

 

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

10 CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 477

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject 

to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source 

must submit a complete Title V permit application by the 

earlier of the following dates: 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan 

(i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that 

implements the SSI EG); or 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan; or 

• Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart MMMM. 

For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any applicable 

federal plan is effective, or whether or when any 

applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is 

approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA sections 

129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

 

71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 477

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

If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of 

some triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned 

above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or 

part of a major source), then you may be required to apply 

for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specified 

above. If more than one requirement triggers a source’s 

obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time 

frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered 

by the requirement which first causes the source to be 

subject to Title V11. 

For additional background information on the interface 

between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s 

interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating 

existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing 

Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 

(68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0156). 

 

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

70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 477

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?

New SSI units that commence construction after October 

14, 2010, or that are modified six months or more after the 

date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission limits of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within six months after the 

promulgation date of the standards or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Under the final EG, and consistent with CAA section 

129 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 60, subpart B, states are required to 

submit state plans containing the existing source emission 

limits of subpart MMMM of this part, and other requirements 

to implement and enforce the EG within one year after 

promulgation of the EG. States must submit state plans to 

EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (including 

SSI that are modified prior to and including the date six 

months after promulgation) and must be at least as 

protective as the EG. 

The final EG requires existing SSI to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards as expeditiously as 

practicable after approval of a state plan, but no later 

than three years from the date of approval of a state plan 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 477

or five years after promulgation of the EG, whichever is 

earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects 

states to require compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable. However, because we believe that many SSI 

units will find it necessary to retrofit existing emissions 

control equipment and/or install additional emissions 

control equipment in order to meet the final limits, EPA 

anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3-year 

compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA 

does not approve a state plan or issue a federal plan, then 

the compliance date is five years from the date of the 

final rule. 

EPA intends to develop a federal plan that will apply 

to existing SSI units in any state that has not submitted 

an approved state plan within two years after promulgation 

of the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject 

to the federal plan up to five years after promulgation of 

the EG to demonstrate compliance with the standards, as 

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

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA?

EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 477

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 

reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, 

not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators to locate, collect, and submit 

emissions test data because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. One improvement 

that has occurred in recent years is the availability of 

stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement 

for cumbersome paper copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve 

data accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of 

reporting for sources. Owners and operators of SSI 

facilities are required to submit, to EPA’s ERT database, 

electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests 

required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Data entry will be 

through an electronic emissions test report structure 

called the Emissions Reporting Tool (ERT) whenever 

conducting performance tests. The ERT was developed with 

input from stack testing companies who generally collect 

and compile performance test data electronically and 

offices within state and local agencies that perform field 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 477

test assessments. The ERT is currently available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html, and access 

to direct data submittal to EPA’s electronic emissions 

database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 

2011. 

The requirement to submit source test data 

electronically to EPA would not require any additional 

performance testing and would apply to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The website listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT. In 

addition, when a facility submits performance test data to 

WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for 

emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we believe 

industry will benefit from development of improved emission 

factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and better 

regulation development as discussed below. The information 

to be reported is already required for the existing test 

methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the 

test method. 

One major advantage of submitting source test data 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 477

through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and 

store much of the documentation required to be reported by 

this rule that also clearly states what testing information 

would be required. Another important benefit of submitting 

these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted 

is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved 

in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has 

source category performance test data in hand, there will 

likely be fewer or less substantial data collection 

requests in conjunction with prospective required residual 

risk assessments or technology reviews. This results in a 

reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) 

and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the results). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that 

their review may be more streamlined and accurate because 

they would not have to re-enter the data to assess the 

calculations and verify the data entry. Finally, another 

benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE electronically 

is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality 

of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing 

the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 477

factor is based and by ensuring that data are more 

representative of current industry operational procedures. 

A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is 

that emissions factors are outdated or not representative 

of a particular source category. Receiving and 

incorporating data for most performance tests will ensure 

that emissions factors, when updated, represent accurately 

the most current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development, and other air pollution 

control activities, receiving test data already collected 

and using them in the emissions factors development program 

will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and EPA 

significant time, money, and effort while improving the 

quality of emission inventories and related regulatory 

decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that 

will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a website 

accessible through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE website was 

constructed to store emissions test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 477

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for 

storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is not the 

only electronic interface that can be used to submit source 

test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes 

submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A 

description of the ERT can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

EPA received over 90 public comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public hearing 

to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. 

After consideration of public comments received, EPA is 

making several changes to the standards. Following are the 

major changes to the standards since the proposal. The 

rationale for these and any other significant changes can 

be found in section V of this preamble or in the “Sewage 

Sludge Incineration (SSI) Rule: Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

A. Applicability

 The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of sewage 

sludge is burned in an incinerator at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 477

sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI standards in 

subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning sewage 

sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge 

that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous 

Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. Subcategories

 The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new sources. 

In the final NSPS, SSI units at new sources are 

subcategorized into two subcategories: MH and FB. 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits

At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation to 

determine variability. For the final rule, for existing FB 

units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calculation 

to account for the biasing of emissions data from one 

facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH units. 

In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 477

skewness and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the 

data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or lognormally distributed. If both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values had skewness and 

kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis 

of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the 

reported values and the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the reported data values was 

chosen to be conservative. We have modified our 

assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests 

do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal 

distribution better represents the data, or when there are 

not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the lognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond the 

floor emission standards for Hg emissions from existing MH 

units. In the final rule, we are establishing MACT floor 

emission limits but are not setting beyond the floor 

standards. Also, we are not finalizing the proposed 

opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limits for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 477

both PCDD/PCDF TMB and PCDD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units 

to meet both limits. In the final standards, we are 

allowing affected sources to comply with either the 

PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits. 

In the proposed rule, we did not compare the CO span 

of the test to the measured CO values to determine if the 

values were consistent. For the final rule, we reviewed 

the CO values obtained from emission test reports to 

determine whether the span of the test used was capable of 

accurately reading the reported value. If the span was 

inconsistent with the reported value, the CO levels were 

adjusted to provide a value that was more consistent with 

the span. We revised the CO limits based on the results of 

this analysis. 

The final emission limits resulting from the revised 

MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 through 6 

of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emission 

limits. 

Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

FB SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0019 0.0016 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 477

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 56 64 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.49 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0033 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 63 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0098 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.056 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.61 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 12 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 22 15 

Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

MH SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.095 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900 3,800 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.0 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.02 0.28 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 220 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 5.0 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 80 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 26 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 477

Table 5. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New FB SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 27 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.013 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 5.3 

Table 6. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New MH SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0024 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 52 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.15 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 210 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.0035 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0022 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.045 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 477

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 60 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 26 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and Impacts Estimation

 For the final rule, we have revised the baseline 

emissions, costs, and impacts to incorporate information 

provided by commenters. A discussion of the changes is 

presented in section V of this preamble. The results of 

these analyses are summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. 

E. Compliance Requirements

For both the standards, the following changes have been 

made: 

• SSI units must submit (at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test date) a monitoring plan to 

establish that their ash handling system will meet the 

visible emissions limit on a continuous basis. 

• The alternative to test less frequently (every third 

year) is being revised to be the following: 

o If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a 

specified threshold during two consecutive 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 477

performance tests, they may test every three 

years instead of annually. Any year that the 

emission threshold is not met, the SSI must test 

annually until the threshold is met over a 

consecutive two year period. The alternative in 

the standards no longer requires that SSI units 

establish that they meet the lower thresholds for 

three consecutive years. 

o For all pollutants, less frequent testing is 

allowed if emissions are no greater than an 

emissions threshold of 75 percent of the emission 

limit. 

o For fugitive emissions from ash handling, less 

frequent testing is allowed as long as visible 

emissions of combustion ash occur less than or 

equal to two percent of each hourly observation 

period (the standard is five percent of each of 

three hourly observation periods). 

• The final rule removes the requirements in the 

standards to maintain sludge feed rate and moisture 

content within specified parameters. However, sludge 

feed rate and sludge moisture content are still 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 477

required to be monitored during performance test runs, 

and daily records of sludge feed rate and sludge 

moisture content are required to be kept. 

• At proposal, operating limits were calculated based on 

a specified percentage of the average parameter value 

recorded during pollutant performance tests. In the 

final standards, operating parameter limits are 

determined on a site-specific basis as the minimum or 

maximum operating parameter value for the parameter, 

as applicable, recorded during pollutant performance 

tests. 

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annual 

performance tests was each 10-12 months. This has 

been changed to specify that performance tests must be 

conducted on a calendar year basis (no less than nine 

calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months 

following the previous performance test); and you must 

complete five performance tests for each such 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. 

• The averaging time for demonstrating compliance with 

the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed from 

a 4-hour rolling averaging period to a 24-hr block 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 477

averaging period. The averaging times for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, has 

been changed from a 4-hour rolling averaging period to 

a 12-hour block averaging period. 

• During each compliance test run, SSI units must be 

operated at a minimum of 85 percent of their maximum 

permitted capacity. 

F. Definitions

The following definitions have been revised: 

• Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific 

emission units for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary 

treatment at the facility, which changes the 

method used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 477

used for activated carbon injection). 

• Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge 

incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and 

multiple hearth. A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary 

fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste 

heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash 

system. The SSI unit includes all ash handling 

systems connected to the bottom ash handling system. 

The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that 

transfers the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit 

does not include air pollution control equipment or 

the stack. 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 477

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. EPA received many comments on this 

subpart covering numerous topics. EPA’s responses to all 

comments, including those below, can be found in the 

comment response document for SSI units in the docket. 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSIs Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129

 Comment: Many commenters contended that SSIs are 

within the CWA definition of POTW; therefore, according to 

CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA must regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 112(d), and not CAA section 129. The 

commenters emphasized that SSI units are located within 

each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the 

solids handling and treatment processes at each POTW. 

 Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be 

regulated under CAA section 129 because they are combusting 

material that is generated by the POTW, which is neither a 

commercial or industrial establishment nor the general 

public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The 

commenters added that, based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste, even if they had a new point of generation 

within the POTW where they were generating solid waste, the 

POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and does not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 477

pass the broad applicability for solid waste incineration 

under CAA section 129. Another commenter added that CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set standards 

for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal 

waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipal waste, 

the unit must first be a solid waste incineration unit. 

The commenters concluded that this would not include SSI 

units. 

 Several commenters stated that EPA’s determination to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradicts 

previous decisions where EPA has stated that regulations 

were being developed for SSI under CAA section 112. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s revision to the list of 

source categories under CAA section 112 to delete SSI units 

was because there were no major sources in the source 

category. One commenter added that EPA’s decision to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 is based on an 

overly broad reading of the NRDC case. The commenter also 

claimed that SSI units are not within the scope of the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” in section 

129 because sewage sludge is not generated by a commercial 

or industrial establishment or by the general public. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 477

that regulation of SSI units under section 129 is 

inconsistent with past EPA statements. As explained in the 

NPRM, EPA issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 

pursuant to section 112(d), and those emissions standards 

did not include standards for SSI units. In the proposed 

POTW emissions standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge 

incineration will be regulated under section 129 of the 

CAA[.]” See 63 FR 66087 (December 1, 1998). EPA also 

explained in the NPRM for today’s action that the EPA’s 

statements regarding SSI units during its promulgation of 

emissions standards for OSWI units are squarely in conflict 

with the Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 

(D.C. Cir. 2007), which states in pertinent part that any 

unit that combusts any solid waste at all is subject to CAA 

section 129. The commenter does not appear to disagree 

with that conclusion, but instead simply argues that EPA 

cannot regulate SSI units under section 129 because it 

previously stated that it would regulate them under section 

112. However, the NRDC decision precludes EPA from doing 

so. Additionally, section 112 (c)(6) requires that EPA 

promulgate emission standards assuring that sources 

accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of each of the HAP identified in section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 477

112(c)(6) are subject to emission standards. EPA has 

determined that section 129 source categories can be 

included to meet our 90 percent obligations. Therefore, 

EPA has included SSI units in the section 112 (c)(6) list 

of sources because SSI units are need to meet our 90 

percent requirement for mercury. This decision is 

documented in the memorandum “Emission Standards for 

Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 

112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559) 

Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to 

issue emissions standards for SSI units under section 

112(d). Rather, it simply governs the schedule for the 

issuance of section 112(d) emissions standards for POTW. 

Section 112(e), titled “Schedule for Standards and Review,” 

generally requires EPA to establish emissions standards for 

initially listed source categories as expeditiously as 

practicable, with certain specific deadlines in section 

112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EPA shall 

prioritize source categories for regulation, and requires 

EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissions 

standards for section 112 listed source categories. 

Finally, Congress specified a different schedule for POTW 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 477

in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standards 

shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. Thus, 

section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI 

units under section 112(d), but rather simply identifies 

the date by which EPA must issue emissions standards for 

POTW. 

Additionally, the commenter’s interpretation of 

section 112(e)(5) would conflict with section 129(g) and 

with the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of section 129(g) as 

explained in NRDC v. EPA. Section 129(g) defines “solid 

waste incineration unit” to include any unit combusting any 

solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s 

position that it could choose to regulate certain units, 

combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead of under 

section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid waste, EPA 

does not have the discretion under section 129 to create an 

exemption for SSI units from the statutory definition of 

solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) itself 

specifies certain units that combust solid waste but are 

exempt from the definition, and noted that where Congress 

created such enumerated exemptions, the EPA lacks 

discretion to create additional ones. 

EPA also disagrees with the commenter that SSI units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 477

do not combust waste from the general public. Sewage 

sludge clearly originates from the general public, 

including residential and commercial facilities. Simply 

because the waste is treated at a POTW prior to combustion 

does not change the original source of the sewage sludge. 

The commenter refers to a statement in EPA’s 2000 Unified 

Regulatory Agenda to support its argument. However, the 

Regulatory Agenda did not represent an Agency 

interpretation following a notice and comment process. 

Moreover, as explained above, EPA’s position regarding the 

section of the Act under which SSI units must be regulated 

has changed since 2000, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in NRDC v. EPA. Finally, EPA notes that its final 

action on reconsideration of the OSWI rule did not refer to 

the source of sewage sludge as a basis for concluding that 

regulation under section 129 was not required. Instead, as 

explained above, it referred to discretion the Agency 

believed it had at the time to choose to regulate certain 

solid waste incinerators under section 112 – discretion the 

Agency no longer believes it has. 

The commenter’s reference to statements made in other 

Federal Register notices that pre-date the NRDC decision 

similarly fail to support its argument that EPA must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 477

regulate SSI units under section 112. Specifically, 

commenters refer to EPA’s inclusion of SSIs on the list of 

area source categories listed under section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. See 67 Fed. Reg. 70427 (Nov. 22, 

2002). However, that listing does not lead to the 

conclusion that SSIs must be regulated under section 112. 

First, as explained above, EPA’s interpretation of its 

authority to regulate SSIs has changed following the 

issuance of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

which occurred after the 2002 listing referred to by the 

commenter. Additionally, that listing included source 

categories that would clearly be regulated under section 

129, such as medical waste incinerators and municipal waste 

combustors, Id. at 70428, because EPA’s regulation of 

incinerator source categories under section 129 serves 

towards meeting its statutory obligations under section 

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

SSIs on that list does not indicate that such units must be 

regulated under section 112. 

EPA further disagrees that regulation of SSI units under 

section 129 is unnecessary because SSI units are already 

regulated under section 405 of the CWA and that section 129 

regulation will therefore provide no public health or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 477

environmental benefit. As explained in section VI of this 

preamble, today’s action will benefit public health and the 

environment by achieving reductions of the section 129 

pollutants from SSI units beyond those required by 

regulations issued pursuant to the CWA. Today’s action

must be undertaken to comply with the Clean Air Act and the 

court decision in NRDC v. EPA. EPA further notes that 

section 405 of the CWA expressly provides that nothing in 

that section is intended to waive more stringent 

requirements of any other law. Therefore, Congress clearly 

did not intend for regulation of SSI units under the CWA to 

preclude any other regulations, including regulation under 

CAA section 129. Overlap with Other Standards

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that 

other types of solid waste incineration units could be 

considered SSI units and subject to the SSI standards if 

they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some commenters 

added that the definition of an SSI does not have a de 

minimus level of sewage sludge burned. Other commenters 

requested clarification on whether SSI units burning nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SSI and 

CISWI. Some commenters suggested that SSI units be 

consistent with the MWC standards and provide an exemption 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 477

for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less by weight 

of sewage sludge. 

Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide 

exclusions for all solid waste incineration units that meet 

the applicability requirements of other CAA section 129 

standards, including MWCs regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, 

Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters noted that the CISWI 

standards specifically exempted MWC units and other units 

subject to CAA section 129 standards. 

Several commenters contended that EPA should exempt 

incineration units subject to hazardous waste combustor 

regulations and/or hazardous waste management permits under 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The commenters added that 

CAA section 129(g)(1) states that a solid waste 

incineration unit does not include incinerators or other 

units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the 

SWDA. Other commenters requested EPA include an exemption 

for hazardous waste combustion units that are affected 

sources under 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE. 

 Response: Section 129 defines solid waste incineration 

unit to include any unit combusting any solid waste. 

Therefore, EPA is not setting de minimus levels for solid 

waste burned in incinerators. An incinerator located at a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 477

wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic 

sewage sludge that combusts any amount of sewage sludge is 

subject to the final SSI standards. We have clarified that 

the final standards and guidelines do not apply to sewage 

sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. Sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI located 

at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 

standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of 

this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR 

part 63 subpart EEE). 

Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to 

have a permit under CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standards per 

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

exemption is needed for this rule. 

 Comment: Several commenters objected to EPA issuing 

the proposed SSI standards prior to making determinations 

regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 477

Response: EPA is not making determination in this rule 

about the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. Section 

129 of the CAA states that “solid waste” shall have meaning 

promulgated by the Administrator under RCRA. Therefore, 

today’s action is consistent with using the defintion of 

non-hazardous secondary materials promulagted RCRA rule, 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Comment: Several commenters contended that sewage 

sludge is not a solid waste, as the CAA defines solid waste 

by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. 

The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage sludge in 

what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage 

exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states that 

solid waste does not include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage. 

Response: This comment is not relevant to EPA’s 

establishment of emissions standards for SSI units. 

Rather, it is relevant to EPA’s proposed Identification of 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste 

rule, and is addressed in EPA’s final action on that 

proposed rule. 

B. Subcategories

 Comment: Many commenters agreed with the development 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 477

of separate EG for existing MH and FB units. The 

commenters also requested adding the same subcategories for 

the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappropriate 

to consider the best performing FB SSI as the best 

performing similar source for the MH SSI new source 

category. They also stated that, as proposed, the NSPS 

standards would discourage a POTW’s ability to modify 

existing MH units, including modifications to improve 

combustion efficiency or boost steam output for electricity 

generation. Some commenters stated that, by using the best 

performing FB unit as the basis for the NSPS for MH units, 

EPA was effectively setting a beyond the floor MACT limit 

for SSI units without considering any criteria that the 

statute requires. Other commenters agreed with the 

decision to use the best-performing FB unit as the best 

similar source for the MH SSI source category. 

 Other commenters requested further subcategorization 

based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludge 

incinerated, limited use units, and distance over which the 

SSI would need to transport its sludge for disposal. 

Response: We have considered the commenters’ concerns 

and are setting separate standards for FB and MH units at 

new sources in the final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 477

there are two types of incinerators currently used to 

combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. The 

differences between the two combustor designs result in 

significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas 

stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control 

of temperature and other process variables, auxiliary fuel 

use and other characteristics. To reflect the differences 

in their combustion mechanisms, two subcategories, FB and 

MH, were developed in the NPRM for new and existing SSI 

sources. 

At proposal for the MH new source subcategory, we 

considered the best-performing FB incinerator to be the 

best-performing similar source because we were not aware of 

any new MH sources that have been constructed in the last 

20 years, and information provided by the industry 

indicates that future units that will be constructed are 

likely to be FB incinerators. 

We have re-evaluated our decision. Although few MH 

units have been constructed over the last 20 years, there 

is no technical reason that would preclude a source from 

constructing a MH unit. The same design differences that 

distinguish existing FB and MH units also apply to new 

units, and provide a similar basis for subcategorizing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 477

between the two types of units. Therefore, we are setting 

separate standards for MH units at new and reconstructed 

sources. Such subcategorization is appropriate based on the 

differences between FB and MH units described above, and 

will also serve to ensure that MH units do not avoid making 

modifications that may require them to meet standards based 

on FB units. We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any 

other basis because we do not have data to support 

distinguishing units based on class, type, or size. 

Without such information, we do not have a basis for 

concluding that these types of units should be placed in a 

different subcategory. 

C. MACT Floor Analysis

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach

Comment: Many commenters objected to setting the MACT 

floors using a pollutant by pollutant approach because none 

of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneously meet 

all the proposed standards. One commenter stated that 

EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review 

of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability". However, the commenter contended 

that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practical 

manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units and that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 477

this results is unrealistically stringent limits that are 

not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters noted that 

this was especially true for the new source standards. 

Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis violates the statute and its own views of the 

statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot 

demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneously meet 

all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 

129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards because 

the "floor standards would force industry-wide 

technological upgrades without consideration of the factors 

(cost and energy in particular) which Congress mandated for 

consideration when establishing beyond-the-floor 

standards." 

Many commenters specifically mentioned that EPA's 

pollutant-by-pollutant, lowest emission methodology for 

setting the CO and NOx standards is flawed because EPA did 

not take into account the inherent conflict in complying 

with two standards. The commenters noted that CO and NOx

emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters 

explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NOx and vice 

versa. The commenters added that high temperature 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 477

combustion with long residence times and high oxygen 

concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that 

those same operating conditions favor high NOx emissions. 

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize 

CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel 

and produce more CO2 emissions. 

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most 

advanced control technologies, and those EPA indicated were 

costed in the impacts analysis, would not meet the emission 

limits for all of the pollutants all of the time. The 

commenter provided an example showing that of 11 of 30 test 

data points from the SSI unit in EPA’s database would not 

comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points would not 

comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not comply with 

the HCl standard, six of six data points would not comply 

with the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ, 86 of 105 would not comply 

with the CO standard, and eight of 15 would not comply with 

the NOx standard. The commenter concluded that data 

variability has not been appropriately accounted for and 

that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor based on 

the best performing unit for each pollutant is not 

reasonable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 477

Response: We disagree with the commenters who object 

to setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. 

EPA previously has explained that although CAA section 129 

does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors must be 

established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying the 

requirement to set MACT floors based on what has been 

achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonable 

interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provision (62 

FR 48363-64). 

 EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a)(2) 

to support establishing emissions standards based on the 

actual emissions of “the best controlled similar unit” or 

“best-performing 12 percent of units in the category” for 

each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclude that 

the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonable under 

the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ 

interpretation is certainly not compelled by the statute. 

We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable under the 

statute and appropriate given the problems associated with 

implementing the commenters’ approach. 

 The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “establish 

performance standards and other requirements pursuant to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 477

section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each 

category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursuant to 

CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). 

Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance standards 

promulgated under section [111] of this title and this 

section [129] and applicable to solid waste incineration 

units shall specify numerical emissions limitations for the 

following substances or mixtures: PM (total and fine), 

opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 

chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, 

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.” Thus, the statute 

requires EPA to set individual numeric performance 

standards based on the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions actually achieved for each of nine listed 

pollutants. Based on this, EPA believes – and has long 

believed – the statute supports, if not requires, that MACT 

floors be derived for each pollutant based on the emission 

levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, although the 

provisions do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress singled 

out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 477

control need not be limited by the performance of devices 

that only control some of these pollutants well. 

 Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in the 

1997 rulemaking for medical waste incinerators “The EPA 

does not agree that the MACT floors are to be based upon 

one overall unit” (62 FR 48364). Pointing for instance to 

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

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified pollutant. 

Moreover, although the provisions do not state 

whether there is to be a separate floor for each 

pollutant, the fact that Congress singled out 

these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of 

devices that only control some of these 

pollutants well. 

Id.

 Since 1997, the courts have consistently repeated that 

EPA must set emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. See, e.g., Cement 

Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (D.C. Cir.) (“[T]he Agency first 

sets emission floors for each pollutant and source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 477

category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach has, as outlined above, been in place since 1997 

for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under section 129. See, 

e.g., 59 FR 48198 (September 20, 1994) (municipal waste 

combustors). In addition, such an approach has been upheld 

in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing 

CWA best available technology standards on a pollutant-bypollutant basis was a rational interpretation of EPA’s 

obligations under that similar statute). We note that the 

CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA program. S. 

Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. 

 Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would likely 

result in EPA setting the standards at levels that could, 

for some pollutants, actually be based on emissions 

limitations achieved by the worst-performing unit, rather 

than the best-performing unit, as required by the statute. 

See 61 FR 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363-64 

(September 15, 1997). For example, if the best performing 

12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF 

as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, the floor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 477

for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflecting best 

performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach would 

require EPA to make value judgments as to which pollutant 

reductions are most critical in working to identify the 

single unit that reduces emissions of the nine pollutants 

on an overall best-performing basis. Such value judgments 

are antithetical to the command of the statute at the MACT 

floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to 

prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relative risk 

to human health of each pollutant, a criterion that has no 

place in the establishment of MACT floors. Sierra Club v. 

EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 

The fact that the statute does not contain the phrase 

“for each pollutant” does not compel any inference that 

Congress was sub silentio mandating a different result when 

it left the provision ambiguous on this issue. The 

argument that MACT floors set pollutant-by-pollutant are 

based on the performance of a hypothetical facility, so 

that the limitations are not based on those achieved in 

practice, just re-begs the question of whether CAA section 

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

pollutants. All of the emission limitations in this rule 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 477

reflect actual performance and are achieved in practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level of control must 

be limited by the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively “guts the standards” 

by including worse performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident 

Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the 

average performance of best performing sources. Since 

Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, 

and EPA’s interpretation effectuates statutory goals and 

policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation must be 

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

Commenters made much of the fact that no single 

facility is presently achieving all of the nine pollutant 

limits proposed. However, the available information 

compared to the final standards disputes this assertion. 

For the final standards, based on the data we have, our 

estimate of baseline emissions, and the revised emission 

limits, we are estimating that 155 of 204 existing SSI 

units can meet standards for all nine pollutants, without 

installing additional pollution control. We cannot make 

this assessment for new sources, because none have been 

constructed. However, we are not aware of any technical 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 477

reason that new units could not install the most advanced 

pollution control techniques or reduce the pollutant 

concentrations in the sludge to meet the new source 

standards. 

We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in this 

case, increase the overall cost of the regulation compared 

to what would result under a unit-based methodology. We 

interpret CAA section 129 to require that the MACT floor be 

determined in this manner, and we believe that Congress 

did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regulations 

developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limits that 

are achieved by the best controlled unit for each 

pollutant, as long as the control systems are compatible 

with each other. To our knowledge, there is no technical 

reason why these air pollution control systems cannot be 

combined. 

Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and NOx

with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the 

SSI facility to determine whether combustion conditions can 

be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install NOx

controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 477

FGR, or low NOx burners). In the proposed rule, we 

conjectured reasons why SCR and SNCR were not used or may 

not be able to be used at SSI units. While we are not 

aware of any SSI unit that currently uses SNCR or SCR, we 

also do not know of technical reason why they could not be 

used. Given the limited data available on SSI units with 

FGR, we could not definitely determine how effective the 

technology was on SSI units. However, we also do not know 

of a technical reason why they could not be used, if 

necessary, to meet NOx limits, and commenters did not 

provide any reasons they could not be used. 

Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis

Comment: Many commenters urged EPA to collect more 

information to set the standards. Many commenters 

contended that EPA does not have sufficient actual emission 

data from enough SSI units to properly set the MACT floor. 

Some commenters contended that the floor-setting provision 

in section 129 requires them to set the existing floor 

standards "based on the best performing 12 percent of 

sources in the category" and not just based on the sources 

for which they have information. The commenters contended 

that EPA did not have emissions data from the best-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 477

performing 12 percent of sources or even from 12 percent of 

sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is 

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collected data 

are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EPA is 

using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a 

subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determine how 

the top 12 percent perform. 

Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit its 

ICR to just nine entities because collecting information 

from ten or more entities would have triggered the PRA 

obligations and a more rigorous OMB review. The commenters 

concluded that EPA’s plan to circumvent the PRA and OMB 

review resulted in an inadequate dataset for this 

rulemaking that leaves EPA unable to reliably take the 

first necessary step in a section 129 rulemaking: to 

determine which of the SSI units are the best performing 

sources. 

Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted its 

ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest emissions 

based on the type of unit and the installed air pollution 

controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targeted 

approach to collecting data from expected top performers 

undermines its ability to presume the data is a random 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 477

sample representative of the entire source category or 

subcategory. The commenters stated that if the data 

gathered are not representative at the outset, then the 

data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equation to 

predict the emissions data across the source category or 

subcategory. 

Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has used 

permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed 

rate control, and other information to establish MACT 

standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenters stated 

that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method 

in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actual 

emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at 

least 12% of the units. 

Another commenter stated that EPA used emission data 

from state databases for an additional nine MHs. The 

commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Court to 

collect data from the best-performing 12% of existing 

sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emissions data 

from the state databases for the additional nine MHs were 

the 12% best performing MHs. 

Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, EPA requested several SSIs to conduct emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 477

testing and provide the results to EPA for purposes of this 

rulemaking. Specifically, EPA collected information on 

the best-performing sources to establish MACT floor 

standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent emissions tests 

requests under section 114 of the CAA to nine entities that 

own and operate SSI units. EPA identified SSI units that 

were expected to be the best-controlled sources and the 

best performers for further emissions testing. The Agency 

acknowledges that this selection methodology targets 

identifying the best-performing sources rather than 

selecting a representative sample of sources. However, 

given the court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue the final 

SSI rule, it was not possible to undertake the timeconsuming process of sending an ICR to all the affected SSI 

units consistent with the requirements of the PRA. 

To select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the 

inventory of SSI units for the control devices being 

operated, and identified a subset of units expected to have 

the lowest emissions based on the type of unit and the 

installed air pollution controls. These controls generally 

achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA section 

129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify for each 

pollutant the units with the lowest emissions. For 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 477

example, units were selected that operated more than one of 

the following technologies: activated carbon injection to 

reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to 

reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; 

high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and 

impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, 

particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO2; and 

units with multiple control devices that could reduce PM, 

Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi scrubber in 

combination with impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or with 

another particulate control device. The 9 owners or 

operators selected were from different states in different 

regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum of 

sources for sludge generated. 

Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, 

resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the nine 

operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some 

owners of multiple units at a facility provided information 

for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit 

instead of 2, because not all units were in operation 

during the test period. Of those 20 units from the nine 

surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 17 units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 477

that were in operation (11 MH units and 6 FB units). While 

testing was being undertaken, the EPA also collected 

emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collected from 

state environmental agencies public databases. For some 

pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental test 

reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sources. 

The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use all the 

emissions information from these test reports in the MACT 

floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test reports 

that were older than 15 years. The older reports were 

determined to not be appropriate for this rulemaking 

because they were unlikely to represent current emissions 

performance, due to their age and because they pre-dated 

required compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In 

total, emissions information were collected from 6 FB units 

and 20 MH units from facilities responding to the ICR and 

additional test reports provided by state environmental 

agencies. 

As discussed in the NPRM and background documentation, 

the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the 

minimum number of observations needed to accurately 

characterize the distribution of the best-performing 12 

percent of units in each subcategory. The results showed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 477

that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the number 

of observations necessary to provide an accurate 

representation of that data distributed from the bestperforming 12 percent of the source population. The EPA 

maintains that the emissions information that we have 

collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor for the 

best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to use other types of data, such 

as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate controls 

with the emissions information to calculate the MACT floor. 

The other types of data mentioned do not represent the 

actual emissions or operation of the unit but are potential 

values in their permits or limits. Most units are 

typically operating at lower than permitted levels or 

emission limits. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to incorporate 

such data into the EPA’s UPL calculation because the UPL 

calculation is based on emission test runs of actual data, 

rather than limits based on permits. The permit or 

emission limits would be on a different basis and 

potentially skew the MACT floor UPL calculation. 

The EPA has also updated the inventory of sources 

based on additional data provided in the comment letters. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 477

The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB units and 

144 MH units. Given this change in population, 12 percent 

of each subcategory are equal to 8 FB units and 18 MH 

units. Although we do not have any more emissions 

information than at proposal, the change in inventory 

results in more than 12 percent of MH units with data for 

PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT 

floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of emissions 

data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). EPA solicited 

additional emission test reports in the NPRM. Although 

many commenters summarized the results of their most recent 

emission tests when comparing their site-specific emissions 

to EPA’s baseline emissions, none of the commenters 

actually provided the emissions test reports. The emission 

test reports are necessary for the EPA to review the test 

methods and procedures to ensure consistency with other 

emissions data, and to verify the tests represent a valid 

test result that can be used in the MACT floor analysis. 

Additionally, the test reports provide information 

necessary to correct the emissions measured into the units 

used for the MACT floor analysis. Therefore, these 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 477

additional test result summaries, without background 

documentation, could not be used in the MACT floor UPL 

calculation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, to fill the data 

gap caused by the lack of actual emissions data from the 

required number of units in each subcategory, EPA applied 

statistical analysis to single test run results. Several 

commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data 

available for MACT development, EPA counted each test run 

as a separate data point. 

Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on 

test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The commenters 

noted that CAA section 129 states that MACT standards for 

existing sources must be as stringent as the "emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in, the category." The commenters added that, 

assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limitation" 

with the concept of emission level (as often stated by 

EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emission 

levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floors. The 

commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes 

a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid emissions 

level test. The commenter stated that a test run is not an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 477

accurate measure of the performance of the unit and should 

not be used as if it were. Commenters added that EPA 

should use the results of the test for each unit (comprised 

of at least three test runs) to represent what is being 

achieved by a unit. 

Several commenters contended that EPA must go back and 

reset the process based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI sources 

(not individual incinerators). The commenters added that 

it is important that individual sources, not units, be 

utilized because the composition of the sludge varies 

greatly from source to source and utilizing multiple units 

at one source skews the data development process and 

ultimately provides the basis for a flawed MACT standard at 

best. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 

percent UPL values were calculated for each pollutant and 

for each subcategory using the test run data for those 

units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consistent with 

EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as HMIWI, 

CISWI, and boilers, the MACT floor emission limits were 

calculated on a run basis since compliance is based on the 

average of a 3-run test. The 99 percent UPL represents the 

value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 477

performance tests form the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample observations 

from the same best-performing sources. 

Variability Calculation

For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are 

incorporating variability in the MACT floor calculation for 

this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also 

following the same procedures for establishing limits and 

incorporating non-detect values as discussed in the NPRM. 

We have made three revisions to the variability calculation 

for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT floor 

variability calculation to incorporate weighted UPL’s for 

existing FB units. Second, we selected log-normal results 

when it is not clear that data are normally distributed. 

Lastly, we revised the CO limits based on an analysis of 

the span of the test. The weighted UPL’s and log-normal 

results are discussed in responses to comments. The 

revision to the CO limits based on reviewing the CO span 

was done to correct errors in the CO values provided in 

test reports and to be consistent with the calculation 

methods used in the CISWI and boilers rules. 

Carbon monoxide values obtained from emission test 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 477

reports were reviewed to determine whether the span of the 

test used was capable of accurately reading the reported 

value. If the span was inconsistent with the reported 

value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a value that 

was more consistent with the span. EPA Method 10 is 

structured such that measurement data quality relative to 

the calibration span of the instrument can be assessed. 

For a measurement made using an instrumental test method, 

the equivalent of the method detection level can be 

assessed using: a square root formula, the reported 

calibration span value, and the allowable data quality 

criteria (i.e. the allowable calibration error, bias, and 

drift values). The estimated CO measurement error resulting 

from the square root formula was adjusted by a factor of 

three to be consistent with the methodology EPA applied for 

non-detect data (where limits no less than three times the 

method detection level were established). 

In order to develop a basis for measurement error, 

instrument calibration spans in available test reports were 

reviewed. Where no span values could be found, it was 

assumed that if the test was conducted on or before May, 

2008, the associated CO span would be 1000 ppm, and tests 

conducted after May 2008 would have a CO span of 100 ppm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 477

This assumption was made because, before revisions were 

made to Method 10 in May of 2008, it was common that units 

were using the prescriptive span guidance that was listed 

in the old method. The current version of EPA Method 10 

does not include these span requirements but instead 

requires the tester to choose calibration ranges that 

reflect the range of expected emission concentrations at 

the unit. In cases where the reported emission 

concentrations were lower than their corresponding 

measurement errors, the default measurement errors were 

used in lieu of the reported concentration. 

These revisions are further documented in the 

memorandum “Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage 

Sludge Incinerator Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 7 of this preamble shows the 

revised results of the MACT floor analysis for existing 

sources, and Table 8 of this preamble shows the results for 

new sources. 

Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd mg/dscm 0.0016 0.095 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 477

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

@7% O2

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

64 3,800 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.51b 1.2 

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.037 0.28 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

150 220 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.0074 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.1 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

1.2 5.0 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

18 80 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

15 26 

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0011 0.0024 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

27 52 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 477

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.24 1.2 c

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0010 0.15 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

30 210 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.00062 0.0035 

CDD/CDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.0044 0.0022 

CDD/CDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.013 0.045 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

9.6 60 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

5.3 26 c

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level.

c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less 

stringent than EG. 

Comment: One commenter contended that because CAA 

section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floors 

reflecting the “average” emission level achieved by the 

best sources, setting floors that instead reflect a UPL for 

those sources is unlawful. The commenter, added that by 

claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 477

twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider 

variability under the CAA and relevant case law. The 

commenter explained that, although EPA may consider 

variability in estimating an individual source’s actual 

performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case law 

even suggests that EPA may account for differences in 

performance between sources except as section 129 provides, 

by averaging the emission levels achieved by the sources in 

the top twelve percent. 

 Response: In assessing sources’ performance, EPA 

may consider variability both in identifying which 

performers are “best” and in assessing their level of 

performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 

875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 

(D.C. Cir 2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, based on 

an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, 

to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources considering these 

sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision 

indicated that floors for existing sources must reflect the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 477

also reiterated that EPA may account for variability in 

setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA erred in 

assessing variability because it relied on data from the 

worst performers to estimate best performers’ variability. 

The Court held that “EPA may not use emission levels of the 

worst performers to estimate variability of the best 

performers without a demonstrated relationship between the 

two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. 

In determining the MACT floor limits, we first 

determine the floor, which, for existing sources, is the 

emissions limitation achieved in practice by the average of 

the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the level 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest 

emissions limitation as the measure of best performance. 

We then assess variability of the best performers by using 

a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor 

level based on the average of the best performing sources 

using the expected distribution of future compliance tests. 

We used the UPL to perform this calculation, as explained 

below. 

Variability can be accounted for using different 

statistical methods. For example, recent standards have 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 477

used the UL or the UPL to determine the MACT floor emission 

limits. A UL is based on the distribution of the available 

emission observations (e.g., test runs), and does not 

embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A prediction 

interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an 

interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomly 

selected observation from a population. In other words, 

the prediction interval estimates what future values will 

be, based on present or past background samples taken. 

Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the 

mean of three future test run observations (three-run 

average) can be expected to fall below, based on the 

results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same 

population. Therefore, should a future test condition be 

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

of three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the 

reported level will fall below a MACT floor emission limit 

calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an appropriate 

statistical tool to use in determining variability in the 

SSI data. For this source category, where there is a 

limited sampling of the source category and we do not have 

test data from all of the SSI units in the best performing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 477

12% for each subcategory, the predictive aspect of the UPL 

calculation is especially important. 

Because the UPL represents the value which we can 

expect the mean (i.e., average) of three future 

observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon the 

results of the independent sample size from the same 

population, the UPL reflects average emissions. The UPL is 

also consistent with other recent rulemakings. 

Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting 

MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized 

data from all available test runs for the best performing 

units without regard to the number of data points available 

for each unit. The commenters added that, for all 

pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to 

unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases 

the statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by 

over-weighting the performance of the units that have more 

data. The commenter suggested that EPA should employ an 

alternate methodology which determines the emissions 

limitation achieved for each best performing unit first, 

and then averages these limitations to determine the least 

stringent standard, or MACT floor. 

Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 477

units contains data from six units at four facilities. The 

entities surveyed were requested to provide recent (within 

the previous 5 years) emissions test reports. Most survey 

recipients provided only the most recent report. One 

facility, with three units, provided results of emissions 

test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year 

period. This facility also uses the most advanced 

pollution controls on their fluidized bed units in the 

subcategory. This facility constitutes 70 percent of the 

Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and 75 

percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the 

existing source MACT floors calculated using the UPL 

methodology, and all the test run data from the one 

facility, effectively result in calculating more stringent 

limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an 

existing source MACT floor, because it is based primarily 

on only the emissions performance of the best-performing 

single source, rather than the average of the bestperforming 12 percent of sources.. In order to adequately 

incorporate the emissions from the best-performing SSI 

units in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was 

used for calculating the existing source MACT floors for 

the final rule. The weighted UPL is calculated from a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 477

weighted mean and weighted variance as described below. 

There are many different types of weighting 

procedures. We have chosen the most straightforward 

methodology, to base it on the number of data points (i.e., 

test runs) from each SSI unit.12 This weighting scheme 

ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool 

is over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. 

The first step in weighting procedure is to assign a 

weighting factor to each test run by multiplying each 

observation for source i and run j with a weight term, wij, 

as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble: 













×















=

M N

w

i

ij

1 1

 (Eq. 1)

 

Where: 

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

N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool. 

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance 

for the weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 

 

12 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIST Handbook 148: 

DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June 2003. [Available at 

www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 477

2 and 3 of this preamble: 

Weighted Mean: 

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

= N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

ij ij

weighted

i

i

w

w x

x

1 1

1 1

 Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

( )

( )

K

K w

w x x

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

weighted

ij ij U

weighted

i

i

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

−

−

=

1 1

1 1

2

1

ν

Equation 3

Where: 

∑=

=

N

i

K Mi

1

is the total number of observations in the MACT best 

performers pool. 

When the weights are equal to one, the above equations 

reduce to those for un-weighted data, as expected. As 

shown in Equation 4 of this preamble, the weighted mean and 

weighted variance are then used in the UPL calculation 

(discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e., unweighted) mean and variance. 

( ) ( ) 















= + − × × +

i i

weighted

i

weighted

n m

UPL x t n

1 1

99.0 , 1 ν Equation 4 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 477

For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions 

data from a larger number of facilities/units. For 

example, we have data on Cd and Pb from 11 facilities with 

14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT 

floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units or 

facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing 

multiple hearth units does not need to be calculated using 

a weighted UPL. 

The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are 

discussed in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should 

determine the MACT floor emission limits to be consistent 

with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Manual, 

which holds that it is more likely that environmental data 

are distributed log-normally. The commenter considered it 

reasonable to believe that environmental emission 

distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots 

typically show many readings approaching zero and fewer 

large readings forming an elongated tail to the right. The 

commenter concluded that normal distributions may exist for 

certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 477

standard deviations away from zero, and values are 

controlled by an air pollution control process with set 

points and feedback and control loops. 

Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and 

agree with the commenter that the referenced document shows 

that environmental data are more likely to be log-normally 

distributed than normally distributed. In the proposed 

rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used to calculate the 

MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed. If 

both the reported values and the natural-log transformed 

reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 

indicated neither were normally distributed, the reported 

dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis 

hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the 

natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done 

on the reported data values was chosen to be conservative. 

Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: 

Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/084, July 

2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whether a 

normal or log-normal distribution better represents the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 477

data, or when there are not enough data to complete the 

skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have 

chosen to use the log-normal results for the final MACT 

floor calculation. 

Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA 

incorrectly presumes that stack test results account for 

the full variability of an SSI’s performance. Several 

commenters stated that emissions from SSI units are 

affected not just by control technology but also by other 

factors including the contents of the sludge that a unit is 

burning. Many commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT 

floor limits by incorporating the variability of the sludge 

contents. The commenters added that the methodology in 

developing the proposed standards does not take into 

account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions are a 

function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and 

sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits 

were based on test results obtained with sludge containing 

very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and sulfur. 

The commenter explained that if the sludge burned during an 

emissions test was not at or near the maximum constituent 

concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 477

new source emission limit based on these data could not be 

achieved over the full range of expected normal operating 

conditions confronted by the best performing source. 

The commenters contended that EPA must consider all 

available data (including Part 503 data) for the best 

performing source and use that to establish a variability 

factor applied to the stack test data. The commenters 

added that EPA’s request for metals data during the stack 

test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source 

variability. The commenters added that variability for the 

compounds not regulated by Part 503 must also be accounted 

for as well before setting the new source limit. 

The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI 

units, are statutorily obligated to manage all of the 

sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, 

resulting in highly variable and often unpredictable spikes 

in concentrations. The commenters continued that POTW inlet 

concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of 

dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat 

wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial 

dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment 

opportunities also vary because POTW authority to control 

discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 477

that authority is exercised varies. The commenters also 

noted that the nature of sewage entering the POTW changes 

over time as the character of a community changes, the age 

of the population changes, and commercial and industrial 

dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without 

the use of long-term data to support the level of emission 

standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based 

limits impractical and infeasible. The commenters also 

explained that POTW also face significant regional and 

seasonal variability that is not captured by EPA’s dataset. 

The commenters stated that initial high flow periods in the 

spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier material 

that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow 

periods, which often results in a spike in metals 

concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage sludge. The 

commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in January and 

February that were used for the EPA database would not have 

captured these events. The commenter also noted that 

northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways 

experience significant increases in chlorides during the 

winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known 

to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at existing wet 

scrubbers. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 477

Response: The variability analysis is based on 

emissions information gathered from nine different 

facilities located in nine different states. The 

facilities we collected emissions information from are 

located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and 

western states. Each facility has its own unique sludge 

characteristics from different residential and commercial 

populations. We agree that the emissions data represents a 

“point in time”. However, combined together, they 

represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and 

populations that adequately incorporates variability in 

wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We have also 

incorporated variability using the UPL. The variability 

analysis based on the emissions data collected adequately 

characterizes the potential differences in sludge contents 

and regional differences. Because we have a mixture of 

southern and northern states in the emissions database, we 

believe that it also adequately considers differences 

between cold and warm weather climates. Additionally, we 

did not have sufficient information at proposal to consider 

if it were appropriate to incorporate variability based on 

sludge content. We requested additional information in the 

NPRM, but did not receive adequate sampling data from the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 477

best-performing sources. 

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s 

identification of the relevant best performing units for 

both existing and new unit standards is both unlawful and 

arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control technology 

as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pollution 

control technology is the only factor determining emission 

levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated that, in 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. 

Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Club's 

challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely on 

the performance of one method: add-on technology. The 

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule because 

EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities control 

emissions. The commenters stated that this requirement is 

consistent with doing a more complete study as required by 

section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based 

solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this 

fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of 

control. The commenters concluded that EPA's performance 

data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did 

not check for all methods that sources use to reduce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 477

pollution. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges 

that EPA has not properly identified the best performing 

SSI units for purposes of calculating MACT floor limits. 

As explained above, EPA targeted its emissions testing 

requests to units it believed had the lowest emissions, 

while accounting for factors such as sludge content and 

seasonal variation by selecting units in different 

geographic areas of the country. 

EPA further notes that SSI units currently employ nontechnology measures (pollution prevention) to reduce 

emissions to comply with CWA regulations at 40 CFR Part 

503. These regulations establishe daily average 

concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage 

sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also 

requires that SSI meet the National Emission Standards for 

Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 

CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 

standards, facilities are already incorporating management 

practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the 

concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI 

units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated 

wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-treatment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 477

standards for non-domestic users discharging wastewater to 

POTW. Thus, the facilities from which EPA received 

emissions test results are already applying non-technology 

measures to reduce emissions. 

Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs 

the statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it 

should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated 

that the 99.9 percent UPL represents a 0.1 percent 

probability of a failure for individual tests, or a one 

percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual 

performance test program. The commenter concluded that 

this value better encompasses unit emissions variability 

and represents a manageable risk to the responsible 

facility operator. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the 

final standards, we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is 

appropriate and sufficiently addresses variability in the 

emissions information. Our analysis of variability is 

explained in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit 

of zero percent because opacity is a subjective measurement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 477

and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. 

Another commenter suggested that control and monitoring of 

PM is sufficient. 

Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero 

opacity) limit for combustion processes is impractical for 

both compliance and enforcement purposes. We also believe 

that a measurable opacity may or may not be indicative of 

compliance with a PM emissions limit when applied to 

multiple sources within the category. That is, an opacity 

limit applied to one facility could very readily correspond 

to a PM emissions level different than that same opacity 

limit applied to another facility and one or both may be 

emitting above the PM limit. That opacity limits do not 

apply very well when wet control devices are used further 

confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. We also 

agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific parametric 

monitoring approaches applicable to various control devices 

that can be more closely aligned with PM control and 

compliance with the PM emissions limit than would an 

opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of 

establishing opacity limits that may or may not assure 

compliance with PM emissions limits, the final rules 

include rigorous requirements for establishing site-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 477

specific operating limits derived from the results of 

performance testing. The rules also include a requirement 

that sources update those enforceable operating limits with 

each repeated performance test. Re-establishing operating 

limits periodically will assure that the monitoring will 

continue to indicate compliance with the PM emissions 

limits. The rules also provide the source the option of 

apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of interest in 

lieu of parametric monitoring. We believe that continuous 

compliance with operating limits and periodic stack testing 

to verify the operating limits plus the CEMS option will 

ensure that sources demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the PM emission limits more effectively than would periodic 

or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable opacity 

limit. 

Format of the Standards

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

develop emission limits for some pollutants in different 

units or to provide a control efficiency alternative. The 

commenters expressed concern that the use of concentration 

limits would not reflect the variability of the unique 

sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly 

penalize units with very low or very high feed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 477

concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or 

Pb. Some commenters suggested establishing limits similar 

to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided emission limits 

based on control efficiencies coupled with feed 

concentration limits. 

 Response: We did not have sufficient data to set 

alternative control efficiency standards or standards in 

other units at proposal. We requested additional 

information in the proposal. However, sufficient data were 

not provided in response to our request for alternative 

formats to be developed. 

D. Baseline Emissions

 Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated 

baseline emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate 

parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge 

feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters provided 

stack test data, emission estimates, and corrections to the 

EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters noted that 

EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate 

factors in combination with pollutant concentrations 

corrected to seven percent oxygen. 

 Response: We have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 477

where applicable. In some cases, commenters did not 

provide information sufficient for us to revise the 

inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter’s 

facility. For example, commenters may have provided an 

average concentration for a pollutant, but did not provide 

run-specific information that would allow us to convert the 

concentration information provided to standardized units (7 

percent oxygen). Other commenters may have provided 

emission rates in pounds per hour, but did not provide vent 

gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to 

convert to concentration units. None of the commenters 

provided test reports that would have include this 

information. 

 We have also revised the calculation of baseline 

emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI units 

where information was not available. Defaults were 

necessary to be assigned because, even after new data were 

received in comments, a significant number of units did not 

have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A 

detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate 

baseline emissions for the final standards is presented in 

the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emissions 

from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA-HQ-OAR-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 477

2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other 

corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions 

shown in Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range 

of emissions for each pollutant. The lower bound 

represents an estimation of actual emissions based on the 

actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their 

units were running. The upper bound represents an 

estimation of potential emissions if the sludge feed rate 

was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We estimated 

the potential emissions because the amount of wastewater 

treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantly based 

on changes in population or sources of wastewater. 

Facilities have the potential to burn up to their units 

permitted capacity although they may not be doing so 

currently. 

Table 9. Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

FB MH 

Cd 0.0022-0.0015 0.91-1.2 0.91-1.2 

CO 73-100 8,400-11,500 8,500-11,600 

HCl 1.6-2.2 26-41 28-43 

Hg 0.040-0.058 0.85-1.15 0.9-1.2 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 477

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

FB MH 

NOx 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 

Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQa

0.00012-

0.00016 

0.00076-0.0010 

0.0009-0.0012 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMBa

0.0014-0.0020 

0.011-0.015 

0.013-0.017 

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 

SO2 43-57 660-1,020 700-1,100 

a Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF. 

E. Beyond the Floor Analysis

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the beyond the floor Hg limit for MH units 

because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and costs for 

Hg control were understated. Many of the commenters 

contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology 

for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility 

with FB units. The commenters added that the facility is 

undergoing significant issues with the technology. 

Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon 

injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, 

such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 477

The commenters added that the high moisture content in the 

form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will plug FFs, 

and additional equipment may be necessary to keep the 

temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner. 

Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor 

analysis to incorporate changes made to the baseline 

emissions, new facility specific data and inputs provided 

by commenters, and revised control options. We analyzed 

several beyond-the-floor controls for the final rule. 

First, we evaluated the use of an afterburner for control 

of CO at MH units. We then evaluated whether additional 

control of Hg should be required at MH units. We have 

reviewed the commenters concerns regarding Hg control 

technologies and agree that applying carbon injection to 

existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be 

effective at removing Hg. For combustion sources that are 

not SSI, such as boilers, carbon injection in combination 

with a FF has proven to be highly effective in removing Hg. 

However, for high moisture flue gas streams, such as 

emitted from SSI units, the use of FFs is problematic due 

to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with 

a FF with high moisture streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, 

or afterburner is necessary to maintain a high enough 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 477

temperature to keep the stream above the dew point prior to 

sending the stream to the FF. 

Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of using 

an afterburner, carbon injection, and FF for additional 

control of Hg at MH units. Additional equipment may also 

be necessary to reduce the temperature of the flue gas to 

prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. Sufficient 

information was not collected to estimate this cost. Table 

10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existing SSI 

units to apply different controls that were analyzed. 

Table 10. Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units to Apply 

MACT Controls Analyzed(2008$) 

Control Analyzed 

Total Capital 

Costs 

(million $) 

Total Annualized 

Costs (million 

($/Yr)a

1 - MACT Floor 55 18

2 - MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for MH 

units 

155 46

3 – MACT Floor+ 

Afterburner and

Activated carbon 

injection and FF for 

MH units 

490 138

a Calculated using a seven percent discount factor. 

Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions of each pollutant for various controls analyzed. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 477

Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units 

to Applythe MACT Controls Analyzed 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions for MACT Controls Analyzed (TPY) 

MACT Floor 

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for 

MH Units 

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner + ACI 

and FF for MH 

Units 

Cd 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.87-1.1 

CO 0 6,900-9,300 6,900-9,300 

HCl 19-30 19-30 19-30 

Hg 0.0022-0.0025 0.0022-0.0025 0.67-0.89 

NOx 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16 

Pb 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 2.3-2.9 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ 0 0 0.0000003-

0.0000004 

PCDD/PCDF TMB 0 0 0.000005-0.000007 

PM 58-70 58-70 300-400 

SO2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this 

preamble were calculated using data gathered for each 

source (e.g., emissions, vent gas flow rates, controls 

currently used), as well as default values for emissions, 

sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate for sources where 

data were unavailable. We estimate that requiring the use 

of an afterburner for MH units not already having an 

afterburner could require as much as 1,010 million cubic 

feet of natural gas a year to be burned, resulting in NOx

and CO emissions of 51 and 43 TPY, respectively. We 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 477

estimate that applying activated carbon injection with a FF 

and an afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg and 

PCDD/PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 

million dollars (using a discount rate of seven percent) 

and would achieve Hg reductions of 0.67-0.89 TPY. The 

incremental cost-effectiveness of adding afterburners/RTO, 

activated carbon injection, and FFs to all MH units is 

estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per pound of Hg 

removed. Costs would increase if equipment necessary to 

cool the flue gas is also necessary. Therefore, given these 

factors, we are not finalizing any beyond-the-floor 

requirements for SSI units. 

We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require 

packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, 

a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR 

for additional NOx reduction. We determined that it was 

not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater 

reduction of HCl, SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOx considering the 

cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor 

analyses for the final standards are documented in the 

memorandum “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 477

Existing SSI Units” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts

 Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

underestimated the cost of the proposed rule for the beyond 

the floor option of Hg control as well as for the MACT 

floor for other pollutants because it only has information 

for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The commenters 

added that EPA used information from these limited sources 

and applied it to remaining sources for which they did not 

have. The commenters contended that this results 

inaccurate determinations of which units could meet the 

proposed emission limits and which could not. The 

commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of 

sources that could meet the proposed standards resulting in 

a significant underestimation of controls. 

 Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of 

controls to cost for compliance with the proposed standards 

were inappropriate for SSI units. Many commenters stated 

that the high moisture content of flue gas streams in some 

applications may mean that FFs would not be an appropriate 

control for PM, Cd, or Pb. 

 Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control 

technology or method. A source is required to meet the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 477

final emissions limits in these standards, and has the 

flexibility to use the control method or technology that is 

best suited for their individual facility. EPA’s costs are 

estimated based on technologies we believe may be 

appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions limits. 

At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated 

costs and emissions reductions based on the best available 

information to us. We acknowledge that the inventory 

database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI 

units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flue gas 

flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other 

inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses 

using data provided by the commenters as summarized in 

section IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following 

Proposal and the memorandum titled, “Post-Proposal SSI 

Database Revisions and Data Gap Filling Methodology” in the 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). However, for a number of 

inputs, we are still assigning default values where data 

were not available for each SSI. For the final rule, we 

have correlated some of the defaults to populations served 

by the facilities in order to better estimate costs and 

emission reductions more specifically to each facility. 

Sources will have the best idea of the costs of controls 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 477

for their site specific conditions. For some sources, the 

costs and emission reductions estimated by EPA may be 

higher than what the source estimates, and for others they 

will be less. EPA’s estimates are estimates based on the 

best information available to us. We also note that the 

MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination 

of the number of sources estimated to require control, 

estimated for the final rule are also based on the revised 

MACT floor limits. 

 For the final standards we have also revised the types 

of controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSIs 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSIs that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed scrubbers for 

SSIs that we estimate will need further control of HCl or 

SO2. At the MACT floor level, we do not estimate that any 

SSIs will need to add control for Hg, PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A 

detailed discussion of the costs and emissions reductions 

estimates for the final standards is provided in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 477

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

incorrectly calculated the costs of the landfilling 

alternative because it used dry tons of sewage sludge 

instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is 

the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the 

dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent 

moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimates for 

landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The 

commenters added that because of the error, EPA has 

significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting 

sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not 

evaluated the negative social impact of hauling sludge to a 

landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not consider 

the additional costs for specific state landfilling 

regulations. 

 Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly 

estimated the on-site sludge storage requirements because 

calculations were not done on a wet basis. Commenters 

added that the cost of the storage units would be 

significant and would need to include odor control as well 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 477

as a settling basin. 

 Other commenters expressed concern regarding the 

availability of landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. 

The commenters contended there was insufficient landfill 

capacity to handle the influx of sewage sludge. 

Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the 

landfill alternative based on comments received on the 

proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of 

this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of 

this alternative if small entities choose to landfill 

rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed 

discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

The selection of a management option for sewage sludge is 

often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, 

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 477

option than incineration. 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

 Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA’s 

proposed language requiring facilities to meet the proposed 

SSI standards “at all times” because it would be difficult 

to comply with certain proposed emission limits during 

startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters were 

specifically concerned about not being able to meet the 

proposed CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI 

because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold 

vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combustion is 

completed creating a small flow of CO. One commenter 

contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard 

without any evidence that it can be achieved during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. This commenter provided 

an example of CO data from one hazardous waste combustor 

that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal operations but 

averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during 

shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters 

stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to increase 

during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combustion 

that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and noted that 

the influence of unstable combustion may be more pronounced 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 477

during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining 

sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters 

recommended that EPA account for situations where higher 

emissions occur during the time it takes to bring control 

equipment from startup to steady-state operations. 

 Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a 

separate emission standard for the source category that 

applies during periods of startup and shutdown. We do not 

have data that would allow us to set a separate standard 

during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested 

information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. 

Based on the information available at this time, we believe 

that SSI units will be able to meet the emission limits 

during periods of startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to start 

the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill 

gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be 

lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions during 

periods of shutdown are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the materials in the 

incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown 

occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 477

floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on 

actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with 

an appropriate accounting of emissions variability. 

Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe 

we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may 

potentially occur during startup or shutdown. 

 Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

were not needed to be factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at 

all times. We note that continuous compliance is 

demonstrated using continuous parametric monitoring, except 

for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are required for new 

source using a 24-hour block average. 

 Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly 

claims that its authority to prescribe unique standards for 

SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated that EPA 

has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur 

during SSM periods. One commenter contended that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 477

Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA 

section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 

111), and pointed out that this interpretation is not 

merely a technical distinction. The commenter pointed out 

that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions during SSM 

events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111 

(referenced 40 CFR §60.8(c)). The commenter argued that 

Congress enacted the continuous basis language in section 

302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 

111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that there is 

nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amendments 

to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that 

practice. 

 Response: As explained above, EPA believes the 

reasoning in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA applies equally to section 129. Additionally, EPA 

explains above the reasons it is not establishing different 

emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the 

proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pressure 

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 477

rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion 

temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) would not 

be achievable. They explained that these ranges are too 

narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the 

operating standards already required by 40 CFR 60 subpart 

O, 40 CFR 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed 

with the proposed operating parameter ranges. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by 

the commenters and determined that proposed procedure for 

establishing the operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the 

average of three test runs and as 90 percent of the minimum 

value recorded during the applicable performance tests) may 

be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of 

energy or other operating needs. We determined that the 

operating limits should be more appropriately based on 

values recorded during the performance test runs. The 

final rule requires that operating limits be established on 

a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, as 

appropriate) operating parameter value measured during the 

performance test. This approach has been incorporated into 

the final rule for all operating parameters and will result 

in achievable operating ranges that will ensure that the 

control devices used for compliance will be operated to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 477

achieve continuous compliance with the emissions limits. 

Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed 

operating range for sludge feed rate would not be 

achievable, that it results in the EPA changing the current 

state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and that it could 

force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum 

rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach 

fails to take into account the normal feed condition and 

rate variation that occur on a daily and seasonal basis. A 

few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent 

to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a steadier 

state of control and more efficient combustion of the 

sludge. 

Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating 

range for sludge moisture content would not be achievable 

and that EPA does not need sludge moisture content to 

determine whether SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. They explained that sludge moisture is 

very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, 

seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by an 

SSI, temperature changes, the biological systems that treat 

the sewage, and to operational changes, and that these 

changes cannot always be anticipated and are not always 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 477

immediately correctable. 

Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to 

require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge within 

specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit 

for temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner 

temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion 

practice, and that moisture content is not needed to 

establish that SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture content, 

the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with their 

operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber. 

We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge 

moisture content within specified ranges. We are also no 

longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates 

within specified ranges due to the seasonal variability at 

wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate information 

is necessary during performance test runs to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that 

they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We 

are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of 

sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI units 

should already be keeping records of these parameters, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 477

this information will be useful in establishing 

representative operating limitations for a SSI unit. 

EPA added a requirement that performance tests be 

conducted at 85 percent of the permitted maximum capacity. 

This level has been selected based on the performance test 

operating information provided by the commenters and 

previous EPA standards. 

Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour 

rolling averaging period selected in the proposed rule for 

determining compliance with the operating parameters and CO 

limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They 

explained that the recordkeeping and compliance burden is 

less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both 

based on a 24-hour block average. They also explained that 

the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis 

would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to 

achieve with FB incinerators. 

Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block 

averaging period for compliance with the CO CEMS 

requirement for new sources will provide a sufficient 

indication of compliance and will allow more flexibility 

for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission 

guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 477

units has changed in the final guidelines to 27 ppm, and 

this change is discussed in Section IV of this preamble. 

We have also revised the averaging periods for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, to be on a 

12-hour block average instead of a 4-hour rolling average 

basis in order to relate the averaging time for operating 

limits to the duration of the performance tests (e.g., a 

three run test of 4 hour test runs would equal a 12-hour 

averaging time). For scrubber liquid pH, we chose 3-hour 

averages to be consistent with the performance test 

duration for acid gas scrubbers. 

In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the 

alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 129 

requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regulated 

pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be used in 

place of the regulated pollutants. 

Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the 

requirement in the proposed rule for annual testing, and 

argued that annual testing of each SSI is not needed to 

demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsistent with 

current Title V permits. They also argued that Method 22 

compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not 

feasible or difficult to conduct due to space constraints, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 477

and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash removal 

systems that do not require annual testing. They explained 

that the cost for emissions testing may be significantly 

higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They 

further explained that Title V permits require facilities 

to test each of its SSI units once per five years. They 

pointed out that current management practices and strict 

health-based sludge content limits under the CWA section 

405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help ensure 

that SSI units are in compliance with their emission 

limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed 

compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will 

essentially shorten the testing year by one month each 

year. 

Response: The proposed standards included provisions 

for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has 

revised these provisions, making it easier for facilities 

to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less 

frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that 

facilities that do less frequent testing are well below 

their emission limits. In the final standards, owners or 

operators are required to establish that emissions of a 

given pollutant are under a specified threshold for two 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 477

consecutive years, rather than three years as proposed, to 

qualify for less frequent testing for that pollutant. We 

have also extended the option to do less frequent testing 

to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. The 

threshold is 75 percent of the emission limit for each of 

the nine regulated pollutants. In order to allow a 

decrease in testing frequency, EPA must have assurance that 

SSI units can meet a more stringent threshold than the 

limits. This is particularly necessary because of the 

variability in sludge that may occur at wastewater 

treatment facilities. Additionally, in the final standards 

we are also providing assurance that the SSI unit is being 

operated properly and emission limits are being met 

continuously by requiring stringent parametric monitoring 

requirements. Specifically, exceedances of the minimum or 

maximum values established during the performance tests are 

considered deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash 

handling, owners or operators must demonstrate that visible 

emissions occur no more than two percent of the time during 

each Method 22 1-hour observation period. This allowance 

for fugitive ash emissions has been included in the final 

standards with a new requirement that all facilities must 

submit a monitoring plan at least 60 days before their 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 477

initial compliance test to establish that their ash 

handling system will continuously meet the visible 

emissions limit. 

Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility 

regarding their test dates, to ensure that facilities are 

not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months, and to 

ensure that facilities are testing once per year, we have 

revised the testing schedule provisions. In the final 

standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that 

qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a 

calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar months and 

no more than 15 calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and facilities must complete five 

performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that the 

definition of “process change” be revised to exclude the 

provision that a process change include an increase in the 

allowable wastewater received from an industrial source. 

They pointed out that any such increase would trigger a 

performance test, as required by the proposed standards, 

and that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They 

explained that industrial discharges often constitute only 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 477

a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3.5 

percent, four to eight percent), that such discharges are 

sometimes from sources that do not discharge the pollutants 

regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food 

processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities 

regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from other 

regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it 

is difficult for impossible to anticipate some industrial 

load changes ahead of time. Several commenters argued that 

this proposed requirement would be redundant to the 

National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, which are 

incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require them to 

establish local limits on industrial discharges to prevent 

interference with sludge processes, use, and disposal. The 

commenters anticipate that they would establish similar 

limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission 

limits. A few commenters suggested that the proposed 

provision for industrial discharges is vague and open to 

interpretation. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process 

change” and agrees with the commenters that there are some 

situations where an increase in the allowable wastewater 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 477

received from an industrial source should not trigger a 

performance test. We have revised the definition of 

“process change” to more specifically and clearly identify 

the type of process change that will trigger a performance 

test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” 

as pollutant-specific and as including only situations 

where the SSI has undergone a significant permit revision. 

This revision will ensure that facilities retest whenever 

they have a significant change in the process that could 

trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant. 

Comment: Several commenters requested EPA clarify 

what equipment are included as part of the SSI unit. The 

commenters stated that the proposed rules do not specify 

the equipment and without clarification, a SSI unit could 

be interpreted inconsistently or over-broadly. Commenters

requested clarification regarding whether the 

“modification” (which refers to an “SSI unit”) applies to 

the multiple hearth or fluid bed “reactor” or whether it 

includes the entire system including all air emission 

controls and auxiliary equipment. 

Response: We agree that the definition of the SSI 

unit in the proposed rule was unclear as to what equipment 

constitutes the SSI unit. We have revised the definition 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 477

of SSI unit in the final rule. A SSI unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. We have 

clarified that a SSI unit also includes, but is not limited 

to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery 

equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit 

includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom 

ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system 

ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment that 

transfers the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not 

include air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 477

 As discussed in sections IV and V of this preamble, we 

have made several revisions to the impacts analyses for the 

final rules. We have incorporated revisions to the 

variability calculation. These revisions include: 

incorporating weighted UPL’s for existing FB units, 

selecting log-normal results when it is not clear that data 

are normally distributed, and revising CO limits based on 

an analysis of the span of the test. The result of these 

changes increased UPL values for most pollutants. 

Additionally, we have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. We have also revised the calculation of 

baseline emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI 

units where information was not available. These changes 

resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for each of 

the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL and 

decreased baseline emissions resulted in less SSI units 

estimated to need additional control to meet the MACT floor 

limits. 

For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floor 

level of control for both subcategories instead of 

selecting a beyond-the-floor requirement. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 477

For the final rules we have also revised the types of 

controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSIs 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSIs that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed-bed scrubbers for 

SSIs that we estimate will need further control of HCl or 

SO2. 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions 

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits. As discussed in section V of this 

preamble, we have revised the estimation of baseline 

emissions and emission reductions to present a range to 

show the variability in the emission calculations between 

estimated actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. 

Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The 

analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis 

of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 477

Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI 

Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits 

Pollutant 

Range of Reductions Achieved 

Through Meeting MACT By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Reductions 

FB MH (TPY) 

Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 

CO 0 0 0 

HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 

Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 

NOx 6.8-16 0 6.8-16 

Pb 0 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

0 

0 

0 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

0 

0 

0 

PM 0 58-70 58-70 

SO2 17-21 420-680 430-700 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, 

which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 234 million gallons per year of additional 

wastewater will be generated as a result of operating 

additional controls or increased sorbents. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 477

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 

Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the 

proposed emission limits consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. We 

anticipate that an additional 5,420 megawatt-hours per year 

will be required for the additional and improved control 

devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The combustion of fuel needed to generate 

additional electricity will yield slight increases in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 477

emissions, including NOx, CO, PM and SO2 and an increase in 

CO2 emissions. Since NOx and SO2 are covered by capped 

emissions trading programs, and methodological limitations 

prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do 

not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for this 

rule from additional electricity demand. 

5. What are the cost and economic impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing 

units to add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, 

inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to 

comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standards). 

Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $55 million with an associated total 

annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and using 

a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of 

this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will 

need to install one or more air pollution control devices 

for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission 

limits. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in 

the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 477

Table 13. Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities 

Comply With Proposed Emission Limits (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 10.1 3.1 

MH 45.0 14.7 

Total 55.0 17.8 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At 

proposal, we evaluated landfilling as an alternative 

disposal method. We have revised our costs and impacts of 

this alternative based on comments received on the proposal 

and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of this 

preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this 

alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather 

than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of 

the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

However, the selection of a management option for sewage 

sludge is often a local decision that is based on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 477

environmental protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, 

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

Table 14. Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that 

Landfill in Lieu of Incineration (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 278 38 

MH 313 42.7 

Total 591 80.7 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units

As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI 

units constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB 

incinerators, and information provided by the industry on 

likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI units 

constructed are likely to be FB incinerators. 

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions 

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits on two new FB incinerators potentially 

being constructed in the next five years. Table 15 of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 477

preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT 

compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 

Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 15. Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., 

Fluidized Bed Incinerators) Constructed 

Pollutant Emission Reduction (TPY) 

Cd 0 

CDD/CDF, TEQ 0.0000000033 

CDD/CDF, TMB 0.000000051 

CO 0.26 

HCl 0 

Hg 0.0026 

NOx 14 

Pb 0.00053 

PM 0 

PM2.5 0 

SO2 0 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources would need to apply 

controls in addition to what they would have planned to 

include in the absence of this rule to meet the final 

emission limits. These controls may utilize water, such as 

wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 477

an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of 

additional wastewater will be generated as a result of 

operating additional controls or increased sorbents for the 

two new units expected to come on-line in the next five 

years. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Likewise, the application of PM controls results in 

particulate collected that would require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be used by some 

sources, which would result in solid waste needing 

disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will 

require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY 

from activated carbon injection for the two units. 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the final 

emission limits would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 477

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 megawatthours per year will be required for the additional and 

improved control devices for the two new units modeled to 

come on-line in the next five years. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of Secondary 

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category 

Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 

5. What are the cost impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units 

coming on-line in the next five years. This analysis is 

based on a model plant, the assumption that two new units 

will come on-line and will add the necessary controls, 

monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI 

standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an 

overall total capital investment of $8 million (2008$) with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 477

an associated total annualized cost of $2 million (2008$ 

and using a seven percent discount rate). This analysis 

assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB 

incinerators. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this 

action is a "significant regulatory action” because it was 

likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more based on the proposed standards. However, 

the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed 

standards we are simply updating the RIA rather than 

revising it. 

A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 477

proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on the 

lower costs associated with the selected alternative in 

this final action we are providing an update of the RIA 

rather than completely revising the RIA. Within this 

update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the 

controls analyzed and have provided a comparison of the 

selected controls with the alternatives.13 While the 

characteristics of the controls analyzed have changed, we 

have also provided a comparison of the costs and benefits 

of the proposed controls analyzed with the selected 

alternative in this final action. A summary of the 

differences are presented below. 

• Costs for the selected controls analyzed for 

promulgation are 80% lower and benefits are 81% lower 

than they were for the selected controls analyzed for 

proposal. 

• Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a 

government provided service that does not involve a 

market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts were 

 

13 In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred to as Option 1 (MACT 

floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and 

Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated carbon injection 

and fabric filter for MH units).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 477

estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impact 

analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to 

total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% 

lower for the selected controls analyzed for 

promulgation compared to the proposed controls analyzed, 

the control costs are expected to be a smaller portion 

of government revenues for the selected controls for 

promulgation than they were for the proposed controls. 

• Because of insufficient information, employment changes 

due to the requirements for operating and maintaining 

control equipment were not estimated. Also, we did not 

have the information needed to estimate any labor 

changes related to governmental decisions to switch from 

incineration to landfilling. 

• Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the 

selected option by $3 million to $34 million at three 

percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven percent. 

The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NOx and SO2, ecosystem effects, and 

visibility impairment have not been monetized, including 

reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of 

Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd. 

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and 

EG (millions of $2008) 

MACT Floor (Selected) 3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

Costs $18 to $18 $18 to $18 

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

Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

NSPS and EG 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 477

Total Monetized Benefits for 

Final Controls Analyzed 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH units 

$20 to $50 $18 to $45 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and

Activated carbon injection and

fabric filter for MH units 

$55 to $140 $50 to $130

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

MACT Floor (millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

Selected Controls Analyzed 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG 

Total Costs for Final Controls 

Analyzed (millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

MACT Floor (Selected) $18 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 477

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH units 

$46 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and

activated carbon injection + 

fabric filter for MH units 

$138 

Costs Changes for MACT Floor 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$63 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -71% 

Cost Changes for Selected 

Controls Analyzed (millions of 

2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$92 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -80% 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

information collection requirements are not enforceable 

until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA 

have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, 

and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 477

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

rule are based on the information collection requirements 

in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provisions (40 

CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory 

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

information other than emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The requirements in this action result in industry 

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review 

of the amendments for all SSI and initial and annual 

compliance with the emission limits using EPA approved 

emissions test methods. The burden also includes 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. Operators are required to obtain 

qualification and complete annual training. New units are 

also required to submit a report prior to construction, 

including a siting analysis. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 477

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 

Subparts LLLL and MMMM. An affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can 

demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 

satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 C.F.R. 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by 

poor maintenance and or careless operation) and where the 

source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In 

addition, the source must meet certain notification and 

reporting requirements. For example, the source must 

prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written 

report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the 

conditions and requirements for assertion of the 

affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source, EPA 

provides an administrative adjustment to this ICR that 

shows what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 477

requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense might entail. EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and records, including the 

root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time 

and effort required of a source to review relevant data, 

interview plant employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of 

an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and reports for submission to 

EPA. EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only incurred if there has 

been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of 

the affirmative defense. 

The annual average burden associated with the emission 

guidelines over the first 3 years following promulgation is 

estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours 

at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and total 

annualized capital/startup and operation and maintenance 

costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the 

monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and 

photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. 

The annual inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor costs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 477

The annual average burden associated with the NSPS 

over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated 

to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost of 

$40,000. The total annualized capital/startup costs are 

estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumulative 

annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in this final. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 477

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action 

on small entities, a small entity is defined as follows: 

1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; or 

3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

In the proposal, we certified that there would not be 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The economic analysis conducted at 

proposal identified 18 small entities none of which had 

cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost 

analysis for the final standards showed a significant 

decrease (35 to 98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 

small entities. The cost-revenue-ratios were again 

estimated using the costs for the final rule and the same 

revenue estimates used in the proposal screening analysis. 

The revenue estimates were obtained using census average 

per capita revenue numbers ($1,696 for entities with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 477

populations between 10 thousand and 25 thousand and $1,677 

for entities with populations between 25 thousand and 50 

thousand) The resulting cost-revenue-ratios ranged between 

0.04% and 0.5. Thus all cost-revenue-ratios were well 

below 1%. Therefore, we consider the final rule to have no 

significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

After considering the economic impacts of this final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, this is not 

considered to be a significant impact. 

Although the final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule 

on small entities by allowing optional CEMS instead of 

requiring them, allowing information from tests conducted 

in recent years to show compliance rather than require all 

new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued 

compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 477

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, this final rule is 

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the 

UMRA a written statement that is summarized in section 

VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, October 14, 

2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found 

in the docket. 

At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the 

estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA 

prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of costs and 

benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. Based on 

estimated compliance costs associated with the final rule 

and the predicted change in prices and production in the 

affected industries, the estimated social costs of the 

final rule are $55 million ($). 

At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities 

expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consistent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 477

with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 

section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are discussed 

in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260). 

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Because this final rule’s requirements 

apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by 

governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private 

entities, there would be no requirements that uniquely 

apply to such government or impose any disproportionate 

impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an 

action that has federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal government provides 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 477

the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 

incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults 

with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated expenditures of 

greater than $100 million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA 

consulted with elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national organizations, 

when developing regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state and local 

governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local government officials, 

as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 

FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on 

the action. The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the 

proposed standards and EG for SSI units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have 

federalism implications, as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’s 

direct compliance costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 477

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or 

operated by an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, 

Executive Order 13175 did not appear to have implications. 

However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outreach and 

discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts. 

EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and 

specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed 

action from tribal contacts in the proposal period via the 

NTAA conference calls. 

EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; 

those comments can be reviewed in the public docket, 

document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559-0130.1. Commenters 

expressed that SSI units located in proximity to Indian 

country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger 

tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 477

the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA 

failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the 

standards and have failed to fully assess the potential 

impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly, 

commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that 

accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can 

acquire a better understanding on how they might be 

affected by such sites and these standards in general. 

EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to 

discuss the rule development process, first to provide 

general information on the development of the SSI standards 

and second providing more specific background information 

on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locations of 

units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying 

questions and requested information if any NTAA members 

were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge 

in Indian Country. EPA will provide a map overlay for the 

SSI docket so that tribes can acquire a better 

understanding on how they might be affected by SSI sites 

and the standards in general. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 477

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This final action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 

solely on technology performance. We note however, that 

reductions in air emissions by these facilities will 

improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 

104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 477

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Service 

Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted 

VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 

decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses," for its manual methods of measuring the 

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These 

parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to 

EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the 

ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), 

"Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, ParticleBound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)" is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also decided to 

use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, l0A, l0B, 22, 23, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 477

26A, 29 and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 

22. 

During the search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference 

method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it 

as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards 

were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires significant method 

validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA 

reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

The search identified other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined 

that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 

(2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC¬38-1980 (1985), ASTM 

D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981, IS0 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM 

D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 477

(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 

(2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/CSA 

Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 

1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA 

Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final rule and any 

amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 477

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection 

for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any 

minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the 

Agency has reviewed this final rule to determine if there 

was existing disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An 

analysis of demographic data showed that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus 

most likely to be effected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national averages. The results 

of the demographic analysis are presented in “Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy of which 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 477

is available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

This final action establishes national emission 

standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 204 such units 

covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions 

of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This 

includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. Adverse health 

effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of 

the lungs, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central 

nervous system and damage to the kidneys and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NOx, PM and 

PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NOx are precursors for 

the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions 

will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health 

effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and 

acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. For additional information, 

please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In EPA’s July 2010 “Interim Guidance on 

Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of 

an Action,” EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 477

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

To help achieve EPA’s goal for Environmental Justice 

(i.e., the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people), EPA places particular emphasis on the public 

health of and environmental conditions affecting minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations. In recognizing that 

these populations frequently bear a disproportionate burden 

of environmental harms and risks, EPA works to protect them 

from adverse public health and environmental effects of its 

programs. EPA looks at the vulnerabilities of these 

populations because they have historically been exposed to 

a combination of physical, chemical, biological, social, 

and cultural factors that have imposed greater 

environmental burdens on them than those imposed on the 

general population. 

To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a 

communication and outreach strategy to ensure that 

interested communities have access to this final rule, are 

aware of its content and have an opportunity to comment 

during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 477

publicized the rulemaking via environmental newsletters, 

tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and 

the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will 

also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is 

this important for my community) for environmental justice 

community groups and conduct conference calls with 

interested communities. In addition, state and federal 

permitting requirements will provide state and local 

governments and members of affected communities the 

opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions 

associated with permitting the sources affected by this 

rulemaking. 

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

states. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 178 of 477

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

_______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 477 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

2. Section 60.17 is amended as follows. 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93). 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

c. Adding paragraph (o). 

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved April 1, 2008, IBR 

approved for §§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 

to subpart CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 477

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4), §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), §60.106(e)(2), 

§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), 

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), §60.105a(d)(4), 

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

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

(a)(3)(v), and §60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§§60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 477

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 272-0167, 

http://www.epa.gov. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997, IBR approved for 

§§60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

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

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and 

MMMM to read as follows: 

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit? 

60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart? 

60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 

60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured? 

60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 477

performance standards apply at the same time? 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis? 

60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

Operator Training and Qualification 

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 

60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of 

60.4835(a)? 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits? 

60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 477

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 477

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.4910 What records must I keep? 

60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

Title V Operating Permits 

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit? 

Definitions 

60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.4760 What does this subpart do?

This subpart establishes new source performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 477

standards for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To 

the extent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent 

with the requirements of subpart A of this part, the 

requirements of this subpart will apply. 

§60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Some of the requirements in this subpart apply to planning 

an SSI unit and must be completed even before construction 

is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e., the preconstruction 

requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). Other requirements 

such as the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

§60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit?

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets 

all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for which 

construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 477

(b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as defined in 

§60.4930. 

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under §60.4780. 

§60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?

(a) A new SSI unit is an SSI unit that meets either 

of the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010. 

(2) Commenced modification after [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI 

unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM 

of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not qualify 

as a modification under this subpart. 

§60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 477

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

§60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by 

the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If 

the Administrator has delegated authority to your state, 

local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the 

Administrator) has the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal 

agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in 

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

(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and 

operating limits established under §60.4850. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 477

(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(5) The requirements in §60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in §60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 and 

§60.4805. 

§60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured?

These new source performance standards contain the 

nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) 

of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 477

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 

performance standards apply at the same time?

No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence construction of the SSI 

unit. The operator training and qualification, emission 

limits, emission standards, operating limits, performance 

testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to 

commence construction of an SSI unit after October 14, 

2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are 

required to submit an initial application for a 

construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the modification of your 

SSI unit. 

§60.4805 What is a siting analysis?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 477

(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution 

control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific 

basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks 

to public health or the environment, including impacts of 

the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visibility, 

soils, and vegetation. In considering such alternatives, 

the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair 

environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s impacts that are 

prepared to comply with state, local, or other federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to satisfy the 

requirements of this section, provided they include the 

consideration of air pollution control alternatives 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the siting 

requirements of this section as required under 

§60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 477

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4835. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 477

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator 

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 

(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 477

(b) The date before an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2). 

§60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 477

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the two 

methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section. 

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.4825. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.4820(a). 

§60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 477

review of the information specified in §60.4840 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.4915(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 477

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the 

information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 477

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee’s 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

§60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating, and during 

periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards 

apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage 

sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 198 of 477

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, reestablished in §60.4890. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.4890(a)(2)(i). 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

an emission limit, you must meet the site-specific 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 199 of 477

operating limits that you establish in §60.4870 for each 

operating parameter associated with each air pollution 

control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §§60.4880(b) and 60.4905(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time 

as specified in §60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.4880(d) to ensure that your ash 

handling system will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed 

rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its 

initial startup, whichever comes first. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 477

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, reestablished according to §60.4890(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.4855. 

§60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 477

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions in some 

other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requirements 

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

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.4870. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 477

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this 

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters, 

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will 

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 477

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.4845, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 204 of 477

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices, and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance, and (2) 

Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limits were being exceeded. Off-shift 

and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 205 of 477

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions, and (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass 

was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, 

or severe property damage, and (5) All possible steps were 

taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment and human health, and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, and (7) All of 

the actions in response to the excess emissions were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs, and (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions, and (9) A written root cause analysis has been 

prepared the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 477

(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during 

a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of 

the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a written report to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in §60.4845 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) 

of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance. 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 477

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option 

to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as 

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

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). Except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate, or within 180 days after its initial startup, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 477

whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that your SSI 

unit meets the emission limits and standards specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from 

ash handling using the performance test. The initial 

performance test must be conducted using the test methods, 

averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or 

durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and 

according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §60.4900(a). 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated 

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 209 of 477

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system specified in §60.4900(b). For 

determining compliance with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the 

correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon 

monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 477

substitute the use of a continuous monitoring system in 

lieu of conducting the initial performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, 

you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 211 of 477

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 212 of 477

of appendix F of this part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems according to the provisions of 

§60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be conducted 

using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 

§60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 4 

to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 477

equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified 

in §60.4915(c). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.4855, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.4865. You 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 477

must meet the requirements in §60.4890(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or reestablish new operating limits using 

operating data recorded during any performance tests or 

performance evaluations required in §60.4885. You must 

follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and 

data averaging times specified in Table 3 to this subpart 

or as established in §60.4855, and you must follow the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements specified 

in §§60.4900 and 60.4905 or established in §60.4855. You 

are not required to establish operating limits for the 

operating parameters listed in Table 3 to this subpart for 

a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 

1 or 2 to this subpart for the applicable pollutants, as 

follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor , scrubber 

liquid flow rate or scrubber liquid pH if you use the 

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 477

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if you use 

the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) 

and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection plates, or effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, and lead. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor sorbent injection 

rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure 

drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified 

in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 216 of 477

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 

carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at 

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 217 of 477

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average power measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. Power input must be 

calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic 

precipitatorcollection plates. Both the secondary voltage 

and secondary amperage must be recorded during the 

performance test. 

(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-hour 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 477

average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(h) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 477

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.§60.4875 By what date 

must I conduct the initial air pollution control device

inspection and make any necessary repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of 

installing an air pollution control device or within 180 

days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollution 

control device, whichever comes first. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 477

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan.(1) Installation of the 

continuous monitoring system sampling probe or other 

interface at a measurement location relative to each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 221 of 477

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., 

on or downstream of the last control device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 477

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to the following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 477

this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., particulate matter scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 477

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a 

two-point calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating limit) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 225 of 477

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.(4) Conduct a temperature 

measurement device performance evaluation at the time of 

each performance test but no less frequently than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

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

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 

and current to the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 477

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 477

of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section, you must take the necessary corrective action and 

must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 477

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

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

section. 

(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 477

preset level. The alarm must be located where it is 

observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–

015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, 

including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the 

bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. 

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan and §60.13(c). For the purposes of 

this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also apply to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 230 of 477

bag leak detection system. You must conduct the initial 

performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system 

within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

ash handling system operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that your meet the fugitive emissions 

limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 231 of 477

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 232 of 477

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a 

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 477

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow 

the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 477

specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have 

the option to demonstrate continuous compliance using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You 

must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section, according to the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and 

(b). You may also petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed, you 

must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on 

an annual basis (between 11 and 13 calendar months 

following the previous performance test). The performance 

test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 477

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §60.4900(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 

days of a process change, as defined in §60.4930. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you can conduct performance tests less 

often for a given pollutant, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if 

your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 

consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 

75 percent of the emission limit specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, and there are no changes in the operation 

of the affected source or air pollution control equipment 

that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not 

have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for 

the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test 

during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 477

previous performance test. 

(ii) If your SSI unit continues to meet the emission 

limit for the pollutant, you may choose to conduct 

performance tests for the pollutant every third year if 

your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission 

limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of the 

affected source or air pollution control equipment that 

could increase emissions, but each such performance test 

must be conducted no more than 37 months after the previous 

performance test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 

75 percent of the emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until 

all performance tests over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance.(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 477

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system specified 

in §60.4900(b). For determining compliance with the carbon 

monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, 

the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon 

monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual 

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 238 of 477

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements specified in 

§60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to 

§60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 477

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 240 of 477

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 477

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation 

report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 242 of 477

(f) After any initial requests in §60.4880 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.4880(e). 

§60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits?

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

requirements in §60.4905. You must confirm and reestablish 

your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 or 

established in §60.4855. To determine compliance, you must 

use the data averaging period specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak 

detection system) unless a different averaging period is 

established under §60.4855. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 243 of 477

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.4855 and 

60.4870 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below 

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 244 of 477

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.4850(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test required in 

§60.4885(a) or any performance evaluation required in 

§60.4885(b)(5). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 245 of 477

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.4900(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 246 of 477

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 477

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging methods specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 248 of 477

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 249 of 477

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 250 of 477

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator’s 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 251 of 477

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before starting use of the continuous monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before stopping use of the continuous monitoring system, in 

which case you must also conduct a performance test prior 

to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 477

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with the modifications shown in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, 

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 253 of 477

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 477

possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph 

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

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous 

emissions monitoring systems and the test methods specified 

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

section. Relative accuracy testing must be at 

representative operating conditions while the SSI unit is 

charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used as specified in 

Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 255 of 477

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used. Alternatively for 

mercury, Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be 

used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative 

accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system should be no greater than 20 

percent of the mean value of the method test data in terms 

of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per 

million dry volume absolute value of the mean difference 

between the method and the continuous emissions monitoring 

system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 256 of 477

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 

same location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 477

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

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

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 477

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the site-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 259 of 477

specific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

( 

(2) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in §60.4880. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(i). (d) 

Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that 

sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates the performance test. 

§60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 260 of 477

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

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

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 261 of 477

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in your annual deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Record the results of each inspection, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 477

calibration, and validation check. 

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

( 

 

 (b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 477

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

 (3) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 477

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.4910 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result 

of the siting requirements of §§60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 477

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the 

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of §60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 477

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.4840(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.4810, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 267 of 477

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test 

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs, as specified in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that 

the performance test was conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 477

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all 

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid 

flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with the 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used 

to comply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 477

comply with the rule, secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate 

or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.4850(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.4890. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.4855, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 477

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.4900(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.4915(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibrations, and validations checks of any monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 477

devices as required under §§60.4900 and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.4880, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. If, consistent with 

60.4885(a)(3), you elect to conduct performance tests less 

frequently than annually, you must keep annual records that 

document that your emissions in the two previous 

consecutive years were at or below 75 percent of the 

applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, 

and document that there were no changes in source 

operations or air pollution control equipment that would 

cause emissions of the relevant pollutant to increase 

within the past two years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.4905(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record 

of the information submitted in your annual report in 

§60.4915(d)(16). 

§60.4915 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 477

(a) through (j) of this section. See Table 5 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a 

notification prior to commencing construction that includes 

the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 

of this section: 

(1) A statement of intent to construct. 

(2) The anticipated date of commencement of 

construction. 

(3) All documentation produced as a result of the 

siting requirements of §60.4805. 

(4) Anticipated date of initial startup. 

(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit 

the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: 

(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity. 

(2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry sludge 

feed rate. 

(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits specified in §60.4855. 

(4) The anticipated date of initial startup. 

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 477

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.4880, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 274 of 477

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.4875, including a 

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(16) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.4920.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 275 of 477

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the 

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average value and lowest average value recorded during the 

reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and 

continuous automated sampling systems, report the highest 

and lowest 24-hour average emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

report the following values: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 276 of 477

(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber 

liquid pH, the highest and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-

hour average values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.4910(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less 

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

conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you 

must include the dates of the last two performance tests, a 

comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 

two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in §60.4885(a)(3), and a statement as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 477

to whether there have been any process changes and whether 

the process change resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI 

unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but 

less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring system was out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 278 of 477

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(e) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on 

the averaging time specified in Table 3 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum 

operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions 

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 477

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated 

from any emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items 

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

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 280 of 477

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime 

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring 

data during each deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 477

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 282 of 477

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items: 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI 

during the reporting period. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 283 of 477

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standard. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(f) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

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

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(f)(1)(i)(A) through (f)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 284 of 477

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to 

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within 5 days of meeting 

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

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 285 of 477

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 477

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

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

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

previously made in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(i) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. (j) Changing report dates. If the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 477

Administrator agrees, you may change the semi-annual or 

annual reporting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit 

unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption 

specified in §60.4780. 

§60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit?

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a 

complete title V permit application must be submitted on or 

before one of the dates specified in paragraph (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean 

Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)). 

(1) For an SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

SSI unit as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title V permit 

application must be submitted not later than [INSERT THE 

DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 288 of 477

REGISTER]. 

(2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operation 

as a new SSI unit until after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title 

V permit application must be submitted not later than 12 

months after the date the unit commences operation as a new 

source. 

(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

subject to title V as a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than this subpart (for example, a unit 

subject to this subpart may be a major source or part of a 

major source), then your unit may be required to apply for 

a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one 

requirement triggers a source’s obligation to apply for a 

title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V 

permit application is triggered by the requirement that 

first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See 

section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and 

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

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

(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one 

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 289 of 477

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Definitions 

§60.4930 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 477

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 291 of 477

system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 477

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that meets one of 

two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 293 of 477

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means 

an existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as 

defined in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

New sewage sludge incineration unit means an SSI unit 

the construction of which is commenced after October 14, 

2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a modified 

solid waste incineration unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 477

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 295 of 477

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit an incineration 

unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing 

the volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible 

matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit designs include 

fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A SSI unit also 

includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed 

system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas 

system, waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom 

ash system. The SSI unit includes all ash handling systems 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 296 of 477

connected to the bottom ash handling system. The 

combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the truck loading 

station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to 

final disposal. The SSI unit does not include air 

pollution control equipment or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 477

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 4 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an SSI unit that 

meets the criteria in §60.4770. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 477

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

9.6 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.24 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 299 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

27 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data). For 

determining 

compliance with 

the carbon 

monoxide 

concentration 

limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the 

correction to 7 

percent oxygen 

does not apply 

during periods of 

startup or 

shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon 

monoxide 

concentration 

without correcting 

for oxygen 

concentration in 

averaging with 

other carbon 

monoxide 

concentrations 

(corrected to 7 

percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-

hour average 

value. 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a RA of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of 

Procedure 1, +/- 

15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 300 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.013 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0044 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.0010 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c . 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

30 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 5.3 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 100 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, sample for a 

minimum duration 

of one hour per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981.c

Cadmium 0.0011 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Use GFAAS or 

ICP/MS for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Lead 0.00062 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 303 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 477

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

60 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 0.75 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 200 liters 

per run. For 

Method 26A, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 305 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

52 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 

1-hour averages 

of data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a relative 

accuracy of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of Procedure 

1, +/- 15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 306 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.045 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0022 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 307 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.15 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)c , collect 

a minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run. 

For Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum sample 

as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c, . 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

210 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 6, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 200 liters 

per run. For 

Method 6C, 

collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 40, 

appendix A-4; or 

ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981.c

Cadmium 0.0024 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the analytical 

finish. 

Lead 0.0035 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 309 of 477

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa

For these 

operating 

You must 

establish 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 310 of 477

parameters these 

operating 

limits 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Fugitive 

emissions 

from ash 

handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not applicable

Scrubber 

Pressure drop 

across each 

wet scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Scrubber 

liquid flow 

rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Scrubber 

liquid pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

3-hour block. 

Fabric Filter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 311 of 477

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Alarm time of 

the bag leak 

detection 

system alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system

alarm (this operating limit is provided in §60.4850

and is not established on a site-specific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 312 of 477

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary 

voltage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 12-hour block 

Secondary 

amperage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent water 

flow rate at 

the outlet of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 12-hour block 

Activated carbon injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 313 of 477

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block 

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection rate

Carrier gas 

flow rate or 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block 

aAs specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block average 

specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You 

maintain records of 1-hour averages.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 314 of 477

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 477

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of 

construction 

Prior to 

commencing 

construction 

1. Statement of 

intent to 

construct 

2. Anticipated 

date of 

commencement of 

construction 

3. Documentation 

for siting 

requirements 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(a) 

Notification of 

initial startup 

Prior to initial 

startup 

1. Maximum design 

dry sewage 

sludge burning 

capacity 

2. Anticipated and 

permitted 

maximum feed 

rate 

3. If applicable, 

the petition 

for sitespecific 

operating 

limits 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(b) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

5. Site-specific 

monitoring plan 

6. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

3. Date of report 

4. Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

5. Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

6. The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods, as 

applicable, 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit 

7. Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

§60.4915(c) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

8. Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

Annual 

compliance 

report 

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

3. Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

4. If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

5. For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

§§60.4915(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

6. If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7. If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms 

8. If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations 

9. If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.4885(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs 

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions 

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control 

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations 

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan 

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(1)) 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits 

4. The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

5. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

6. Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

§60.4915(e) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 321 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

downtime 

incidents 

7. A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels 

8. For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(3)(

viii) 

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI 

4. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits 

5. The averaged 

and recorded 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 322 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

data for those 

dates 

6. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

7. A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards 

8. A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken 

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more) 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation 

2. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available 

3. The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible 

§60.4915(f) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 323 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

deviation 2. The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

3. Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.4835(b)(2)(i

) 

Within 5 days of 

obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2. Rationale for 

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3. Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

§60.4915(g) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 324 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

4. Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

1 month before 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60.4915(h) 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 325 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 326 of 477 

Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states? 

60.5015 What must I include in my state plan? 

60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan? 

60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable? 

60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter? 

60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan? 

60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations? 

60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies? 

60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state? 

Applicability of State Plans 

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan? 

60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan? 

Use of Model Rule 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 327 of 477

60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 

60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan? 

60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule? 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of 

progress and achieving final compliance? 

60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress? 

60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 

60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

submittal of a control plan? 

60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

achieving final compliance? 

60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it? 

60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it? 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 

60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 328 of 477

60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)? 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits? 

60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 329 of 477

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.5230 What records must I keep? 

60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit? 

Model Rule—Definitions 

60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

TABLES 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 330 of 477

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes emission guidelines and 

compliance schedules for the control of emissions from 

sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollutants 

addressed by these emission guidelines are listed in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are 

developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent 

any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, the requirements of 

this subpart will apply. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 331 of 477

§60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality 

program in a state or United States protectorate with one 

or more SSI units that commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010, you must submit a state plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSERT 

THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

§60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?

No. You are not required to submit a state plan if 

there are no SSI units for which construction commenced on 

or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you submit a 

negative declaration letter in place of the state plan. 

§60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?

(a) You must include the nine items described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section in your 

state plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those 

that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in 

your state. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 332 of 477

(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit. 

(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator 

training and qualification requirements, and operating 

limits for affected SSI units that are at least as 

protective as the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan 

was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational 

affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or written submission. 

(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms 

that you selected for implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your state’s legal authority to 

carry out the sections 111(d) and 129 state plan. 

(b) Your state plan may deviate from the format and 

content of the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. However, if your state plan does deviate in 

content, you must demonstrate that your state plan is at 

least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 333 of 477

this subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory 

applicability, increments of progress for retrofit, 

operator training and qualification, emission limits and 

standards, performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of 

this part (Adoption and Submittal of state plans for 

Designated Facilities) in your state plan. 

§60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?

Yes. The EPA will review your state plan according to 

§60.27. 

§60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?

If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a 

negative declaration letter) by [INSERT THE DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA 

will develop a federal plan according to §60.27 to 

implement the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. Owners and operators of SSI units not covered by 

an approved state plan must comply with the federal plan. 

The federal plan is an interim action and will be 

automatically withdrawn when your state plan is approved. 

§60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 334 of 477

No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative 

declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter 

has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public 

docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register. If, 

at a later date, an SSI unit for which construction 

commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your 

state, the federal plan implementing the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart would automatically 

apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is approved. 

§60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan?

(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or 

before October 14, 2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require SSI units to achieve 

final compliance as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later than the earlier 

of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) Three years after the effective date of state 

plan approval. 

(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 335 of 477

year following the effective date of state plan approval, 

state plans must include dates for enforceable increments 

of progress as specified in §60.5090. 

§60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B?

Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for 

developing and processing section 111(d) state plans. This 

subpart applies instead of the requirements in subpart B of 

this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section: 

(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

must be as protective as the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to 

comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This applies 

instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

are required to include two increments of progress for the 

affected SSI units. These two minimum increments are the 

final control plan submittal date and final compliance date 

in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 336 of 477

requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a state plan 

to include all five increments of progress for all SSI 

units. 

§60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there 

other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations?

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations by submitting an acceptable written 

request for delegation of the federal plan that meets the 

requirements of this section. This is the only other 

option for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request 

must include the following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under §60.5015(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(a)(7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on the state 

delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan 

submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 337 of 477

or written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date of the delegation 

and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of 

authority. Additional guidance and information is given in 

EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) federal 

plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved SSI Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation request for the 

revised federal plan, provided the requirements of 

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

the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal 

of EPA's previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

obligations are separate from its obligations under title V 

of the Clean Air Act. 

§60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies?

The authorities that will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 338 of 477

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and 

operating limits established under §60.5175 or §60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in §60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in §60.5155(b)(2). 

(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

§60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state?

(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI 

unit owners and operators in your state. However, SSI unit 

owners and operators must comply with the state plan you 

develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. States may choose to incorporate the model 

rule text directly in their state plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 

subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 339 of 477

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA will implement 

and enforce a federal plan, as provided in §60.5025, to 

ensure that each unit within your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010 reaches 

compliance with all the provisions of this subpart by the 

dates specified in §60.5035. 

Applicability of State Plans 

§60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) Your state plan must address SSI units that meet 

all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition of an SSI unit 

as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under §60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes 

changes that meet the definition of modification after 

[INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSI unit becomes subject to 

subpart LLLL of this part and the state plan no longer 

applies to that unit. 

(c) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 340 of 477

physical or operational changes to an SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] primarily to comply with your state plan, subpart 

LLLL of this part does not apply to that unit. Such 

changes do not qualify as modifications under subpart LLLL 

of this part. 

§60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

Use of Model Rule 

§60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart?

(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission 

guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. The model 

rule provides these requirements in regulation format. You 

must develop a state plan that is at least as protective as 

the model rule. You may use the model rule language as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 341 of 477

part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used 

in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the model rule 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250, 

“you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specified in 

§60.5250. 

§60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan?

Use the model rule to satisfy the state plan 

requirements specified in §60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5). 

§60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule?

The model rule contains the nine major components 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward compliance. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 342 of 477

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments 

of progress and achieving final compliance?

If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year 

following the effective date of state plan approval, you 

must meet the two increments of progress specified in 

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

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?

Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for 

each increment of progress. 

§60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Your notification of achievement of increments of 

progress must include the three items specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of progress has 

been achieved. 

(b) Any items required to be submitted with each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 343 of 477

increment of progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Notifications for achieving increments of progress 

must be postmarked no later than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?

If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must 

submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment 

of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must inform 

the Administrator that you did not meet the increment, and 

you must continue to submit reports each subsequent 

calendar month until the increment of progress is met. 

§60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for submittal of a control plan?

For your control plan increment of progress, you must 

satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the 

four items described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 344 of 477

this section. 

(1) A description of the devices for air pollution 

control and process changes that you will use to comply 

with the emission limits and standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

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

than sewage sludge is burned in the unit. 

(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning 

capacity. 

(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits under §60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control 

plan. 

§60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for achieving final compliance?

For the final compliance increment of progress, you 

must complete all process changes and retrofit construction 

of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, 

so that, if the affected SSI unit is brought online, all 

necessary process changes and air pollution control devices 

would operate as designed. 

§60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 345 of 477

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it 

prior to the final compliance date in your state plan, you 

must meet the increments of progress specified in §60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it 

after your final compliance date, you must complete 

emission control retrofits and meet the emission limits, 

emission standards, and operating limits on the date your 

unit restarts operation. 

§60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it?

If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply 

with the state plan, submit a closure notification, 

including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the 

date your final control plan is due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 346 of 477

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator 

and air pollution control devices. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 347 of 477

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the three dates specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 348 of 477

unit. 

§60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2). 

§60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 349 of 477

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the two 

methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section. 

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.5145. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.5140(a). 

§60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 

review of the information specified in §60.5160 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 350 of 477

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 351 of 477

operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.5230(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the 

information listed in §60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.5155(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee's 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 352 of 477

listed in §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

§60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by the final 

compliance date under the approved state plan, federal 

plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission limits 

and standards apply at all times the unit is operating and 

during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and 

standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent 

while sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., 

until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut 

off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge 

incineration residence time. 

§60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I 

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 353 of 477

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, reestablished in §60.5210. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you establish in §60.5190 

for each operating parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 354 of 477

system specified in §§60.5200(b) and 60.5225(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time 

as specified in §60.5210(a)(2)(i). 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.5200(d) to ensure that your ash 

handling system will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section by the final compliance date under the 

approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 355 of 477

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, reestablished according to §60.5210(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.5175. 

§60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 356 of 477

activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to 

comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.5190. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this 

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 357 of 477

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters, 

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will 

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 358 of 477

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). For 

determining compliance with the CO concentration limit 

using CO CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not 

apply during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured CO concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other CO concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent O2) to determine the 24-hour average 

value. 

§60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.5165, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to meet your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 359 of 477

burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and (ii) Could not have been 

prevented through careful planning, proper design or better 

operation and maintenance practices, and (iii) Did not 

stem from any activity or event that could have been 

foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance, and 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limits were being exceeded. 

Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 360 of 477

practicable to make these repairs, and (3) The frequency, 

amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions, and (4) If the excess 

emissions resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of 

life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health, and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, and (7) All of 

the actions in response to the excess emissions were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs, and (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions, and (9) A written root cause analysis has been 

prepared the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 361 of 477

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during 

a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of 

the malfunction, if itwishes to avail itself of an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defenseshall also submit a written report to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in §60.5165 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance. 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 362 of 477

§60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, you have the option to demonstrate initial 

compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in 

§60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 363 of 477

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling using the performance 

test. The initial performance test must be conducted using 

the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the 

emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to 

this subpart). 

(2) You may use the results from a performance test 

conducted within the 2 previous years that was conducted 

under the same conditions and demonstrated compliance with 

the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, provided no process changes have been made since 

you conducted that performance test. However, you must 

continue to meet the operating limits established during 

the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance test must have 

used the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 364 of 477

subpart. 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated 

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.5220(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial 

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 365 of 477

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use 

the continuous emissions monitoring system and follow the 

requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 366 of 477

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 367 of 477

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems by your final compliance date 

(see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures and acceptance 

criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart, determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 5 

to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 368 of 477

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

the total concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms 

of toxic equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified 

in §60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 369 of 477

section or established in §60.5175, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.5185. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.5210(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or reestablish new operating limits using 

operating data recorded during any performance tests or 

performance evaluations required in §60.5205. You must 

follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and 

data averaging times specified in Table 4 to this subpart 

or as established in §60.5175, and you must follow the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements specified 

in §§60.5220 and 60.5225 or established in §60.5175. You 

are not required to establish operating limits for the 

operating parameters listed in Table 4 to this subpart for 

a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart for the applicable pollutants, as 

follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor scrubber liquid 

flow rateor scrubber liquid pH if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 370 of 477

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if you use 

the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) 

and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection plates, or effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor sorbent injection 

rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure 

drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 371 of 477

in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 

carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits.. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at 

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 372 of 477

for each wet scrubber used to meet the sulfur dioxide or 

hydrogen chloride emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, equal to the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid 

pH measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the sulfur dioxide and 

hydrogen chloride emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

 (f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average secondary electric power measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

Power input must be calculated as the product of the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. Both the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage must be recorded 

during the performance test. (g) Minimum effluent water 

flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 373 of 477

equal to the lowest 4-hour average effluent water flow rate 

at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits. (h) For activated carbon injection, 

establish the site-specific operating limits specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 374 of 477

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.§60.5195 By what date 

must I conduct the initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, federal plan, or 

delegation, as applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final compliance date, you must 

conduct the air pollution control device inspection within 

60 days after installation of the control device. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 375 of 477

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 376 of 477

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 377 of 477

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 378 of 477

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., particulate matter scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 379 of 477

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a twopoint calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the operating limit pH level) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 380 of 477

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range. 

(4) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

performance evaluation at the time of each performance test 

but no less frequently than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

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

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 

and current to the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 381 of 477

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

(c)(1), (c)(4), (d), (e), (f) and (g). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 382 of 477

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) 

of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section, you must take the necessary corrective action and 

must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 383 of 477

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

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

section. 

(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 384 of 477

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level. The alarm must be located where it is 

observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–

015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, 

including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the 

bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. (c) You must conduct an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 385 of 477

initial performance evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as 

applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan and to 

§60.13(c). For the purpose of this subpart, the provisions 

of §60.13(c) also apply to the bag leak detection system. 

You must conduct the initial performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation 

of the monitoring system 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

ash handling system operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that that your meet the fugitive emissions 

limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 386 of 477

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 387 of 477

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 388 of 477

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the procedures specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 389 of 477

paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the 

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

applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, 

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). You may 

also petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a 

performance test for each such pollutant on an annual basis 

(between 11 and 13 calendar months following the previous 

performance test). The performance test must be conducted 

using the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum 

sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 390 of 477

this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 

days of a process change, as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you can conduct performance tests less 

often for a given pollutant, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if 

your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 

consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 

75 percent of the emission limit specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, and there are no changes in the operation 

of the affected source or air pollution control equipment 

that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not 

have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for 

the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test 

during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 

previous performance test.(ii) If your SSI unit continues 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 391 of 477

to meet the emission limit for the pollutant, you may 

choose to conduct performance tests for the pollutant every 

third year if your emissions are at or below 75 percent of 

the emission limit, and if there are no changes in the 

operation of the affected source or air pollution control 

equipment that could increase emissions, but each such 

performance test must be conducted no more than 37 months 

after the previous performance test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 

75 percent of the emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until 

all performance tests over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 392 of 477

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the 

annual performance test required in paragraph (a) of this 

section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 393 of 477

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

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

must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 394 of 477

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required in your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 395 of 477

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with 

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as 

specified in §60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 396 of 477

report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instance that 

you did not meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.5200 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.5200(e). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 397 of 477

§60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits? 

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

requirements in §60.5225. You must confirm and reestablish 

your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. To determine compliance, you must 

use the data averaging period specified in Table 4 to this 

subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak 

detection system) unless a different averaging period is 

established under §60.5175. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.5175 and 

60.5190 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 398 of 477

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.5170(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below 

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 399 of 477

§60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.5170(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test required in 

§60.5205(a) or any performance evaluation required in 

§60.5205(b)(4). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 400 of 477

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.5220(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 401 of 477

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging method specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 402 of 477

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 403 of 477

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator's satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator's authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 404 of 477

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 405 of 477

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 406 of 477

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, 

in which case you must also conduct a performance test 

within prior to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 407 of 477

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with spans appropriate to the 

applicable emission limit. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, 

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 408 of 477

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 

possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 409 of 477

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of this 

section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 

60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions 

monitoring systems and the test methods specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this section. 

Relative accuracy testing must be at representative 

operating conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage 

sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used, as specified in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. Alternatively 

for mercury, either Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008)(incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), may be used. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 410 of 477

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be 

used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative 

accuracy criterion for the inlet of the sulfur dioxide 

continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data 

in terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts 

per million dry volume absolute value of the mean 

difference between the method and the continuous emissions 

monitoring system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 411 of 477

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 

same location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 412 of 477

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified in §60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 413 of 477

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction as defined in §60.5250, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 414 of 477

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

(2) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in §60.5200. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(i). (d) 

Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that 

sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates the performance test. 

§60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement 

devices: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 415 of 477

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified defined in §60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks 

and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods 

that you do not collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 416 of 477

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be included in calculations used 

to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods 

that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction, 

as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

 

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 417 of 477

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

 (3) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 418 of 477

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.5230 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 419 of 477

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final 

control plan and any additional notifications, reported 

under §60.5235. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 420 of 477

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the 

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of §60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.5160(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 421 of 477

§60.5130, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.5140, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports.

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 422 of 477

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test 

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs as specified in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that 

the performance test was conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all 

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 423 of 477

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system and 

liquid flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with 

the emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used 

to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate 

or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 424 of 477

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.5170(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.5210. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.5175, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.5220(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 425 of 477

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.5235(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibration, and validation checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.5200, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5).(l) Less 

frequent testing. If, consistent with 60.5205(a)(3), you 

elect to conduct performance tests less frequently than 

annually, you must keep annual records that document that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 426 of 477

your emissions in the two previous consecutive years were 

at or below 75 percent of the applicable emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, and document that there were 

no changes in source operations or air pollution control 

equipment that would cause emissions of the relevant 

pollutant to increase within the past two years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.5225(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record 

of the information submitted in your annual report in 

§60.5235(c)(16). 

§60.5235 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (i) of this section. See Table 6 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to 

achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective 

date of state plan approval, you must submit the following 

reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085(a) 

and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification of achievement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 427 of 477

of increments of progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the increment as specified in 

§§60.5095 and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you 

must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment, 

as specified in §60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than 

comply with the state plan, submit a closure notification 

as specified in §60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 428 of 477

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.5195, including a 

description of repairs. 

(9) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.5200, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of this section for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 429 of 477

reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.5240.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the 

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 430 of 477

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average value and lowest average value recorded during the 

reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and 

continuous automated sampling systems, report the highest 

and lowest 24-hour average emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

report the following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber 

liquid pH, the highest and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-

hour average values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.5230(f)(3)(iii). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 431 of 477

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less 

frequently as allowed in §60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct 

a performance test during the reporting period, you must 

include the dates of the last two performance tests, a 

comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 

two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in §60.5205(a)(3), and a statement as 

to whether there have been any process changes and whether 

the process change resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified 

sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unavailable 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 432 of 477

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control§, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems were out of 

control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 433 of 477

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(d) Deviation reports.

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on 

the averaging time specified in Table 4 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum 

operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions 

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated 

from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 434 of 477

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items 

described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of 

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 435 of 477

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime 

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring 

data during each deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 436 of 477

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 437 of 477

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items:. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected 

source during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 438 of 477

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standards. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i)(A) through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. 

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 439 of 477

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to 

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within five days of meeting 

§60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming operation. 

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence, should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 440 of 477

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in §60.5220(a)(8), you must notify 

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

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

(h) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 441 of 477

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. 

 (i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved 

and effective Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or 

tribal plan or an applicable and effective federal plan, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 442 of 477

you are required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for your existing SSI unit unless you meet 

the relevant requirements for an exemption specified in 

§60.5065. 

§60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit?

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an 

earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted on or before the 

earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 

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

(1) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state or tribal plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan. 

(3) [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of this subpart applies 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 443 of 477

regardless of whether or when any applicable federal plan 

is effective, or whether or when any applicable Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is approved by 

EPA and becomes effective. 

(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a 

result of some triggering requirement(s) other than those 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (for 

example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major 

source), then your unit may be required to apply for a 

title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requirement 

triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V 

permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit 

application is triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 

503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 

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

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

(d) A “complete” title V permit application is one 

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 444 of 477

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Model Rule—Definitions 

§60.5250 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the federal plan, the 

Administrator of the EPA or his/her authorized 

representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved state plan, the 

director of the state air pollution control agency or 

his/her authorized representative. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 445 of 477

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 446 of 477

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 447 of 477

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 448 of 477

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that meets one of 

two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an 

existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as defined 

in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 449 of 477

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 450 of 477

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A SSI 

unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage 

sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if 

any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit includes all ash 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 451 of 477

handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers 

the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not include 

air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 452 of 477

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI 

unit. 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Comply with these increments By these datesa
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 453 of 477

of progress 

Increment 1—Submit final 

control plan 

(Dates to be specified in 

state plan) 

Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in 

state plan)b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the 

state. 

bThe date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date 

of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that 

commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Particulate 

matter

18 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 5 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A3; Method 26A 

or Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 454 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Hydrogen 

chloride

0.51 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Carbon 

monoxide

64 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

10, 10A, or 10B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

1.2 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic 

meter(total mass 

basis); or

0.10 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 455 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Mercury 0.037 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c

, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c .

Oxides of 

nitrogen

150 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 7 

or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 456 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Sulfur dioxide 15 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 60 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 40, 

appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME 

PTC-19.10-

1981.c

Cadmium 0.0016 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). Use GFAAS 

or ICP/MS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Lead 0.0074 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8. Use GFAAS 

or ICP/MS for 

the analytical 

finish.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 457 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer points) 

for no more than 

5 percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 458 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Particulate 

matter

80 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 0.75 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 5 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A3; Method 26A 

or Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Hydrogen 

chloride

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 26 

or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Carbon 

monoxide

3,800 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

10, 10A, or 10B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 459 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis)

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

5.0 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter; or

0.32 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7).

Mercury 0.28 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c

, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 460 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Oxides of 

nitrogen

220 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 7 

or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4).

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 40, 

appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10-

1981.c

Cadmium 0.095 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8).

Lead 0.30 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 461 of 477

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer points) 

for no more than 

5 percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 462 of 477

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion 

chamber operating 

temperature (not 

required if 

afterburner 

temperature is 

monitored)

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature

or 

afterburner 

temperature

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block.

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements

Not 

applicable

No 

applicable

Not 

applicable

Scrubber

Pressure drop 

across each wet 

scrubber

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

Scrubber liquid 

flow rate

Minimum flow 

rate

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 463 of 477

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Scrubber liquid 

pH

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes

3-hour block

Fabric Filter

Alarm time of the 

bag leak 

detection system 

alarm

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm (this operating limit is provided 

in §60.4850 and is not established on a sitespecific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 464 of 477

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Electrostatic precipitator

Secondary voltage 

of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates

Continuous Hourly 12-hour 

block

Secondary 

amperage of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Effluent water 

flow rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator

Minimum 

effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block

Activated carbon injection
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 465 of 477

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Mercury sorbent 

injection rate

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block 

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent injection 

rate

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate

Carrier gas flow 

rate or carrier 

gas pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

Afterburner

Temperature of 

the afterburner 

combustion 

chamber

Minimum 

temperature 

of the 

afterburner 

combustion 

chamber

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

aAs specified in §60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 466 of 477

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block average 

specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You 

maintain records of 1-hour averages.

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin1

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.01

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.3
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 467 of 477

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.01

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of 

progress report

No later than 10 

business days 

after the 

compliance date 

for the 

increment

1.Final control 

plan including 

air pollution 

control device 

descriptions, 

process 

changes, type 

of waste to be 

burned, and the 

maximum design 

sewage sludge 

burning 

capacity

2.Notification of 

any failure to 

meet an 

§60.5235(a)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 468 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

increment of 

progress

3. Notification of 

any closure

Initial 

compliance 

report

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report

3.Date of report

4.Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test

5.Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation

6.The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

7.Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter

8.Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

§60.5235(b)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 469 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs

9.The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

required under 

§60.5200

10. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

required under 

§60.5200

Annual 

compliance 

report

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official

3.Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report

4.If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

§60.5235(c)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 470 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

applicable

5.For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable

6.If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7.If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms

8.If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations

9.If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.5205(a)(3) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 471 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 472 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.5235(e)(1))

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3.The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

§60.5235(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 473 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year

operating 

limits

4.The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

5.Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

6.Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents

7.A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels

8.For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.5235(d)(3)(

viii)

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3.The total 

operating time 

of each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 474 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

affected SSI

4.The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits

5.The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

6.Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

7.A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards

8.A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

Within 10 days 

of deviation

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation

2.Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

§60.5235(e)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 475 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more)

a qualified 

operator will 

be available

3.The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible

2.The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

3.Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation

§60.5235(e)

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.5155(b)(2)(i

)

Within five days 

of obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.5235(e)

Notification of 

a force majeure

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2.Rationale for 

§60.5235(f)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 476 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3.Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

4.Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

1 month before 

starting or 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60. 5235(g)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 477 of 477

Report Due date Contents Reference

or stop use of a 

CMS

stopping use of 

a CMS 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 
Attachment D. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 1 of 479 

E.O. 12866 and 13563 SSI NSPS and EG 2060-AP90 20110118 

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-____-_] 

RIN 2060-AP90 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA’s new source 

performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage 

sludge incineration units located at wastewater treatment 

facilities designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. This 

final rule sets limits for nine pollutants under section 

129 of the Clean Air Act: cadmium, carbon monoxide, 

hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur dioxide. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 479

certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This docket 

includes previous actions including the standards proposed 

on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and a supplemental notice 

issued on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 

information or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 

will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 479

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 

for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, 

Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

As Arsenic 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit 

CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 479

Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

Cr Chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators 

FF Fabric Filter 

FB Fluidized Bed 

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste 

Incineration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System 

ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

MH Multiple Hearth 

Mn Manganese 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustion 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

Ni Nickel 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 479

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

OTM Other Test Method 

OW Office of Water 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPM Parts per Million 

PPMV Parts per Million by Volume 

PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specifications 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 479

TMB Total Mass Basis 

TPD Tons per Day 

TPY Tons per Year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UL Upper Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The following outline 

is provided to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

C. Judicial Review

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what 

are the emissions? 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge? 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. What units are affected by the final standards? 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources? 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources? 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements? 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 479

SSI units? 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements? 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards? 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimation 

E. Compliance Requirements 

F. Definitions 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

D. Baseline Emissions 

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

H. Compliance Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units 

VII. Relationship of the Final Action to CAA Sections 

112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B)(ii), and 112(c)(6) 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 479

and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by the 

final action are those that operate sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSI). Although there is no specific NAICS 

code for SSI, these units may be operated by wastewater 

treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. The following NAICS codes could apply: 

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Solid waste 

combustors and 

incinerators 

562213 Municipalities with SSI units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 479

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Sewage 

treatment 

facilities 

221320 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a general guide for identifying entities 

likely to be affected by the final action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected by the final 

action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of 

subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final action will also be available 

on the WWW through the TTN. Following signature, a copy of 

the final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The 

TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 479

areas of air pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the Court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

of the CAA further provides that “only an objection to this 

final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism 

for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f 

the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that 

it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 

period for public comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for public comment (but 

within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this 

rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to 

EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 479

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel 

(Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Note, under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled, “Solid Waste 

Combustion,” requires EPA to develop and adopt standards 

for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 

111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish performance standards, including emission 

limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 

129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration unit” as 

“a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts 

any solid waste material from commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general public” (section 129(g)(1)). 

Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid waste” 

shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its 

authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sections 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 479

111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new 

units (i.e., NSPS), and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) 

address emissions from existing units (i.e., EG). The NSPS 

are directly enforceable federal regulations, and under CAA 

section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after 

promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not themselves 

directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implemented and 

enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a 

promulgated federal plan. States are required to submit a 

plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval 

not later than 1 year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA 

section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at least as 

protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance with all 

applicable requirements not later than 3 years after the 

state plan is approved by EPA, or 5 years after 

promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is sooner. 

EPA’s procedures for submitting and approving state plans 

are set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state 

plan is approved by EPA, the plan requirements become 

federally enforceable, but the state has primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan. 

However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce 

a federal plan for solid waste incineration units located 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 479

in any state which has not submitted an approvable state 

plan within 2o years after the date of promulgation of the 

relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal plan must 

assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to 

the federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of 

the EG not later than 5 years after the date the relevant 

guidelines are promulgated. EPA views the federal plan as 

a “place-holder” that remains in effect only until such 

time as a state without an approved plan submits and 

receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an 

applicable state plan has been approved, the requirements 

of the federal plan no longer apply to solid waste 

incineration units covered by that state plan. 

The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating 

emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute 

also provides EPA with substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of incineration 

units within a category while setting standards. In the 

first stage of setting standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

requires EPA to establish technology-based emission 

standards that reflect levels of control EPA determines are 

achievable for new and existing units, after considering 

costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 479

energy requirements associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then directs 

EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary 

every 5 years. In the second stage, CAA section 129(h)(3) 

requires EPA to determine whether further revisions of the 

standards are necessary in order to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to 

establish the first-stage technology-based standards for 

the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that 

standards “applicable to solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this section shall 

reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 

[certain listed air pollutants] that the Administrator, 

taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines 

is achievable for new and existing units in each category.” 

This level of control is referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first 

calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and 

existing solid waste incineration units in a category, 

generally based on levels of emissions control achieved or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 479

required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum 

level of stringency is called the MACT “floor,” and CAA 

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

stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or 

existing sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA 

section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for existing 

units may be less stringent than standards for new units, 

but “shall not be less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in the category.” 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology analyses involve 

an assessment of the emissions from the best performing 

unit or units in a source category. The assessment can be 

based on actual emissions data, knowledge of the air 

pollution control in place in combination with actual 

emissions data, state regulatory requirements that may 

enable EPA to estimate the actual performance of the 

regulated units, or other emissions information. For each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 479

source category, the assessment involves a review of actual 

emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can 

also be used, if the methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual emissions performance of 

a source or sources. In addition to the MACT floor limit, 

EPA must examine whether more stringent “beyond-the-floor” 

standards should be adopted. In considering whether such 

standards are appropriate, EPA must consider the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. 

The CAA requires that the MACT floor for new sources be no 

less stringent than the emissions control achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar unit. EPA is also 

required to consider beyond-the-floor standards for new 

sources, consistent with the factors described above. 

Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies five categories 

of solid waste incineration units: 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity 

greater than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal 

to or less than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious 

waste. 

• Units that combust commercial or industrial waste. 

• Units that combust waste and which are not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 479

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) 

through (D) are referred to in section 129(a)(1)(E) as 

“other categories” of solid waste incineration units. 

A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through 

(D), have been interpreted to be part of the broader 

category of “other categories” of solid waste. EPA has 

issued emission standards for large and small MWC, HMIWI, 

CISWI, and OSWI units; however, as explained further below, 

none of those emission standards apply to SSI units. 

EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on 

December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74870). Based on EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA at that time, the OSWI standards 

did not include emission standards for SSI units. EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI 

standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of 

certain categories, including SSI1. While EPA granted the 

petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final 

review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded 

 

1Sierra Club v. EPA; D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 479

that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005 OSWI 

rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being 

held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the 

emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that 

rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI units. 

In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA 

stated that it had decided not to regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regulate SSI 

units under CAA section 112, pointing to a statement in 

EPA’s 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating that sewage 

sludge incinerators do not combust waste from a commercial 

or industrial establishment or the general public. We 

declined to revise that decision to regulate SSI units 

under 112 in the response to the petition for 

reconsideration on this issue for five reasons, including 

our position that section 129(a)(1)(E) did not require 

regulation of all “other” solid waste incineration units 

and that section 129(g)(1)’s enumerated exemptions to the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” were not 

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

discretion to choose whether to regulate incinerators under 

section 112 or section 129 of the Act. (72 FR 2620). In 

June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA’s December 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 479

1, 2000, emission standards for CISWI units, the Court, held 

that any unit combusting any solid waste must be regulated 

under section 129 of the CAA. The impact of this decision 

on EPA’s regulation of SSI is explained in detail in the 

NPRM.2

EPA considers SSI units to be “other solid waste 

incineration units,” since that category is intended to 

encompass all solid waste incineration units that are not 

included in the first four categories identified in CAA 

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

standards for the remaining OSWI units at a later time. 

EPA is taking final action on emission standards for SSI 

units at this time because these emission standards are 

needed as part of EPA's fulfillment of its obligations 

under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 

112(c)(6). Clean Air Act section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of 

emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA 

must then ensure that sources representing 90 percent of 

the aggregate area source emissions of each of the 30 

 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 479

identified HAP are subject to standards pursuant to section 

112(d)3. Sewage sludge incineration units are one of the 

source categories identified for regulation to meet the 90 

percent requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. 

EPA is ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation under 

CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 

20114. 

In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of 

source categories for regulation under CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA 

requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven 

specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for 

not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each 

such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 

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

incineration units are one of the identified source 

categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in 

the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meeting the 

Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the 

 

3 CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 

4Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 479

Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559).Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prior 

to taking action on the remaining source categories that 

will be regulated under CAA section 129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI 

units. 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions?

Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by 

municipalities or other entities. Incineration continues 

to be used to dispose of sewage sludge. Combustion of 

solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the 

release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which 

exist in the waste feed material and are released unchanged 

during combustion, and some of which are generated as a 

result of the combustion process itself. The pollutants 

for which numerical limits must be established, as 

specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, HCl, 

Hg, NOx, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO2; and, where 

appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be 

established. These emissions come from the SSI unit’s 

stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by the 

associated visible emissions, also occur from ash handling. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 479

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge

and associated air emissions?

Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, 

as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated 

regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 503 

designed to protect public health and the environment from 

any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain 

pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 

503 regulations establish requirements for the final use 

and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge is 

applied to the land for a beneficial use (e.g., for use in 

home gardens); 2) the sludge is disposed on land by placing 

it on surface disposal sites; and 3) the sewage sludge is 

incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate or 

treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who 

uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment 

works. 

The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in 

a SSI are in subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E 

includes general requirements; pollutant limits; 

operational standards; management practices; and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 479

These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the 

National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in 

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The 

regulations also require that the allowable concentration 

of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated using 

equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants 

included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the 

equations must be determined on a case-by-case basis, 

except for the risk-specific concentration for the 

inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when 

these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific variables 

for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor, 

control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be 

used to calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, 

Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.

Also included in subpart E of part 503 is an 

operational standard for THC. The value for THC in the 

final part 503 regulation cannot be exceeded in the exit 

gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and frequency 

of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

are also included in this subpart. 

Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing 

limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covered by the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 479

current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and the 

following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NOx, SO2, PM, 

and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covered here, 

there are other differences between the part 503 

regulations and these final standards. The emission limits 

for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based 

numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 503 does 

not distinguish between new and existing units or between 

incinerator types (i.e., MH or FB incinerator) for setting 

emission limits since emission limits are based on risks to 

a highly exposed individual. 

Because both part 503 and these final standards cover 

the same universe of facilities, there are certain issues 

that arise in terms of potential impacts to current SSI 

facilities. First, the regulation of sewage sludge under 

CAA section 129 will result in stricter emission standards 

than under the current CWA rule. Additional pollution 

controls will increase costs for facilities that continue 

to use the incineration disposal method. If the additional 

costs are high enough, many entities may choose to adopt 

alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface disposal in 

landfills or other beneficial land applications). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 479

Consequently, a potential impact of this rule is that some 

of the estimated 110 facilities that operate SSI as the 

primary means of disposal could discontinue this practice 

and would instead landfill or land apply their sewage 

sludge. Second, one must consider the available capacity 

of surface disposal sites to receive additional sewage 

sludge and the potential for added costs if the use of SSI 

is discontinued. Third, SSI will be subject to two 

different sets of requirements (numeric standards, 

operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting) under the two different statutes, creating an 

additional burden to these facilities unless alternative 

regulatory approaches are implemented. EPA plans to 

evaluate the requirements under both statutes to determine 

what changes, if any, should be made to the part 503 

regulations. 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

This preamble discusses the final standards as they 

apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI 

unit. This preamble also describes the major requirements 

of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the 

final requirements and compliance times, see the SSI 

standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 479

A. What units are affected by the final standards?

The final standards and guidelines apply to owners or 

operators of SSI units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 

CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facilities 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI unit is an 

enclosed device or devices using controlled flame 

combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel 

feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat 

recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI 

unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash 

system ends at the truck loading station or similar 

equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal. The 

SSI unit does not include air pollution control equipment 

or the stack. The affected facility is each individual SSI 

unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply to 

new and existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as 

defined in the subparts. The final standards define two 

subcategories for new and existing SSI units: MH 

incinerators and FB incinerators. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 479

The combustion of sewage sludge that is not burned in 

a SSI unit located at a wastewater treatment facility 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to 

other section 129 standards, such as the CISWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the 

OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), 

the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, 

AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous Waste 

Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources?

The final emission limits for existing sources in the 

MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory 

are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existing 

sources may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB 

emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 1. Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,800 64 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.28 0.037 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 479

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 220 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 15 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources?

The final emission limits for new sources in the MH 

incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are 

presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing sources 

may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emission 

limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 2. Emission Limits for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0024 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 52 27 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.15 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 30 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 479

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0035 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.045 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 60 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 5.3 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?

These final standards require all new and existing SSI 

units to demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the 

emission limits using EPA-approved emission test methods. 

The final standards also provide an option for less 

frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their 

emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresholds of 

the emission limits. 

For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, continuous 

parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air 

pollution control devices, if they are used to meet the 

emission limits. Additionally, existing units are required 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 479

to conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) 

visible emissions test of the ash handling operations 

during each compliance test. 

For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, as well as 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. The final rule requires all new SSI units 

to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are also 

required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions testing of 

the ash handling operations during each compliance test. 

For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOx, PM, 

Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling 

with periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to 

parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing. For 

new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl, 

NOx, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous 

sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approved 

alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance 

testing. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 479

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units?

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to meet operator training and qualification 

requirements, which include: ensuring that at least one 

operator or supervisor per facility complete the operator 

training course, that qualified operator(s) or 

supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course 

specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding training. 

Owners or operators of new SSI units are required to 

conduct a siting analysis, which includes submitting a 

report that evaluates site-specific air pollution control 

alternatives that minimize potential risks to public health 

or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors related to 

the practicability of the alternatives. 

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to submit a monitoring plan for any continuous 

monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to 

comply with the rule. They must also submit a monitoring 

plan for their ash handling system that specifies the 

operating procedures they will follow to ensure that they 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 479

meet the fugitive emission limit. 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS 

tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data, 

continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspections of 

the air pollution control devices, the siting analysis (for 

new units only), monitoring plan and operator training and 

qualification must be maintained for 5 years. The results 

of the stack tests and PS tests and values for operating 

parameters are required to be included in initial and 

subsequent compliance reports. 

G. What are the SSM provisions?

The Court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

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

“General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 479

comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 

emission standard during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA

directly affects only the subset of CAA section 112(d) 

rules that incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by 

reference and that contain no other regulatory text 

exempting or excusing compliance during SSM events, the 

legality of source category-specific SSM provisions is 

questionable. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is requiring 

that emission limitations in these final standards apply at 

all times the unit is operating. In establishing these 

standards, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 

periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

established different standards for those periods. 

We are not promulgating a separate emission standard 

for the source category that applies during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Based on the information available 

at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to 

meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units 

we have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or 

distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the 

unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 479

burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil 

are expected to generally be lower than from burning solid 

wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also 

generally lower than emissions during normal operations 

because the materials in the incinerator would be almost 

fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked 

individual SSI units based on actual performance for each 

pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting 

of emissions variability. Because we accounted for 

emissions variability, we believe we have adequately 

addressed any minor variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined 

as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 479

129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 

Nothing in CAA section 129 or in case law requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the innumerable types of 

potential malfunction events in setting emission standards.5 

Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 129 

as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 

129 uses the concept of “best controlled” or “best 

performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying 

the concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a 

source that is malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best controlled or best 

performing sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of their units. 

 

5 See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (“ In the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, 

sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety 

of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 479

Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting 

CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, 

and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be 

reported in deviation reports. We will then review the 

deviation reports to determine if the deviation is a 

violation of the standards. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 

rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether 

the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 129 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 479

standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.”6 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can fail and that such 

failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard.7 EPA is therefore finalizing the 

proposed affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by 

malfunctions, with some revisions to the proposed 

regulatory provision.8 Under this provision, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has 

met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 

 

6 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction).

7 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(Feb. 15, 1983).

8 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR 

§60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense 

put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 479

40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by 

poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, 

to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess 

emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are designed 

to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, 

to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs 

were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable 

emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 

excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health....” In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 479

of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 

part 22.77). 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements?

All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final 

SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

permit. These Title V operating permits assure compliance 

with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, 

including all applicable CAA section 129 requirements9. 

The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 

source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on 

when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title 

V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit 

and is not subject to an earlier permit application 

deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before the relevant date below. 

• For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a 

 

9 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 479

complete Title V permit application no later than 12 

months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL; or 

• For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new 

source after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title 

V permit application no later than 12 months after the 

date the SSI unit commences operation as a new 

source10. 

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject 

to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source 

must submit a complete Title V permit application by the 

earlier of the following dates: 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan 

(i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that 

implements the SSI EG); or 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan; or 

 

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

71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 479

• Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart MMMM. 

For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any applicable 

federal plan is effective, or whether or when any 

applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is 

approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA sections 

129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

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

If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of 

some triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned 

above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or 

part of a major source), then you may be required to apply 

for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specified 

above. If more than one requirement triggers a source’s 

obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time 

frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered 

by the requirement which first causes the source to be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 479

subject to Title V11. 

For additional background information on the interface 

between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s 

interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating 

existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing 

Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 

(68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0156). 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?

New SSI units that commence construction after October 

14, 2010, or that are modified 6 months or more after the 

date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission limits of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within 6 months after the 

promulgation date of the standards or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Under the final EG, and consistent with CAA section 

129 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 60, subpart B, states are required to 

submit state plans containing the existing source emission 

 

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

70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 479

limits of subpart MMMM of this part, and other requirements 

to implement and enforce the EG within 1 year after 

promulgation of the EG. States must submit state plans to 

EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (including 

SSI that are modified prior to and including the date 6 

months after promulgation) and must be at least as 

protective as the EG. 

The final EG requires existing SSI to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards as expeditiously as 

practicable after approval of a state plan, but no later 

than 3 years from the date of approval of a state plan or 5 

years after promulgation of the EG, whichever is earlier. 

Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects states to 

require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. 

However, because we believe that many SSI units will find 

it necessary to retrofit existing emissions control 

equipment and/or install additional emissions control 

equipment in order to meet the final limits, EPA 

anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3-year 

compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA 

does not approve a state plan or issue a federal plan, then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 479

the compliance date is 5 years from the date of the final 

rule. 

EPA intends to develop a federal plan that will apply 

to existing SSI units in any state that has not submitted 

an approved state plan within 2 years after promulgation of 

the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject to 

the federal plan up to 5 years after promulgation of the EG 

to demonstrate compliance with the standards, as allowed by 

CAA section 129(b)(3). 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA?

EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 

reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, 

not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators to locate, collect, and submit 

emissions test data because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. One improvement 

that has occurred in recent years is the availability of 

stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 479

for cumbersome paper copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve 

data accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of 

reporting for sources. Owners and operators of SSI 

facilities are required to submit, to EPA’s ERT database, 

electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests 

required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Data entry will be 

through an electronic emissions test report structure 

called the Emissions Reporting Tool (ERT) whenever 

conducting performance tests. The ERT was developed with 

input from stack testing companies who generally collect 

and compile performance test data electronically and 

offices within state and local agencies that perform field 

test assessments. The ERT is currently available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html, and access 

to direct data submittal to EPA’s electronic emissions 

database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 

2011. 

The requirement to submit source test data 

electronically to EPA would not require any additional 

performance testing and would apply to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 479

form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The website listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT. In 

addition, when a facility submits performance test data to 

WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for 

emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we believe 

industry will benefit from development of improved emission 

factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and better 

regulation development as discussed below. The information 

to be reported is already required for the existing test 

methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the 

test method. 

One major advantage of submitting source test data 

through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and 

store much of the documentation required to be reported by 

this rule that also clearly states what testing information 

would be required. Another important benefit of submitting 

these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted 

is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved 

in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has 

source category performance test data in hand, there will 

likely be fewer or less substantial data collection 

requests in conjunction with prospective required residual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 479

risk assessments or technology reviews. This results in a 

reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) 

and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the results). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that 

their review may be more streamlined and accurate because 

they would not have to re-enter the data to assess the 

calculations and verify the data entry. Finally, another 

benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE electronically 

is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality 

of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing 

the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission 

factor is based and by ensuring that data are more 

representative of current industry operational procedures. 

A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is 

that emissions factors are outdated or not representative 

of a particular source category. Receiving and 

incorporating data for most performance tests will ensure 

that emissions factors, when updated, represent accurately 

the most current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development, and other air pollution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 479

control activities, receiving test data already collected 

and using them in the emissions factors development program 

will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and EPA 

significant time, money, and effort while improving the 

quality of emission inventories and related regulatory 

decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that 

will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a website 

accessible through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE website was 

constructed to store emissions test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report 

through EPA’s CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE 

database. Although ERT is not the only electronic 

interface that can be used to submit source test data to 

the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data 

very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT 

can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

EPA received over 90 public comments on the proposed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 479

rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public hearing 

to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. 

After consideration of public comments received, EPA is 

making several changes to the standards. Following are the 

major changes to the standards since the proposal. The 

rationale for these and any other significant changes can 

be found in section V of this preamble or in the “Sewage 

Sludge Incineration (SSI) Rule: Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

A. Applicability

 The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of sewage 

sludge is burned in an incinerator at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI standards in 

subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning sewage 

sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge 

that is not burned in a SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 479

Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. Subcategories

 The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new sources. 

In the final NSPS, SSI units at new sources are 

subcategorized into two subcategories: MH and FB. 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits

At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation to 

determine variability. For the final rule, for existing FB 

units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calculation 

to account for the biasing of emissions data from one 

facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH units. 

In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, 

skewness and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the 

data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or lognormally distributed. If both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values had skewness and 

kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis 

of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the 

reported values and the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the reported data values was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 479

chosen to be conservative. We have modified our 

assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests 

do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal 

distribution better represents the data, or when there are 

not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the lognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond-thefloor emission standards for Hg emissions from existing MH 

units. In the final rule, we are establishing MACT floor 

emission limits but are not setting beyond-the-floor 

standards. Also, we are not finalizing the proposed 

opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limits for 

both PCDD/PCDF TMB and PCDD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units 

to meet both limits. In the final standards, we are 

allowing affected sources to comply with either the 

PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits. 

In the proposed rule, we did not compare the CO span 

of the test to the measured CO values to determine if the 

values were consistent. For the final rule, we reviewed 

the CO values obtained from emission test reports to 

determine whether the span of the test used was capable of 

accurately reading the reported value. If the span was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 479

inconsistent with the reported value, the CO levels were 

adjusted to provide a value that was more consistent with 

the span. We revised the CO limits based on the results of 

this analysis. 

The final emission limits resulting from the revised 

MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 through 6 

of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emission 

limits. 

Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

FB SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0019 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 56 64 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.49 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0033 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 63 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0098 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.056 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.61 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 12 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 22 15 

Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

MH SSI Units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 479

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.095 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900 3,800 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.0 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.02 0.28 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 220 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 5.0 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 80 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 26 

Table 5. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New FB SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 27 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.013 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 5.3 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 479

Table 6. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New MH SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0024 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 52 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.15 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 210 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.0035 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0022 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.045 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 60 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 26 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and Impacts Estimation

 For the final rule, we have revised the baseline 

emissions, costs, and impacts to incorporate information 

provided by commenters. A discussion of the changes is 

presented in section V of this preamble. The results of 

these analyses are summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. 

E. Compliance Requirements

For both the standards, the following changes have been 

made: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 479

• SSI units must submit (at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test date) a monitoring plan to 

establish that their ash handling system will meet the 

visible emissions limit on a continuous basis. 

• The alternative to test less frequently (every third 

year) is being revised to be the following: 

o If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a 

specified threshold during two consecutive 

performance tests, they may test every 3 years 

instead of annually. Any year that the emission 

threshold is not met, the SSI must test annually 

until the threshold is met over a consecutive 2 

year period. The alternative in the standards no 

longer requires that SSI units establish that 

they meet the lower thresholds for three 

consecutive years. 

o For all pollutants, less frequent testing is 

allowed if emissions are no greater than an 

emissions threshold of 75 percent of the emission 

limit. 

o For fugitive emissions from ash handling, less 

frequent testing is allowed as long as visible 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 479

emissions of combustion ash occur less than or 

equal to two percent of each hourly observation 

period (the standard is five percent of each of 

three hourly observation periods). 

• The final rule removes the requirements in the 

standards to maintain sludge feed rate and moisture 

content within specified parameters. However, sludge 

feed rate and sludge moisture content are still 

required to be monitored during performance test runs, 

and daily records of sludge feed rate and sludge 

moisture content are required to be kept. 

• At proposal, operating limits were calculated based on 

a specified percentage of the average parameter value 

recorded during pollutant performance tests. In the 

final standards, operating parameter limits are 

determined on a site-specific basis as the minimum or 

maximum operating parameter value for the parameter, 

as applicable, recorded during pollutant performance 

tests. 

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annual 

performance tests was each 10-12 months. This has 

been changed to specify that performance tests must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 479

conducted on a calendar year basis (no less than nine 

calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months 

following the previous performance test); and you must 

complete five performance tests for each such 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. 

• The averaging time for demonstrating compliance with 

the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed from 

a 4-hour rolling averaging period to a 24-hr block 

averaging period. The averaging times for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, has 

been changed from a 4-hour rolling averaging period to 

a 12-hour block averaging period. 

• During each compliance test run, SSI units must be 

operated at a minimum of 85 percent of their maximum 

permitted capacity. 

F. Definitions

The following definitions have been revised: 

• Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific 

emission units for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 479

wastewater treatment facility associated with the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary 

treatment at the facility, which changes the 

method used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent 

used for activated carbon injection). 

• Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge 

incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and 

multiple hearth. A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary 

fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste 

heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash 

system. The SSI unit includes all ash handling 

systems connected to the bottom ash handling system. 

The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 479

transfers the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit 

does not include air pollution control equipment or 

the stack. 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. EPA received many comments on this 

subpart covering numerous topics. EPA’s responses to all 

comments, including those below, can be found in the 

comment response document for SSI units in the docket. 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129

 Comment: Many commenters contended that SSI are 

within the CWA definition of POTW; therefore, according to 

CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA must regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 112(d), and not CAA section 129. The 

commenters emphasized that SSI units are located within 

each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the 

solids handling and treatment processes at each POTW. 

 Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be 

regulated under CAA section 129 because they are combusting 

material that is generated by the POTW, which is neither a 

commercial or industrial establishment nor the general 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 479

public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The 

commenters added that, based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste, even if they had a new point of generation 

within the POTW where they were generating solid waste, the 

POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and does not 

pass the broad applicability for solid waste incineration 

under CAA section 129. Another commenter added that CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set standards 

for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal 

waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipal waste, 

the unit must first be a solid waste incineration unit. 

The commenters concluded that this would not include SSI 

units. 

 Several commenters stated that EPA’s determination to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradicts 

previous decisions where EPA has stated that regulations 

were being developed for SSI under CAA section 112. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s revision to the list of 

source categories under CAA section 112 to delete SSI units 

was because there were no major sources in the source 

category. One commenter added that EPA’s decision to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 is based on an 

overly broad reading of the NRDC case. The commenter also 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 479

claimed that SSI units are not within the scope of the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” in section 

129 because sewage sludge is not generated by a commercial 

or industrial establishment or by the general public. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion 

that regulation of SSI units under section 129 is 

inconsistent with past EPA statements. As explained in the 

NPRM, EPA issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 

pursuant to section 112(d), and those emissions standards 

did not include standards for SSI units. In the proposed 

POTW emissions standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge 

incineration will be regulated under section 129 of the 

CAA[.]” See 63 FR 66087 (December 1, 1998). EPA also 

explained in the NPRM for today’s action that the EPA’s 

statements regarding SSI units during its promulgation of 

emissions standards for OSWI units are squarely in conflict 

with the Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 

(D.C. Cir. 2007), which states in pertinent part that any 

unit that combusts any solid waste at all is subject to CAA 

section 129. The commenter does not appear to disagree 

with that conclusion, but instead simply argues that EPA 

cannot regulate SSI units under section 129 because it 

previously stated that it would regulate them under section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 479

112. However, the NRDC decision precludes EPA from doing 

so. Additionally, section 112 (c)(6) requires that EPA 

promulgate emission standards assuring that sources 

accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of each of the HAP identified in section 

112(c)(6) are subject to emission standards. EPA has 

determined that section 129 source categories can be 

included to meet our 90 percent obligations. Therefore, 

EPA has included SSI units in the section 112 (c)(6) list 

of sources because SSI units are need to meet our 90 

percent requirement for mercury. This decision is 

documented in the memorandum “Emission Standards for 

Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 

112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559) 

Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to 

issue emissions standards for SSI units under section 

112(d). Rather, it simply governs the schedule for the 

issuance of section 112(d) emissions standards for POTW. 

Section 112(e), titled “Schedule for Standards and Review,” 

generally requires EPA to establish emissions standards for 

initially listed source categories as expeditiously as 

practicable, with certain specific deadlines in section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 479

112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EPA shall 

prioritize source categories for regulation, and requires 

EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissions 

standards for section 112 listed source categories. 

Finally, Congress specified a different schedule for POTW 

in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standards 

shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. Thus, 

section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI 

units under section 112(d), but rather simply identifies 

the date by which EPA must issue emissions standards for 

POTW. 

Additionally, the commenter’s interpretation of 

section 112(e)(5) would conflict with section 129(g) and 

with the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of section 129(g) as 

explained in NRDC v. EPA. Section 129(g) defines “solid 

waste incineration unit” to include any unit combusting any 

solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s 

position that it could choose to regulate certain units, 

combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead of under 

section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid waste, EPA 

does not have the discretion under section 129 to create an 

exemption for SSI units from the statutory definition of 

solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) itself 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 479

specifies certain units that combust solid waste but are 

exempt from the definition, and noted that where Congress 

created such enumerated exemptions, the EPA lacks 

discretion to create additional ones. 

EPA also disagrees with the commenter that SSI units 

do not combust waste from the general public. Sewage 

sludge clearly originates from the general public, 

including residential and commercial facilities. Simply 

because the waste is treated at a POTW prior to combustion 

does not change the original source of the sewage sludge. 

The commenter refers to a statement in EPA’s 2000 Unified 

Regulatory Agenda to support its argument. However, the 

Regulatory Agenda did not represent an Agency 

interpretation following a notice and comment process. 

Moreover, as explained above, EPA’s position regarding the 

section of the Act under which SSI units must be regulated 

has changed since 2000, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in NRDC v. EPA. Finally, EPA notes that its final 

action on reconsideration of the OSWI rule did not refer to 

the source of sewage sludge as a basis for concluding that 

regulation under section 129 was not required. Instead, as 

explained above, it referred to discretion the Agency 

believed it had at the time to choose to regulate certain 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 479

solid waste incinerators under section 112 – discretion the 

Agency no longer believes it has. 

The commenter’s reference to statements made in other 

Federal Register notices that pre-date the NRDC decision 

similarly fail to support its argument that EPA must 

regulate SSI units under section 112. Specifically, 

commenters refer to EPA’s inclusion of SSI on the list of 

area source categories listed under section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. See 67 Fed. Reg. 70427 (Nov. 22, 

2002). However, that listing does not lead to the 

conclusion that SSI must be regulated under section 112. 

First, as explained above, EPA’s interpretation of its 

authority to regulate SSI has changed following the 

issuance of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

which occurred after the 2002 listing referred to by the 

commenter. Additionally, that listing included source 

categories that would clearly be regulated under section 

129, such as medical waste incinerators and municipal waste 

combustors, Id. at 70428, because EPA’s regulation of 

incinerator source categories under section 129 serves 

towards meeting its statutory obligations under section 

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

SSI on that list does not indicate that such units must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 479

regulated under section 112. 

EPA further disagrees that regulation of SSI units under 

section 129 is unnecessary because SSI units are already 

regulated under section 405 of the CWA and that section 129 

regulation will therefore provide no public health or 

environmental benefit. As explained in section VI of this 

preamble, today’s action will benefit public health and the 

environment by achieving reductions of the section 129 

pollutants from SSI units beyond those required by 

regulations issued pursuant to the CWA. Today’s action

must be undertaken to comply with the Clean Air Act and the 

court decision in NRDC v. EPA. EPA further notes that 

section 405 of the CWA expressly provides that nothing in 

that section is intended to waive more stringent 

requirements of any other law. Therefore, Congress clearly 

did not intend for regulation of SSI units under the CWA to 

preclude any other regulations, including regulation under 

CAA section 129. Overlap with Other Standards

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that 

other types of solid waste incineration units could be 

considered SSI units and subject to the SSI standards if 

they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some commenters 

added that the definition of a SSI does not have a de 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 479

minimus level of sewage sludge burned. Other commenters 

requested clarification on whether SSI units burning nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SSI and 

CISWI. Some commenters suggested that SSI units be 

consistent with the MWC standards and provide an exemption 

for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less by weight 

of sewage sludge. 

Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide 

exclusions for all solid waste incineration units that meet 

the applicability requirements of other CAA section 129 

standards, including MWCs regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, 

Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters noted that the CISWI 

standards specifically exempted MWC units and other units 

subject to CAA section 129 standards. 

Several commenters contended that EPA should exempt 

incineration units subject to hazardous waste combustor 

regulations and/or hazardous waste management permits under 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The commenters added that 

CAA section 129(g)(1) states that a solid waste 

incineration unit does not include incinerators or other 

units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the 

SWDA. Other commenters requested EPA include an exemption 

for hazardous waste combustion units that are affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 479

sources under 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE. 

 Response: Section 129 defines solid waste incineration 

unit to include any unit combusting any solid waste. 

Therefore, EPA is not setting de minimus levels for solid 

waste burned in incinerators. An incinerator located at a 

wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic 

sewage sludge that combusts any amount of sewage sludge is 

subject to the final SSI standards. We have clarified that 

the final standards and guidelines do not apply to sewage 

sludge that is not burned in a SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. Sewage sludge that is not burned in a SSI located 

at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 

standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of 

this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR 

part 63 subpart EEE). 

Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to 

have a permit under CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standards per 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 479

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

exemption is needed for this rule. 

 Comment: Several commenters objected to EPA issuing 

the proposed SSI standards prior to making determinations 

regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. 

Response: EPA is not making determination in this rule 

about the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. Section 

129 of the CAA states that “solid waste” shall have meaning 

promulgated by the Administrator under RCRA. Therefore, 

today’s action is consistent with using the defintion of 

non-hazardous secondary materials promulagted RCRA rule, 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Comment: Several commenters contended that sewage 

sludge is not a solid waste, as the CAA defines solid waste 

by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. 

The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage sludge in 

what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage 

exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states that 

solid waste does not include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage. 

Response: This comment is not relevant to EPA’s 

establishment of emissions standards for SSI units. 

Rather, it is relevant to EPA’s proposed Identification of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 479

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste 

rule, and is addressed in EPA’s final action on that 

proposed rule. 

B. Subcategories

 Comment: Many commenters agreed with the development 

of separate EG for existing MH and FB units. The 

commenters also requested adding the same subcategories for 

the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappropriate 

to consider the best performing FB SSI as the best 

performing similar source for the MH SSI new source 

category. They also stated that, as proposed, the NSPS 

standards would discourage a POTW’s ability to modify 

existing MH units, including modifications to improve 

combustion efficiency or boost steam output for electricity 

generation. Some commenters stated that, by using the best 

performing FB unit as the basis for the NSPS for MH units, 

EPA was effectively setting a beyond-the-floor MACT limit 

for SSI units without considering any criteria that the 

statute requires. Other commenters agreed with the 

decision to use the best-performing FB unit as the best 

similar source for the MH SSI source category. 

 Other commenters requested further subcategorization 

based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 479

incinerated, limited use units, and distance over which the 

SSI would need to transport its sludge for disposal. 

Response: We have considered the commenters’ concerns 

and are setting separate standards for FB and MH units at 

new sources in the final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, 

there are two types of incinerators currently used to 

combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. The 

differences between the two combustor designs result in 

significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas 

stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control 

of temperature and other process variables, auxiliary fuel 

use and other characteristics. To reflect the differences 

in their combustion mechanisms, two subcategories, FB and 

MH, were developed in the NPRM for new and existing SSI 

sources. 

At proposal for the MH new source subcategory, we 

considered the best-performing FB incinerator to be the 

best-performing similar source because we were not aware of 

any new MH sources that have been constructed in the last 

20 years, and information provided by the industry 

indicates that future units that will be constructed are 

likely to be FB incinerators. 

We have re-evaluated our decision. Although few MH 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 479

units have been constructed over the last 20 years, there 

is no technical reason that would preclude a source from 

constructing a MH unit. The same design differences that 

distinguish existing FB and MH units also apply to new 

units, and provide a similar basis for subcategorizing 

between the two types of units. Therefore, we are setting 

separate standards for MH units at new and reconstructed 

sources. Such subcategorization is appropriate based on the 

differences between FB and MH units described above, and 

will also serve to ensure that MH units do not avoid making 

modifications that may require them to meet standards based 

on FB units. We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any 

other basis because we do not have data to support 

distinguishing units based on class, type, or size. 

Without such information, we do not have a basis for 

concluding that these types of units should be placed in a 

different subcategory. 

C. MACT Floor Analysis

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach

Comment: Many commenters objected to setting the MACT 

floors using a pollutant by pollutant approach because none 

of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneously meet 

all the proposed standards. One commenter stated that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 479

EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review 

of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability". However, the commenter contended 

that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practical 

manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units and that 

this results is unrealistically stringent limits that are 

not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters noted that 

this was especially true for the new source standards. 

Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis violates the statute and its own views of the 

statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot 

demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneously meet 

all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 

129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards because 

the "floor standards would force industry-wide 

technological upgrades without consideration of the factors 

(cost and energy in particular) which Congress mandated for 

consideration when establishing beyond-the-floor 

standards." 

Many commenters specifically mentioned that EPA's 

pollutant-by-pollutant, lowest emission methodology for 

setting the CO and NOx standards is flawed because EPA did 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 479

not take into account the inherent conflict in complying 

with two standards. The commenters noted that CO and NOx

emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters 

explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NOx and vice 

versa. The commenters added that high temperature 

combustion with long residence times and high oxygen 

concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that 

those same operating conditions favor high NOx emissions. 

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize 

CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel 

and produce more CO2 emissions. 

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most 

advanced control technologies, and those EPA indicated were 

costed in the impacts analysis, would not meet the emission 

limits for all of the pollutants all of the time. The 

commenter provided an example showing that of 11 of 30 test 

data points from the SSI unit in EPA’s database would not 

comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points would not 

comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not comply with 

the HCl standard, six of six data points would not comply 

with the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ, 86 of 105 would not comply 

with the CO standard, and eight of 15 would not comply with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 479

the NOx standard. The commenter concluded that data 

variability has not been appropriately accounted for and 

that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor based on 

the best performing unit for each pollutant is not 

reasonable. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters who object 

to setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. 

EPA previously has explained that although CAA section 129 

does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors must be 

established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying the 

requirement to set MACT floors based on what has been 

achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonable 

interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provision (62 

FR 48363-64). 

 EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a)(2) 

to support establishing emissions standards based on the 

actual emissions of “the best controlled similar unit” or 

“best-performing 12 percent of units in the category” for 

each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclude that 

the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonable under 

the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 479

interpretation is certainly not compelled by the statute. 

We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable under the 

statute and appropriate given the problems associated with 

implementing the commenters’ approach. 

 The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “establish 

performance standards and other requirements pursuant to 

section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each 

category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursuant to 

CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). 

Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance standards 

promulgated under section [111] of this title and this 

section [129] and applicable to solid waste incineration 

units shall specify numerical emissions limitations for the 

following substances or mixtures: PM (total and fine), 

opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 

chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, 

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.” Thus, the statute 

requires EPA to set individual numeric performance 

standards based on the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions actually achieved for each of nine listed 

pollutants. Based on this, EPA believes – and has long 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 479

believed – the statute supports, if not requires, that MACT 

floors be derived for each pollutant based on the emission 

levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, although the 

provisions do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress singled 

out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of devices 

that only control some of these pollutants well. 

 Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in the 

1997 rulemaking for medical waste incinerators “The EPA 

does not agree that the MACT floors are to be based upon 

one overall unit” (62 FR 48364). Pointing for instance to 

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

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified pollutant. 

Moreover, although the provisions do not state 

whether there is to be a separate floor for each 

pollutant, the fact that Congress singled out 

these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of 

devices that only control some of these 

pollutants well. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 479

Id.

 Since 1997, the courts have consistently repeated that 

EPA must set emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. See, e.g., Cement 

Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (D.C. Cir.) (“[T]he Agency first 

sets emission floors for each pollutant and source 

category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach has, as outlined above, been in place since 1997 

for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under section 129. See, 

e.g., 59 FR 48198 (September 20, 1994) (municipal waste 

combustors). In addition, such an approach has been upheld 

in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing 

CWA best available technology standards on a pollutant-bypollutant basis was a rational interpretation of EPA’s 

obligations under that similar statute). We note that the 

CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA program. S. 

Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. 

 Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would likely 

result in EPA setting the standards at levels that could, 

for some pollutants, actually be based on emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 479

limitations achieved by the worst-performing unit, rather 

than the best-performing unit, as required by the statute. 

See 61 FR 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363-64 

(September 15, 1997). For example, if the best performing 

12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF 

as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, the floor 

for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflecting best 

performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach would 

require EPA to make value judgments as to which pollutant 

reductions are most critical in working to identify the 

single unit that reduces emissions of the nine pollutants 

on an overall best-performing basis. Such value judgments 

are antithetical to the command of the statute at the MACT 

floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to 

prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relative risk 

to human health of each pollutant, a criterion that has no 

place in the establishment of MACT floors. Sierra Club v. 

EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 

The fact that the statute does not contain the phrase 

“for each pollutant” does not compel any inference that 

Congress was sub silentio mandating a different result when 

it left the provision ambiguous on this issue. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 479

argument that MACT floors set pollutant-by-pollutant are 

based on the performance of a hypothetical facility, so 

that the limitations are not based on those achieved in 

practice, just re-begs the question of whether CAA section 

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

pollutants. All of the emission limitations in this rule 

reflect actual performance and are achieved in practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level of control must 

be limited by the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively “guts the standards” 

by including worse performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident 

Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the 

average performance of best performing sources. Since 

Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, 

and EPA’s interpretation effectuates statutory goals and 

policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation must be 

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

Commenters made much of the fact that no single 

facility is presently achieving all of the nine pollutant 

limits proposed. However, the available information 

compared to the final standards disputes this assertion. 

For the final standards, based on the data we have, our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 479

estimate of baseline emissions, and the revised emission 

limits, we are estimating that 155 of 204 existing SSI 

units can meet standards for all nine pollutants, without 

installing additional pollution control. We cannot make 

this assessment for new sources, because none have been 

constructed. However, we are not aware of any technical 

reason that new units could not install the most advanced 

pollution control techniques or reduce the pollutant 

concentrations in the sludge to meet the new source 

standards. 

We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in this 

case, increase the overall cost of the regulation compared 

to what would result under a unit-based methodology. We 

interpret CAA section 129 to require that the MACT floor be 

determined in this manner, and we believe that Congress 

did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regulations 

developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limits that 

are achieved by the best controlled unit for each 

pollutant, as long as the control systems are compatible 

with each other. To our knowledge, there is no technical 

reason why these air pollution control systems cannot be 

combined. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 479

Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and NOx

with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the 

SSI facility to determine whether combustion conditions can 

be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install NOx

controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, 

FGR, or low NOx burners). In the proposed rule, we 

conjectured reasons why SCR and SNCR were not used or may 

not be able to be used at SSI units. While we are not 

aware of any SSI unit that currently uses SNCR or SCR, we 

also do not know of technical reason why they could not be 

used. Given the limited data available on SSI units with 

FGR, we could not definitely determine how effective the 

technology was on SSI units. However, we also do not know 

of a technical reason why they could not be used, if 

necessary, to meet NOx limits, and commenters did not 

provide any reasons they could not be used. 

Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis

Comment: Many commenters urged EPA to collect more 

information to set the standards. Many commenters 

contended that EPA does not have sufficient actual emission 

data from enough SSI units to properly set the MACT floor. 

Some commenters contended that the floor-setting provision 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 479

in section 129 requires them to set the existing floor 

standards "based on the best performing 12 percent of 

sources in the category" and not just based on the sources 

for which they have information. The commenters contended 

that EPA did not have emissions data from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources or even from 12 percent of 

sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is 

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collected data 

are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EPA is 

using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a 

subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determine how 

the top 12 percent perform. 

Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit its 

ICR to just nine entities because collecting information 

from ten or more entities would have triggered the PRA 

obligations and a more rigorous OMB review. The commenters 

concluded that EPA’s plan to circumvent the PRA and OMB 

review resulted in an inadequate dataset for this 

rulemaking that leaves EPA unable to reliably take the 

first necessary step in a section 129 rulemaking: to 

determine which of the SSI units are the best performing 

sources. 

Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 479

ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest emissions 

based on the type of unit and the installed air pollution 

controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targeted 

approach to collecting data from expected top performers 

undermines its ability to presume the data is a random 

sample representative of the entire source category or 

subcategory. The commenters stated that if the data 

gathered are not representative at the outset, then the 

data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equation to 

predict the emissions data across the source category or 

subcategory. 

Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has used 

permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed 

rate control, and other information to establish MACT 

standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenters stated 

that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method 

in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actual 

emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at 

least 12% of the units. 

Another commenter stated that EPA used emission data 

from state databases for an additional nine MHs. The 

commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Court to 

collect data from the best-performing 12% of existing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 479

sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emissions data 

from the state databases for the additional nine MHs were 

the 12% best performing MHs. 

Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, EPA requested several SSI to conduct emissions 

testing and provide the results to EPA for purposes of this 

rulemaking. Specifically, EPA collected information on 

the best-performing sources to establish MACT floor 

standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent emissions tests 

requests under section 114 of the CAA to nine entities that 

own and operate SSI units. EPA identified SSI units that 

were expected to be the best-controlled sources and the 

best performers for further emissions testing. The Agency 

acknowledges that this selection methodology targets 

identifying the best-performing sources rather than 

selecting a representative sample of sources. However, 

given the court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue the final 

SSI rule, it was not possible to undertake the timeconsuming process of sending an ICR to all the affected SSI 

units consistent with the requirements of the PRA. 

To select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the 

inventory of SSI units for the control devices being 

operated, and identified a subset of units expected to have 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 479

the lowest emissions based on the type of unit and the 

installed air pollution controls. These controls generally 

achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA section 

129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify for each 

pollutant the units with the lowest emissions. For 

example, units were selected that operated more than one of 

the following technologies: activated carbon injection to 

reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to 

reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; 

high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and 

impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, 

particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO2; and 

units with multiple control devices that could reduce PM, 

Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi scrubber in 

combination with impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or with 

another particulate control device. The 9 owners or 

operators selected were from different states in different 

regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum of 

sources for sludge generated. 

Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, 

resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the nine 

operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 479

owners of multiple units at a facility provided information 

for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit 

instead of 2, because not all units were in operation 

during the test period. Of those 20 units from the nine 

surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 17 units 

that were in operation (11 MH units and 6 FB units). While 

testing was being undertaken, the EPA also collected 

emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collected from 

state environmental agencies public databases. For some 

pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental test 

reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sources. 

The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use all the 

emissions information from these test reports in the MACT 

floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test reports 

that were older than 15 years. The older reports were 

determined to not be appropriate for this rulemaking 

because they were unlikely to represent current emissions 

performance, due to their age and because they pre-dated 

required compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In 

total, emissions information were collected from 6 FB units 

and 20 MH units from facilities responding to the ICR and 

additional test reports provided by state environmental 

agencies. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 479

As discussed in the NPRM and background documentation, 

the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the 

minimum number of observations needed to accurately 

characterize the distribution of the best-performing 12 

percent of units in each subcategory. The results showed 

that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the number 

of observations necessary to provide an accurate 

representation of that data distributed from the bestperforming 12 percent of the source population. The EPA 

maintains that the emissions information that we have 

collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor for the 

best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to use other types of data, such 

as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate controls 

with the emissions information to calculate the MACT floor. 

The other types of data mentioned do not represent the 

actual emissions or operation of the unit but are potential 

values in their permits or limits. Most units are 

typically operating at lower than permitted levels or 

emission limits. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to incorporate 

such data into the EPA’s UPL calculation because the UPL 

calculation is based on emission test runs of actual data, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 479

rather than limits based on permits. The permit or 

emission limits would be on a different basis and 

potentially skew the MACT floor UPL calculation. 

The EPA has also updated the inventory of sources 

based on additional data provided in the comment letters. 

The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB units and 

144 MH units. Given this change in population, 12 percent 

of each subcategory are equal to 8 FB units and 18 MH 

units. Although we do not have any more emissions 

information than at proposal, the change in inventory 

results in more than 12 percent of MH units with data for 

PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT 

floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of emissions 

data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). EPA solicited 

additional emission test reports in the NPRM. Although 

many commenters summarized the results of their most recent 

emission tests when comparing their site-specific emissions 

to EPA’s baseline emissions, none of the commenters 

actually provided the emissions test reports. The emission 

test reports are necessary for the EPA to review the test 

methods and procedures to ensure consistency with other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 479

emissions data, and to verify the tests represent a valid 

test result that can be used in the MACT floor analysis. 

Additionally, the test reports provide information 

necessary to correct the emissions measured into the units 

used for the MACT floor analysis. Therefore, these 

additional test result summaries, without background 

documentation, could not be used in the MACT floor UPL 

calculation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, to fill the data 

gap caused by the lack of actual emissions data from the 

required number of units in each subcategory, EPA applied 

statistical analysis to single test run results. Several 

commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data 

available for MACT development, EPA counted each test run 

as a separate data point. 

Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on 

test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The commenters 

noted that CAA section 129 states that MACT standards for 

existing sources must be as stringent as the "emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in, the category." The commenters added that, 

assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limitation" 

with the concept of emission level (as often stated by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 479

EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emission 

levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floors. The 

commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes 

a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid emissions 

level test. The commenter stated that a test run is not an 

accurate measure of the performance of the unit and should 

not be used as if it were. Commenters added that EPA 

should use the results of the test for each unit (comprised 

of at least three test runs) to represent what is being 

achieved by a unit. 

Several commenters contended that EPA must go back and 

reset the process based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI sources 

(not individual incinerators). The commenters added that 

it is important that individual sources, not units, be 

utilized because the composition of the sludge varies 

greatly from source to source and utilizing multiple units 

at one source skews the data development process and 

ultimately provides the basis for a flawed MACT standard at 

best. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 

percent UPL values were calculated for each pollutant and 

for each subcategory using the test run data for those 

units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consistent with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 479

EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as HMIWI, 

CISWI, and boilers, the MACT floor emission limits were 

calculated on a run basis since compliance is based on the 

average of a 3-run test. The 99 percent UPL represents the 

value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run 

performance tests form the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample observations 

from the same best-performing sources. 

Variability Calculation

For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are 

incorporating variability in the MACT floor calculation for 

this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also 

following the same procedures for establishing limits and 

incorporating non-detect values as discussed in the NPRM. 

We have made three revisions to the variability calculation 

for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT floor 

variability calculation to incorporate weighted UPL’s for 

existing FB units. Second, we selected log-normal results 

when it is not clear that data are normally distributed. 

Lastly, we revised the CO limits based on an analysis of 

the span of the test. The weighted UPL’s and log-normal 

results are discussed in responses to comments. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 479

revision to the CO limits based on reviewing the CO span 

was done to correct errors in the CO values provided in 

test reports and to be consistent with the calculation 

methods used in the CISWI and boilers rules. 

Carbon monoxide values obtained from emission test 

reports were reviewed to determine whether the span of the 

test used was capable of accurately reading the reported 

value. If the span was inconsistent with the reported 

value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a value that 

was more consistent with the span. EPA Method 10 is 

structured such that measurement data quality relative to 

the calibration span of the instrument can be assessed. 

For a measurement made using an instrumental test method, 

the equivalent of the method detection level can be 

assessed using: a square root formula, the reported 

calibration span value, and the allowable data quality 

criteria (i.e. the allowable calibration error, bias, and 

drift values). The estimated CO measurement error resulting 

from the square root formula was adjusted by a factor of 

three to be consistent with the methodology EPA applied for 

non-detect data (where limits no less than three times the 

method detection level were established). 

In order to develop a basis for measurement error, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 479

instrument calibration spans in available test reports were 

reviewed. Where no span values could be found, it was 

assumed that if the test was conducted on or before May, 

2008, the associated CO span would be 1000 ppm, and tests 

conducted after May 2008 would have a CO span of 100 ppm. 

This assumption was made because, before revisions were 

made to Method 10 in May of 2008, it was common that units 

were using the prescriptive span guidance that was listed 

in the old method. The current version of EPA Method 10 

does not include these span requirements but instead 

requires the tester to choose calibration ranges that 

reflect the range of expected emission concentrations at 

the unit. In cases where the reported emission 

concentrations were lower than their corresponding 

measurement errors, the default measurement errors were 

used in lieu of the reported concentration. 

These revisions are further documented in the 

memorandum “Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage 

Sludge Incinerator Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 7 of this preamble shows the 

revised results of the MACT floor analysis for existing 

sources, and Table 8 of this preamble shows the results for 

new sources. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 479

Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0016 0.095 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

64 3,800 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.51b 1.2 

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.037 0.28 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

150 220 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.0074 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.1 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

1.2 5.0 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

18 80 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

15 26 

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd mg/dscm 0.0011 0.0024 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 479

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

@7% O2

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

27 52 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.24 1.2 c

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0010 0.15 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

30 210 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.00062 0.0035 

CDD/CDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.0044 0.0022 

CDD/CDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.013 0.045 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

9.6 60 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

5.3 26 c

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level.

c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less 

stringent than EG. 

Comment: One commenter contended that because CAA 

section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floors 

reflecting the “average” emission level achieved by the 

best sources, setting floors that instead reflect a UPL for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 479

those sources is unlawful. The commenter, added that by 

claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top 

twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider 

variability under the CAA and relevant case law. The 

commenter explained that, although EPA may consider 

variability in estimating an individual source’s actual 

performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case law 

even suggests that EPA may account for differences in 

performance between sources except as section 129 provides, 

by averaging the emission levels achieved by the sources in 

the top twelve percent. 

 Response: In assessing sources’ performance, EPA 

may consider variability both in identifying which 

performers are “best” and in assessing their level of 

performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 

875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 

(D.C. Cir 2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, based on 

an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, 

to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources considering these 

sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision 

indicated that floors for existing sources must reflect the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 479

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision 

also reiterated that EPA may account for variability in 

setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA erred in 

assessing variability because it relied on data from the 

worst performers to estimate best performers’ variability. 

The Court held that “EPA may not use emission levels of the 

worst performers to estimate variability of the best 

performers without a demonstrated relationship between the 

two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. 

In determining the MACT floor limits, we first 

determine the floor, which, for existing sources, is the 

emissions limitation achieved in practice by the average of 

the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the level 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest 

emissions limitation as the measure of best performance. 

We then assess variability of the best performers by using 

a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor 

level based on the average of the best performing sources 

using the expected distribution of future compliance tests. 

We used the UPL to perform this calculation, as explained 

below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 479

Variability can be accounted for using different 

statistical methods. For example, recent standards have 

used the UL or the UPL to determine the MACT floor emission 

limits. A UL is based on the distribution of the available 

emission observations (e.g., test runs), and does not 

embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A prediction 

interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an 

interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomly 

selected observation from a population. In other words, 

the prediction interval estimates what future values will 

be, based on present or past background samples taken. 

Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the 

mean of three future test run observations (three-run 

average) can be expected to fall below, based on the 

results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same 

population. Therefore, should a future test condition be 

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

of three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the 

reported level will fall below a MACT floor emission limit 

calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an appropriate 

statistical tool to use in determining variability in the 

SSI data. For this source category, where there is a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 479

limited sampling of the source category and we do not have 

test data from all of the SSI units in the best performing 

12% for each subcategory, the predictive aspect of the UPL 

calculation is especially important. 

Because the UPL represents the value which we can 

expect the mean (i.e., average) of three future 

observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon the 

results of the independent sample size from the same 

population, the UPL reflects average emissions. The UPL is 

also consistent with other recent rulemakings. 

Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting 

MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized 

data from all available test runs for the best performing 

units without regard to the number of data points available 

for each unit. The commenters added that, for all 

pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to 

unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases 

the statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by 

over-weighting the performance of the units that have more 

data. The commenter suggested that EPA should employ an 

alternate methodology which determines the emissions 

limitation achieved for each best performing unit first, 

and then averages these limitations to determine the least 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 479

stringent standard, or MACT floor. 

Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed 

units contains data from six units at four facilities. The 

entities surveyed were requested to provide recent (within 

the previous 5 years) emissions test reports. Most survey 

recipients provided only the most recent report. One 

facility, with three units, provided results of emissions 

test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year 

period. This facility also uses the most advanced 

pollution controls on their fluidized bed units in the 

subcategory. This facility constitutes 70 percent of the 

Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and 75 

percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the 

existing source MACT floors calculated using the UPL 

methodology, and all the test run data from the one 

facility, effectively result in calculating more stringent 

limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an 

existing source MACT floor, because it is based primarily 

on only the emissions performance of the best-performing 

single source, rather than the average of the bestperforming 12 percent of sources.. In order to adequately 

incorporate the emissions from the best-performing SSI 

units in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 479

used for calculating the existing source MACT floors for 

the final rule. The weighted UPL is calculated from a 

weighted mean and weighted variance as described below. 

There are many different types of weighting 

procedures. We have chosen the most straightforward 

methodology, to base it on the number of data points (i.e., 

test runs) from each SSI unit.12 This weighting scheme 

ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool 

is over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. 

The first step in weighting procedure is to assign a 

weighting factor to each test run by multiplying each 

observation for source i and run j with a weight term, wij, 

as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble: 













×















=

M N

w

i

ij

1 1

 (Eq. 1)

 

Where: 

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

N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool. 

 

12 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIST Handbook 148: 

DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June 2003. [Available at 

www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 479

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance 

for the weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 

2 and 3 of this preamble: 

Weighted Mean: 

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

= N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

ij ij

weighted

i

i

w

w x

x

1 1

1 1

 Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

( )

( )

K

K w

w x x

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

weighted

ij ij U

weighted

i

i

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

−

−

=

1 1

1 1

2

1

ν

Equation 3

Where: 

∑=

=

N

i

K Mi

1

is the total number of observations in the MACT best 

performers pool. 

When the weights are equal to one, the above equations 

reduce to those for un-weighted data, as expected. As 

shown in Equation 4 of this preamble, the weighted mean and 

weighted variance are then used in the UPL calculation 

(discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e., unweighted) mean and variance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 479

( ) ( ) 















= + − × × +

i i

weighted

i

weighted

n m

UPL x t n

1 1

99.0 , 1 ν Equation 4 

For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions 

data from a larger number of facilities/units. For 

example, we have data on Cd and Pb from 11 facilities with 

14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT 

floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units or 

facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing 

multiple hearth units does not need to be calculated using 

a weighted UPL. 

The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are 

discussed in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should 

determine the MACT floor emission limits to be consistent 

with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Manual, 

which holds that it is more likely that environmental data 

are distributed log-normally. The commenter considered it 

reasonable to believe that environmental emission 

distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots 

typically show many readings approaching zero and fewer 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 479

large readings forming an elongated tail to the right. The 

commenter concluded that normal distributions may exist for 

certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many 

standard deviations away from zero, and values are 

controlled by an air pollution control process with set 

points and feedback and control loops. 

Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and 

agree with the commenter that the referenced document shows 

that environmental data are more likely to be log-normally 

distributed than normally distributed. In the proposed 

rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used to calculate the 

MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed. If 

both the reported values and the natural-log transformed 

reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 

indicated neither were normally distributed, the reported 

dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis 

hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the 

natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done 

on the reported data values was chosen to be conservative. 

Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: 

Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/084, July 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 479

2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whether a 

normal or log-normal distribution better represents the 

data, or when there are not enough data to complete the 

skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have 

chosen to use the log-normal results for the final MACT 

floor calculation. 

Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA 

incorrectly presumes that stack test results account for 

the full variability of a SSI’s performance. Several 

commenters stated that emissions from SSI units are 

affected not just by control technology but also by other 

factors including the contents of the sludge that a unit is 

burning. Many commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT 

floor limits by incorporating the variability of the sludge 

contents. The commenters added that the methodology in 

developing the proposed standards does not take into 

account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions are a 

function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and 

sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits 

were based on test results obtained with sludge containing 

very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and sulfur. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 479

The commenter explained that if the sludge burned during an 

emissions test was not at or near the maximum constituent 

concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a 

new source emission limit based on these data could not be 

achieved over the full range of expected normal operating 

conditions confronted by the best performing source. 

The commenters contended that EPA must consider all 

available data (including Part 503 data) for the best 

performing source and use that to establish a variability 

factor applied to the stack test data. The commenters 

added that EPA’s request for metals data during the stack 

test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source 

variability. The commenters added that variability for the 

compounds not regulated by Part 503 must also be accounted 

for as well before setting the new source limit. 

The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI 

units, are statutorily obligated to manage all of the 

sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, 

resulting in highly variable and often unpredictable spikes 

in concentrations. The commenters continued that POTW inlet 

concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of 

dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat 

wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 479

dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment 

opportunities also vary because POTW authority to control 

discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way 

that authority is exercised varies. The commenters also 

noted that the nature of sewage entering the POTW changes 

over time as the character of a community changes, the age 

of the population changes, and commercial and industrial 

dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without 

the use of long-term data to support the level of emission 

standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based 

limits impractical and infeasible. The commenters also 

explained that POTW also face significant regional and 

seasonal variability that is not captured by EPA’s dataset. 

The commenters stated that initial high flow periods in the 

spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier material 

that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow 

periods, which often results in a spike in metals 

concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage sludge. The 

commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in January and 

February that were used for the EPA database would not have 

captured these events. The commenter also noted that 

northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways 

experience significant increases in chlorides during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 479

winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known 

to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at existing wet 

scrubbers. 

Response: The variability analysis is based on 

emissions information gathered from nine different 

facilities located in nine different states. The 

facilities we collected emissions information from are 

located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and 

western states. Each facility has its own unique sludge 

characteristics from different residential and commercial 

populations. We agree that the emissions data represents a 

“point in time”. However, combined together, they 

represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and 

populations that adequately incorporates variability in 

wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We have also 

incorporated variability using the UPL. The variability 

analysis based on the emissions data collected adequately 

characterizes the potential differences in sludge contents 

and regional differences. Because we have a mixture of 

southern and northern states in the emissions database, we 

believe that it also adequately considers differences 

between cold and warm weather climates. Additionally, we 

did not have sufficient information at proposal to consider 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 479

if it were appropriate to incorporate variability based on 

sludge content. We requested additional information in the 

NPRM, but did not receive adequate sampling data from the 

best-performing sources. 

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s 

identification of the relevant best performing units for 

both existing and new unit standards is both unlawful and 

arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control technology 

as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pollution 

control technology is the only factor determining emission 

levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated that, in 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. 

Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Club's 

challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely on 

the performance of one method: add-on technology. The 

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule because 

EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities control 

emissions. The commenters stated that this requirement is 

consistent with doing a more complete study as required by 

section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based 

solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this 

fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 479

control. The commenters concluded that EPA's performance 

data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did 

not check for all methods that sources use to reduce 

pollution. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges 

that EPA has not properly identified the best performing 

SSI units for purposes of calculating MACT floor limits. 

As explained above, EPA targeted its emissions testing 

requests to units it believed had the lowest emissions, 

while accounting for factors such as sludge content and 

seasonal variation by selecting units in different 

geographic areas of the country. 

EPA further notes that SSI units currently employ nontechnology measures (pollution prevention) to reduce 

emissions to comply with CWA regulations at 40 CFR Part 

503. These regulations establish daily average 

concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage 

sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also 

requires that SSI meet the National Emission Standards for 

Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 

CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 

standards, facilities are already incorporating management 

practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 479

concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI 

units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated 

wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-treatment 

standards for non-domestic users discharging wastewater to 

POTW. Thus, the facilities from which EPA received 

emissions test results are already applying non-technology 

measures to reduce emissions. 

Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs 

the statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it 

should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated 

that the 99.9 percent UPL represents a 0.1 percent 

probability of a failure for individual tests, or a one 

percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual 

performance test program. The commenter concluded that 

this value better encompasses unit emissions variability 

and represents a manageable risk to the responsible 

facility operator. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the 

final standards, we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is 

appropriate and sufficiently addresses variability in the 

emissions information. Our analysis of variability is 

explained in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 479

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit 

of zero percent because opacity is a subjective measurement 

and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. 

Another commenter suggested that control and monitoring of 

PM is sufficient. 

Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero 

opacity) limit for combustion processes is impractical for 

both compliance and enforcement purposes. We also believe 

that a measurable opacity may or may not be indicative of 

compliance with a PM emissions limit when applied to 

multiple sources within the category. That is, an opacity 

limit applied to one facility could very readily correspond 

to a PM emissions level different than that same opacity 

limit applied to another facility and one or both may be 

emitting above the PM limit. That opacity limits do not 

apply very well when wet control devices are used further 

confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. We also 

agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific parametric 

monitoring approaches applicable to various control devices 

that can be more closely aligned with PM control and 

compliance with the PM emissions limit than would an 

opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 479

establishing opacity limits that may or may not assure 

compliance with PM emissions limits, the final rules 

include rigorous requirements for establishing sitespecific operating limits derived from the results of 

performance testing. The rules also include a requirement 

that sources update those enforceable operating limits with 

each repeated performance test. Re-establishing operating 

limits periodically will assure that the monitoring will 

continue to indicate compliance with the PM emissions 

limits. The rules also provide the source the option of 

apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of interest in 

lieu of parametric monitoring. We believe that continuous 

compliance with operating limits and periodic stack testing 

to verify the operating limits plus the CEMS option will 

ensure that sources demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the PM emission limits more effectively than would periodic 

or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable opacity 

limit. 

Format of the Standards

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

develop emission limits for some pollutants in different 

units or to provide a control efficiency alternative. The 

commenters expressed concern that the use of concentration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 479

limits would not reflect the variability of the unique 

sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly 

penalize units with very low or very high feed 

concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or 

Pb. Some commenters suggested establishing limits similar 

to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided emission limits 

based on control efficiencies coupled with feed 

concentration limits. 

 Response: We did not have sufficient data to set 

alternative control efficiency standards or standards in 

other units at proposal. We requested additional 

information in the proposal. However, sufficient data were 

not provided in response to our request for alternative 

formats to be developed. 

D. Baseline Emissions

 Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated 

baseline emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate 

parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge 

feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters provided 

stack test data, emission estimates, and corrections to the 

EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters noted that 

EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate 

factors in combination with pollutant concentrations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 479

corrected to seven percent oxygen. 

 Response: We have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. In some cases, commenters did not 

provide information sufficient for us to revise the 

inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter’s 

facility. For example, commenters may have provided an 

average concentration for a pollutant, but did not provide 

run-specific information that would allow us to convert the 

concentration information provided to standardized units (7 

percent oxygen). Other commenters may have provided 

emission rates in pounds per hour, but did not provide vent 

gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to 

convert to concentration units. None of the commenters 

provided test reports that would have include this 

information. 

 We have also revised the calculation of baseline 

emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI units 

where information was not available. Defaults were 

necessary to be assigned because, even after new data were 

received in comments, a significant number of units did not 

have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A 

detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 479

baseline emissions for the final standards is presented in 

the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emissions 

from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other 

corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions 

shown in Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range 

of emissions for each pollutant. The lower bound 

represents an estimation of actual emissions based on the 

actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their 

units were running. The upper bound represents an 

estimation of potential emissions if the sludge feed rate 

was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We estimated 

the potential emissions because the amount of wastewater 

treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantly based 

on changes in population or sources of wastewater. 

Facilities have the potential to burn up to their units 

permitted capacity although they may not be doing so 

currently. 

Table 9. Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 479

FB MH Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

Cd 0.0022-0.0015 0.91-1.2 0.91-1.2 

CO 73-100 8,400-11,500 8,500-11,600 

HCl 1.6-2.2 26-41 28-43 

Hg 0.040-0.058 0.85-1.15 0.9-1.2 

NOx 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 

Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQa

0.00012-

0.00016 

0.00076-0.0010 

0.0009-0.0012 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMBa

0.0014-0.0020 

0.011-0.015 

0.013-0.017 

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 

SO2 43-57 660-1,020 700-1,100 

a Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF. 

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the beyond-the-floor Hg limit for MH units 

because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and costs for 

Hg control were understated. Many of the commenters 

contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology 

for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility 

with FB units. The commenters added that the facility is 

undergoing significant issues with the technology. 

Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon 

injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 479

such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. 

The commenters added that the high moisture content in the 

form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will plug FFs, 

and additional equipment may be necessary to keep the 

temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner. 

Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor 

analysis to incorporate changes made to the baseline 

emissions, new facility specific data and inputs provided 

by commenters, and revised control options. We analyzed 

several beyond-the-floor controls for the final rule. 

First, we evaluated the use of an afterburner for control 

of CO at MH units. We then evaluated whether additional 

control of Hg should be required at MH units. We have 

reviewed the commenters concerns regarding Hg control 

technologies and agree that applying carbon injection to 

existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be 

effective at removing Hg. For combustion sources that are 

not SSI, such as boilers, carbon injection in combination 

with a FF has proven to be highly effective in removing Hg. 

However, for high moisture flue gas streams, such as 

emitted from SSI units, the use of FFs is problematic due 

to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with 

a FF with high moisture streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 479

or afterburner is necessary to maintain a high enough 

temperature to keep the stream above the dew point prior to 

sending the stream to the FF. 

Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of using 

an afterburner, carbon injection, and FF for additional 

control of Hg at MH units. Additional equipment may also 

be necessary to reduce the temperature of the flue gas to 

prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. Sufficient 

information was not collected to estimate this cost. Table 

10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existing SSI 

units to apply different controls that were analyzed. 

Table 10. Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units to Apply 

MACT Controls Analyzed(2008$) 

Control Analyzed 

Total Capital 

Costs 

(million $) 

Total Annualized 

Costs (million 

($/Yr)a

1 - MACT Floor 55 18

2 - MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for MH 

units 

155 46

3 – MACT Floor+ 

Afterburner and

Activated carbon 

injection and FF for 

MH units 

490 138

a Calculated using a seven percent discount factor. 

Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 479

reductions of each pollutant for various controls analyzed. 

Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units 

to Apply the MACT Controls Analyzed 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions for MACT Controls Analyzed (TPY) 

MACT Floor 

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for 

MH Units 

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner + ACI 

and FF for MH 

Units 

Cd 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.87-1.1 

CO 0 6,900-9,300 6,900-9,300 

HCl 19-30 19-30 19-30 

Hg 0.0022-0.0025 0.0022-0.0025 0.67-0.89 

NOx 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16 

Pb 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 2.3-2.9 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ 0 0 0.0000003-

0.0000004 

PCDD/PCDF TMB 0 0 0.000005-0.000007 

PM 58-70 58-70 300-400 

SO2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this 

preamble were calculated using data gathered for each 

source (e.g., emissions, vent gas flow rates, controls 

currently used), as well as default values for emissions, 

sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate for sources where 

data were unavailable. We estimate that requiring the use 

of an afterburner for MH units not already having an 

afterburner could require as much as 1,010 million cubic 

feet of natural gas a year to be burned, resulting in NOx
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 479

and CO emissions of 51 and 43 TPY, respectively. We 

estimate that applying activated carbon injection with a FF 

and an afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg and 

PCDD/PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 

million dollars (using a discount rate of seven percent) 

and would achieve Hg reductions of 0.67-0.89 TPY. The 

incremental cost-effectiveness of adding afterburners/RTO, 

activated carbon injection, and FFs to all MH units is 

estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per pound of Hg 

removed. Costs would increase if equipment necessary to 

cool the flue gas is also necessary. Therefore, given these 

factors, we are not finalizing any beyond-the-floor 

requirements for SSI units. 

We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require 

packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, 

a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR 

for additional NOx reduction. We determined that it was 

not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater 

reduction of HCl, SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOx considering the 

cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor 

analyses for the final standards are documented in the 

memorandum “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 479

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for 

Existing SSI Units” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts

 Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

underestimated the cost of the proposed rule for the 

beyond-the-floor option of Hg control as well as for the 

MACT floor for other pollutants because it only has 

information for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The 

commenters added that EPA used information from these 

limited sources and applied it to remaining sources for 

which they did not have. The commenters contended that 

this results inaccurate determinations of which units could 

meet the proposed emission limits and which could not. The 

commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of 

sources that could meet the proposed standards resulting in 

a significant underestimation of controls. 

 Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of 

controls to cost for compliance with the proposed standards 

were inappropriate for SSI units. Many commenters stated 

that the high moisture content of flue gas streams in some 

applications may mean that FFs would not be an appropriate 

control for PM, Cd, or Pb. 

 Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 479

technology or method. A source is required to meet the 

final emissions limits in these standards, and has the 

flexibility to use the control method or technology that is 

best suited for their individual facility. EPA’s costs are 

estimated based on technologies we believe may be 

appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions limits. 

At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated 

costs and emissions reductions based on the best available 

information to us. We acknowledge that the inventory 

database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI 

units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flue gas 

flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other 

inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses 

using data provided by the commenters as summarized in 

section IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following 

Proposal and the memorandum titled, “Post-Proposal SSI 

Database Revisions and Data Gap Filling Methodology” in the 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). However, for a number of 

inputs, we are still assigning default values where data 

were not available for each SSI. For the final rule, we 

have correlated some of the defaults to populations served 

by the facilities in order to better estimate costs and 

emission reductions more specifically to each facility. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 479

Sources will have the best idea of the costs of controls 

for their site specific conditions. For some sources, the 

costs and emission reductions estimated by EPA may be 

higher than what the source estimates, and for others they 

will be less. EPA’s estimates are estimates based on the 

best information available to us. We also note that the 

MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination 

of the number of sources estimated to require control, 

estimated for the final rule are also based on the revised 

MACT floor limits. 

 For the final standards we have also revised the types 

of controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed scrubbers for SSI 

that we estimate will need further control of HCl or SO2. 

At the MACT floor level, we do not estimate that any SSI 

will need to add control for Hg, PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A 

detailed discussion of the costs and emissions reductions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 479

estimates for the final standards is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

incorrectly calculated the costs of the landfilling 

alternative because it used dry tons of sewage sludge 

instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is 

the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the 

dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent 

moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimates for 

landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The 

commenters added that because of the error, EPA has 

significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting 

sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not 

evaluated the negative social impact of hauling sludge to a 

landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not consider 

the additional costs for specific state landfilling 

regulations. 

 Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly 

estimated the on-site sludge storage requirements because 

calculations were not done on a wet basis. Commenters 

added that the cost of the storage units would be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 479

significant and would need to include odor control as well 

as a settling basin. 

 Other commenters expressed concern regarding the 

availability of landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. 

The commenters contended there was insufficient landfill 

capacity to handle the influx of sewage sludge. 

Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the 

landfill alternative based on comments received on the 

proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of 

this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of 

this alternative if small entities choose to landfill 

rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed 

discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

The selection of a management option for sewage sludge is 

often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 479

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

 Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA’s 

proposed language requiring facilities to meet the proposed 

SSI standards “at all times” because it would be difficult 

to comply with certain proposed emission limits during 

startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters were 

specifically concerned about not being able to meet the 

proposed CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI 

because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold 

vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combustion is 

completed creating a small flow of CO. One commenter 

contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard 

without any evidence that it can be achieved during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. This commenter provided 

an example of CO data from one hazardous waste combustor 

that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal operations but 

averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during 

shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters 

stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to increase 

during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combustion 

that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and noted that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 479

the influence of unstable combustion may be more pronounced 

during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining 

sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters 

recommended that EPA account for situations where higher 

emissions occur during the time it takes to bring control 

equipment from startup to steady-state operations. 

 Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a 

separate emission standard for the source category that 

applies during periods of startup and shutdown. We do not 

have data that would allow us to set a separate standard 

during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested 

information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. 

Based on the information available at this time, we believe 

that SSI units will be able to meet the emission limits 

during periods of startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to start 

the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill 

gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be 

lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions during 

periods of shutdown are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the materials in the 

incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 479

occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT 

floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on 

actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with 

an appropriate accounting of emissions variability. 

Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe 

we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may 

potentially occur during startup or shutdown. 

 Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

were not needed to be factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at 

all times. We note that continuous compliance is 

demonstrated using continuous parametric monitoring, except 

for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are required for new 

source using a 24-hour block average. 

 Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly 

claims that its authority to prescribe unique standards for 

SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated that EPA 

has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 479

during SSM periods. One commenter contended that the 

Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA 

section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 

111), and pointed out that this interpretation is not 

merely a technical distinction. The commenter pointed out 

that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions during SSM 

events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111 

(referenced 40 CFR §60.8(c)). The commenter argued that 

Congress enacted the continuous basis language in section 

302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 

111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that there is 

nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amendments 

to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that 

practice. 

 Response: As explained above, EPA believes the 

reasoning in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA applies equally to section 129. Additionally, EPA 

explains above the reasons it is not establishing different 

emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the 

proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pressure 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 479

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion 

temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) would not 

be achievable. They explained that these ranges are too 

narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the 

operating standards already required by 40 CFR 60 subpart 

O, 40 CFR 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed 

with the proposed operating parameter ranges. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by 

the commenters and determined that proposed procedure for 

establishing the operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the 

average of three test runs and as 90 percent of the minimum 

value recorded during the applicable performance tests) may 

be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of 

energy or other operating needs. We determined that the 

operating limits should be more appropriately based on 

values recorded during the performance test runs. The 

final rule requires that operating limits be established on 

a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, as 

appropriate) operating parameter value measured during the 

performance test. This approach has been incorporated into 

the final rule for all operating parameters and will result 

in achievable operating ranges that will ensure that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 479

control devices used for compliance will be operated to 

achieve continuous compliance with the emissions limits. 

Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed 

operating range for sludge feed rate would not be 

achievable, that it results in the EPA changing the current 

state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and that it could 

force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum 

rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach 

fails to take into account the normal feed condition and 

rate variation that occur on a daily and seasonal basis. A 

few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent 

to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a steadier 

state of control and more efficient combustion of the 

sludge. 

Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating 

range for sludge moisture content would not be achievable 

and that EPA does not need sludge moisture content to 

determine whether SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. They explained that sludge moisture is 

very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, 

seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by a SSI, 

temperature changes, the biological systems that treat the 

sewage, and to operational changes, and that these changes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 479

cannot always be anticipated and are not always immediately 

correctable. 

Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to 

require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge within 

specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit 

for temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner 

temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion 

practice, and that moisture content is not needed to 

establish that SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture content, 

the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with their 

operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber. 

We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge 

moisture content within specified ranges. We are also no 

longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates 

within specified ranges due to the seasonal variability at 

wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate information 

is necessary during performance test runs to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that 

they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We 

are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of 

sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 479

should already be keeping records of these parameters, and 

this information will be useful in establishing 

representative operating limitations for a SSI unit. 

EPA added a requirement that performance tests be 

conducted at 85 percent of the permitted maximum capacity. 

This level has been selected based on the performance test 

operating information provided by the commenters and 

previous EPA standards. 

Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour 

rolling averaging period selected in the proposed rule for 

determining compliance with the operating parameters and CO 

limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They 

explained that the recordkeeping and compliance burden is 

less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both 

based on a 24-hour block average. They also explained that 

the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis 

would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to 

achieve with FB incinerators. 

Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block 

averaging period for compliance with the CO CEMS 

requirement for new sources will provide a sufficient 

indication of compliance and will allow more flexibility 

for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 479

guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI 

units has changed in the final guidelines to 27 ppm, and 

this change is discussed in Section IV of this preamble. 

We have also revised the averaging periods for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, to be on a 

12-hour block average instead of a 4-hour rolling average 

basis in order to relate the averaging time for operating 

limits to the duration of the performance tests (e.g., a 

three run test of 4 hour test runs would equal a 12-hour 

averaging time). For scrubber liquid pH, we chose 3-hour 

averages to be consistent with the performance test 

duration for acid gas scrubbers. 

In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the 

alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 129 

requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regulated 

pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be used in 

place of the regulated pollutants. 

Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the 

requirement in the proposed rule for annual testing, and 

argued that annual testing of each SSI is not needed to 

demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsistent with 

current Title V permits. They also argued that Method 22 

compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 479

feasible or difficult to conduct due to space constraints, 

and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash removal 

systems that do not require annual testing. They explained 

that the cost for emissions testing may be significantly 

higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They 

further explained that Title V permits require facilities 

to test each of its SSI units once per 5 years. They 

pointed out that current management practices and strict 

health-based sludge content limits under the CWA section 

405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help ensure 

that SSI units are in compliance with their emission 

limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed 

compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will 

essentially shorten the testing year by one month each 

year. 

Response: The proposed standards included provisions 

for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has 

revised these provisions, making it easier for facilities 

to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less 

frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that 

facilities that do less frequent testing are well below 

their emission limits. In the final standards, owners or 

operators are required to establish that emissions of a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 479

given pollutant are under a specified threshold for two 

consecutive years, rather than 3 years as proposed, to 

qualify for less frequent testing for that pollutant. We 

have also extended the option to do less frequent testing 

to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. The 

threshold is 75 percent of the emission limit for each of 

the nine regulated pollutants. In order to allow a 

decrease in testing frequency, EPA must have assurance that 

SSI units can meet a more stringent threshold than the 

limits. This is particularly necessary because of the 

variability in sludge that may occur at wastewater 

treatment facilities. Additionally, in the final standards 

we are also providing assurance that the SSI unit is being 

operated properly and emission limits are being met 

continuously by requiring stringent parametric monitoring 

requirements. Specifically, exceedances of the minimum or 

maximum values established during the performance tests are 

considered deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash 

handling, owners or operators must demonstrate that visible 

emissions occur no more than 2 percent of the time during 

each Method 22 1-hour observation period. This allowance 

for fugitive ash emissions has been included in the final 

standards with a new requirement that all facilities must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 479

submit a monitoring plan at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test to establish that their ash 

handling system will continuously meet the visible 

emissions limit. 

Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility 

regarding their test dates, to ensure that facilities are 

not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months, and to 

ensure that facilities are testing once per year, we have 

revised the testing schedule provisions. In the final 

standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that 

qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a 

calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar months and 

no more than 15 calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and facilities must complete five 

performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that the 

definition of “process change” be revised to exclude the 

provision that a process change include an increase in the 

allowable wastewater received from an industrial source. 

They pointed out that any such increase would trigger a 

performance test, as required by the proposed standards, 

and that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 479

explained that industrial discharges often constitute only 

a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3.5 

percent, four to eight percent), that such discharges are 

sometimes from sources that do not discharge the pollutants 

regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food 

processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities 

regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from other 

regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it 

is difficult for impossible to anticipate some industrial 

load changes ahead of time. Several commenters argued that 

this proposed requirement would be redundant to the 

National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, which are 

incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require them to 

establish local limits on industrial discharges to prevent 

interference with sludge processes, use, and disposal. The 

commenters anticipate that they would establish similar 

limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission 

limits. A few commenters suggested that the proposed 

provision for industrial discharges is vague and open to 

interpretation. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process 

change” and agrees with the commenters that there are some 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 479

situations where an increase in the allowable wastewater 

received from an industrial source should not trigger a 

performance test. We have revised the definition of 

“process change” to more specifically and clearly identify 

the type of process change that will trigger a performance 

test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” 

as pollutant-specific and as including only situations 

where the SSI has undergone a significant permit revision. 

This revision will ensure that facilities retest whenever 

they have a significant change in the process that could 

trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant. 

Comment: Several commenters requested EPA clarify 

what equipment are included as part of the SSI unit. The 

commenters stated that the proposed rules do not specify 

the equipment and without clarification, a SSI unit could 

be interpreted inconsistently or over-broadly. Commenters

requested clarification regarding whether the 

“modification” (which refers to an “SSI unit”) applies to 

the multiple hearth or fluid bed “reactor” or whether it 

includes the entire system including all air emission 

controls and auxiliary equipment. 

Response: We agree that the definition of the SSI 

unit in the proposed rule was unclear as to what equipment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 479

constitutes the SSI unit. We have revised the definition 

of SSI unit in the final rule. A SSI unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. We have 

clarified that a SSI unit also includes, but is not limited 

to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery 

equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit 

includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom 

ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system 

ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment that 

transfers the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not 

include air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 479

 As discussed in sections IV and V of this preamble, we 

have made several revisions to the impacts analyses for the 

final rules. We have incorporated revisions to the 

variability calculation. These revisions include: 

incorporating weighted UPL’s for existing FB units, 

selecting log-normal results when it is not clear that data 

are normally distributed, and revising CO limits based on 

an analysis of the span of the test. The result of these 

changes increased UPL values for most pollutants. 

Additionally, we have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. We have also revised the calculation of 

baseline emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI 

units where information was not available. These changes 

resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for each of 

the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL and 

decreased baseline emissions resulted in less SSI units 

estimated to need additional control to meet the MACT floor 

limits. 

For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floor 

level of control for both subcategories instead of 

selecting a beyond-the-floor requirement. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 479

For the final rules we have also revised the types of 

controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed-bed scrubbers for 

SSI that we estimate will need further control of HCl or 

SO2. 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions 

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits. As discussed in section V of this 

preamble, we have revised the estimation of baseline 

emissions and emission reductions to present a range to 

show the variability in the emission calculations between 

estimated actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. 

Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The 

analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 479

of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI 

Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits 

Pollutant 

Range of Reductions Achieved 

Through Meeting MACT By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Reductions 

FB MH (TPY) 

Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 

CO 0 0 0 

HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 

Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 

NOx 6.8-16 0 6.8-16 

Pb 0 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

0 

0 

0 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

0 

0 

0 

PM 0 58-70 58-70 

SO2 17-21 420-680 430-700 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, 

which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 234 million gallons per year of additional 

wastewater will be generated as a result of operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 479

additional controls or increased sorbents. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 

Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the 

proposed emission limits consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. We 

anticipate that an additional 5,420 megawatt-hours per year 

will be required for the additional and improved control 

devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The combustion of fuel needed to generate 

additional electricity will yield slight increases in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 479

emissions, including NOx, CO, PM and SO2 and an increase in 

CO2 emissions. Since NOx and SO2 are covered by capped 

emissions trading programs, and methodological limitations 

prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do 

not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for this 

rule from additional electricity demand. 

5. What are the cost and economic impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing 

units to add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, 

inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to 

comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standards). 

Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $55 million with an associated total 

annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and using 

a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of 

this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will 

need to install one or more air pollution control devices 

for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission 

limits. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in 

the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 479

Table 13. Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities 

Comply With Proposed Emission Limits (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 10.1 3.1 

MH 45.0 14.7 

Total 55.0 17.8 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At 

proposal, we evaluated landfilling as an alternative 

disposal method. We have revised our costs and impacts of 

this alternative based on comments received on the proposal 

and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of this 

preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this 

alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather 

than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of 

the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

However, the selection of a management option for sewage 

sludge is often a local decision that is based on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 479

environmental protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, 

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

Table 14. Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that 

Landfill in Lieu of Incineration (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 278 38 

MH 313 42.7 

Total 591 80.7 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units

As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI 

units constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB 

incinerators, and information provided by the industry on 

likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI units 

constructed are likely to be FB incinerators. 

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions 

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits on two new FB incinerators potentially 

being constructed in the next 5 years. Table 15 of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 479

preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT 

compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 

Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 15. Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., 

Fluidized Bed Incinerators) Constructed 

Pollutant Emission Reduction (TPY) 

Cd 0 

CDD/CDF, TEQ 0.0000000033 

CDD/CDF, TMB 0.000000051 

CO 0.26 

HCl 0 

Hg 0.0026 

NOx 14 

Pb 0.00053 

PM 0 

PM2.5 0 

SO2 0 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources would need to apply 

controls in addition to what they would have planned to 

include in the absence of this rule to meet the final 

emission limits. These controls may utilize water, such as 

wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 479

an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of 

additional wastewater will be generated as a result of 

operating additional controls or increased sorbents for the 

two new units expected to come on-line in the next 5 years. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

Likewise, the application of PM controls results in 

particulate collected that would require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be used by some 

sources, which would result in solid waste needing 

disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will 

require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY 

from activated carbon injection for the two units. 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the final 

emission limits would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 479

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 megawatthours per year will be required for the additional and 

improved control devices for the two new units modeled to 

come on-line in the next 5 years. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of Secondary 

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category 

Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 

5. What are the cost impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units 

coming on-line in the next 5 years. This analysis is based 

on a model plant, the assumption that two new units will 

come on-line and will add the necessary controls, 

monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI 

standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an 

overall total capital investment of $8 million (2008$) with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 479

an associated total annualized cost of $2 million (2008$ 

and using a seven percent discount rate). This analysis 

assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB 

incinerators. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this 

action is a "significant regulatory action” because it was 

likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more based on the proposed standards. However, 

the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed 

standards we are simply updating the RIA rather than 

revising it. 

A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 479

proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on the 

lower costs associated with the selected alternative in 

this final action we are providing an update of the RIA 

rather than completely revising the RIA. Within this 

update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the 

controls analyzed and have provided a comparison of the 

selected controls with the alternatives.13 While the 

characteristics of the controls analyzed have changed, we 

have also provided a comparison of the costs and benefits 

of the proposed controls analyzed with the selected 

alternative in this final action. A summary of the 

differences are presented below. 

• Costs for the selected controls analyzed for 

promulgation are 80% lower and benefits are 81% lower 

than they were for the selected controls analyzed for 

proposal. 

• Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a 

government provided service that does not involve a 

market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts were 

 

13 In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred to as Option 1 (MACT 

floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and 

Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated carbon injection 

and fabric filter for MH units).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 479

estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impact 

analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to 

total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% 

lower for the selected controls analyzed for 

promulgation compared to the proposed controls analyzed, 

the control costs are expected to be a smaller portion 

of government revenues for the selected controls for 

promulgation than they were for the proposed controls. 

• Because of insufficient information, employment changes 

due to the requirements for operating and maintaining 

control equipment were not estimated. Also, we did not 

have the information needed to estimate any labor 

changes related to governmental decisions to switch from 

incineration to landfilling. 

• Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the 

selected option by $3 million to $34 million at three 

percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven percent. 

The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NOx and SO2, ecosystem effects, and 

visibility impairment have not been monetized, including 

reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of 

Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd. 

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and 

EG (millions of $2008) 

MACT Floor (Selected) 3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

Costs $18 to $18 $18 to $18 

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

Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

NSPS and EG 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 479

Total Monetized Benefits for 

Final Controls Analyzed 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH units 

$20 to $50 $18 to $45 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and

Activated carbon injection and

fabric filter for MH units 

$55 to $140 $50 to $130

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

MACT Floor (millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

Selected Controls Analyzed 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG 

Total Costs for Final Controls 

Analyzed (millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

MACT Floor (Selected) $18 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 479

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH units 

$46 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and

activated carbon injection + 

fabric filter for MH units 

$138 

Costs Changes for MACT Floor 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$63 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -71% 

Cost Changes for Selected 

Controls Analyzed (millions of 

2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$92 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -80% 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

information collection requirements are not enforceable 

until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA 

have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, 

and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 479

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

rule are based on the information collection requirements 

in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provisions (40 

CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory 

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

information other than emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The requirements in this action result in industry 

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review 

of the amendments for all SSI and initial and annual 

compliance with the emission limits using EPA approved 

emissions test methods. The burden also includes 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. Operators are required to obtain 

qualification and complete annual training. New units are 

also required to submit a report prior to construction, 

including a siting analysis. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 479

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 

Subparts LLLL and MMMM. An affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can 

demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 

satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 C.F.R. 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by 

poor maintenance and or careless operation) and where the 

source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In 

addition, the source must meet certain notification and 

reporting requirements. For example, the source must 

prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written 

report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the 

conditions and requirements for assertion of the 

affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source, EPA 

provides an administrative adjustment to this ICR that 

shows what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 479

requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense might entail. EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and records, including the 

root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time 

and effort required of a source to review relevant data, 

interview plant employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of 

an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and reports for submission to 

EPA. EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only incurred if there has 

been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of 

the affirmative defense. 

The annual average burden associated with the emission 

guidelines over the first 3 years following promulgation is 

estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours 

at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and total 

annualized capital/startup and operation and maintenance 

costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the 

monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and 

photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. 

The annual inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor costs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 479

The annual average burden associated with the NSPS 

over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated 

to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost of 

$40,000. The total annualized capital/startup costs are 

estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumulative 

annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in this final. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 479

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action 

on small entities, a small entity is defined as follows: 

1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; or 

3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

In the proposal, we certified that there would not be 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The economic analysis conducted at 

proposal identified 18 small entities none of which had 

cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost 

analysis for the final standards showed a significant 

decrease (35 to 98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 

small entities. The cost-revenue-ratios were again 

estimated using the costs for the final rule and the same 

revenue estimates used in the proposal screening analysis. 

The revenue estimates were obtained using census average 

per capita revenue numbers ($1,696 for entities with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 479

populations between 10 thousand and 25 thousand and $1,677 

for entities with populations between 25 thousand and 50 

thousand) The resulting cost-revenue-ratios ranged between 

0.04% and 0.5. Thus all cost-revenue-ratios were well 

below 1%. Therefore, we consider the final rule to have no 

significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

After considering the economic impacts of this final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, this is not 

considered to be a significant impact. 

Although the final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule 

on small entities by allowing optional CEMS instead of 

requiring them, allowing information from tests conducted 

in recent years to show compliance rather than require all 

new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued 

compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 479

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this final rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the 

UMRA a written statement that is summarized in section 

VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, October 14, 

2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found 

in the docket. 

At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the 

estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA 

prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of costs and 

benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. Based on 

estimated compliance costs associated with the final rule 

and the predicted change in prices and production in the 

affected industries, the estimated social costs of the 

final rule are $55 million ($). 

At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities 

expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consistent 

with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 479

section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are discussed 

in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260). 

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Because this final rule’s requirements 

apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by 

governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private 

entities, there would be no requirements that uniquely 

apply to such government or impose any disproportionate 

impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an 

action that has federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 479

incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults 

with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated expenditures of 

greater than $100 million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA 

consulted with elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national organizations, 

when developing regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state and local 

governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local government officials, 

as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 

FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on 

the action. The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the 

proposed standards and EG for SSI units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have 

federalism implications, as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’s 

direct compliance costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 479

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or 

operated by an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, 

Executive Order 13175 did not appear to have implications. 

However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outreach and 

discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts. 

EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and 

specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed 

action from tribal contacts in the proposal period via the 

NTAA conference calls. 

EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; 

those comments can be reviewed in the public docket, 

document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559-0130.1. Commenters 

expressed that SSI units located in proximity to Indian 

country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger 

tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from 

the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 479

failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the 

standards and have failed to fully assess the potential 

impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly, 

commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that 

accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can 

acquire a better understanding on how they might be 

affected by such sites and these standards in general. 

EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to 

discuss the rule development process, first to provide 

general information on the development of the SSI standards 

and second providing more specific background information 

on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locations of 

units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying 

questions and requested information if any NTAA members 

were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge 

in Indian Country. EPA will provide a map overlay for the 

SSI docket so that tribes can acquire a better 

understanding on how they might be affected by SSI sites 

and the standards in general. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 479

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This final action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 

solely on technology performance. We note however, that 

reductions in air emissions by these facilities will 

improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 

104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 479

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Service 

Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted 

VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 

decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses," for its manual methods of measuring the 

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These 

parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to 

EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the 

ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), 

"Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, ParticleBound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)" is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also decided to 

use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, l0A, l0B, 22, 23, 

26A, 29 and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 479

22. 

During the search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference 

method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it 

as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards 

were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires significant method 

validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA 

reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

The search identified other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined 

that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 

(2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC¬38-1980 (1985), ASTM 

D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981, IS0 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM 

D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 

(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 479

(2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/CSA 

Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 

1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA 

Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final rule and any 

amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 479

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection 

for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any 

minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the 

Agency has reviewed this final rule to determine if there 

was existing disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An 

analysis of demographic data showed that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus 

most likely to be effected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national averages. The results 

of the demographic analysis are presented in “Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy of which 

is available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 479

This final action establishes national emission 

standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 204 such units 

covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions 

of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This 

includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. Adverse health 

effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of 

the lungs, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central 

nervous system and damage to the kidneys and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NOx, PM and 

PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NOx are precursors for 

the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions 

will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health 

effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and 

acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. For additional information, 

please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In EPA’s July 2010 “Interim Guidance on 

Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of 

an Action,” EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 479

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

To help achieve EPA’s goal for Environmental Justice 

(i.e., the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people), EPA places particular emphasis on the public 

health of and environmental conditions affecting minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations. In recognizing that 

these populations frequently bear a disproportionate burden 

of environmental harms and risks, EPA works to protect them 

from adverse public health and environmental effects of its 

programs. EPA looks at the vulnerabilities of these 

populations because they have historically been exposed to 

a combination of physical, chemical, biological, social, 

and cultural factors that have imposed greater 

environmental burdens on them than those imposed on the 

general population. 

To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a 

communication and outreach strategy to ensure that 

interested communities have access to this final rule, are 

aware of its content and have an opportunity to comment 

during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA 

publicized the rulemaking via environmental newsletters, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 479

tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and 

the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will 

also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is 

this important for my community) for environmental justice 

community groups and conduct conference calls with 

interested communities. In addition, state and federal 

permitting requirements will provide state and local 

governments and members of affected communities the 

opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions 

associated with permitting the sources affected by this 

rulemaking. 

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

states. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 479

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units--Page 178 of 479 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

_______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 479 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93); 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4); and 

c. Adding paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved April 1, 2008, IBR 

approved for §§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 

to subpart CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 479

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4), §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), §60.106(e)(2), 

§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), 

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), §60.105a(d)(4), 

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

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

(a)(3)(v), and §60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§§60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 479

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 272-0167, 

http://www.epa.gov. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997, IBR approved for 

§§60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

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

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and 

MMMM to read as follows: 

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit? 

60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart? 

60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 

60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured? 

60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 479

performance standards apply at the same time? 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis? 

60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

Operator Training and Qualification 

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 

60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of 

60.4835(a)? 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits? 

60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 479

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 479

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.4910 What records must I keep? 

60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

Title V Operating Permits 

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit? 

Definitions 

60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.4760 What does this subpart do?

This subpart establishes new source performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 479

standards for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To 

the extent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent 

with the requirements of subpart A of this part, the 

requirements of this subpart will apply. 

§60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Some of the requirements in this 

subpart apply to planning a SSI unit and must be completed 

even before construction is initiated on a SSI unit (i.e., 

the preconstruction requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). 

Other requirements such as the emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits apply after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

§60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit?

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets 

all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit for which 

construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 479

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit as defined in 

§60.4930. 

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under §60.4780. 

§60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?

(a) A new SSI unit is a SSI unit that meets either of 

the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010. 

(2) Commenced modification after [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI 

unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM 

of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not qualify 

as a modification under this subpart. 

§60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 479

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

§60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by 

the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If 

the Administrator has delegated authority to your state, 

local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the 

Administrator) has the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal 

agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in 

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

(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 479

and standards in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and 

operating limits established under §60.4850. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(5) The requirements in §60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in §60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 and 

§60.4805. 

§60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured?

These new source performance standards contain the 

nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) 

of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 479

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 

performance standards apply at the same time?

No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence construction of the SSI 

unit. The operator training and qualification, emission 

limits, emission standards, operating limits, performance 

testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to 

commence construction of a SSI unit after October 14, 2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are 

required to submit an initial application for a 

construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the modification of your 

SSI unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 479

§60.4805 What is a siting analysis?

(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution 

control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific 

basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks 

to public health or the environment, including impacts of 

the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visibility, 

soils, and vegetation. In considering such alternatives, 

the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair 

environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s impacts that are 

prepared to comply with state, local, or other federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to satisfy the 

requirements of this section, provided they include the 

consideration of air pollution control alternatives 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the siting 

requirements of this section as required under 

§60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 479

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4835. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 479

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator 

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 479

(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(b) The date before an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2). 

§60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 479

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods 

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

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.4825. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.4820(a). 

§60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 479

review of the information specified in §60.4840 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.4915(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 479

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the 

information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 479

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee’s 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

§60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating, and during 

periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards 

apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage 

sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 198 of 479

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, re-established in §60.4890. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.4890(a)(2)(i). 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

an emission limit, you must meet the site-specific 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 199 of 479

operating limits that you establish in §60.4870 for each 

operating parameter associated with each air pollution 

control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §§60.4880(b) and 60.4905(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time 

as specified in §60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.4880(d) to ensure that your ash 

handling system will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed 

rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its 

initial startup, whichever comes first. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 479

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, re-established according to §60.4890(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.4855. 

§60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 479

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions in some 

other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requirements 

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

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.4870. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 479

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this 

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters, 

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will 

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 479

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.4845, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 204 of 479

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices, and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance, and (2) 

Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limits were being exceeded. Off-shift 

and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 205 of 479

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions, and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

severe property damage, and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health, and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, and 

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs, and 

(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated 

in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions, and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 479

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during 

a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of 

the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a written report to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in §60.4845 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) 

of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 479

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance. 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option 

to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as 

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

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 479

calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). Except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate, or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that your SSI 

unit meets the emission limits and standards specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from 

ash handling using the performance test. The initial 

performance test must be conducted using the test methods, 

averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or 

durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and 

according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §60.4900(a). 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated 

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 209 of 479

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system specified in §60.4900(b). For 

determining compliance with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the 

correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon 

monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 479

emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 

substitute the use of a continuous monitoring system in 

lieu of conducting the initial performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, 

you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 211 of 479

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 212 of 479

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems according to the provisions of 

§60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be conducted 

using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 

§60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 4 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 479

to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified 

in §60.4915(c). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 479

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.4855, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.4865. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.4890(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or re-establish new operating limits using 

operating data recorded during any performance tests or 

performance evaluations required in §60.4885. You must 

follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and 

data averaging times specified in Table 3 to this subpart 

or as established in §60.4855, and you must follow the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements specified 

in §§60.4900 and 60.4905 or established in §60.4855. You 

are not required to establish operating limits for the 

operating parameters listed in Table 3 to this subpart for 

a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 

1 or 2 to this subpart for the applicable pollutants, as 

follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor , scrubber 

liquid flow rate or scrubber liquid pH if you use the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 479

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if you use 

the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) 

and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection plates, or effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, and lead. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor sorbent injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 216 of 479

rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure 

drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified 

in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 

carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at 

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 217 of 479

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average power measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. Power input must be 

calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates. Both the secondary voltage and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 479

secondary amperage must be recorded during the performance 

test. 

(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(h) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 479

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.§60.4875 By what date 

must I conduct the initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of 

installing an air pollution control device or within 180 

days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollution 

control device, whichever comes first. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 479

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 221 of 479

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 479

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to the following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 479

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., particulate matter scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 479

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a 

two-point calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating limit) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 225 of 479

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.(4) Conduct a temperature 

measurement device performance evaluation at the time of 

each performance test but no less frequently than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

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

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 

and current to the electrostatic precipitator collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 479

plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 479

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) 

of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section, you must take the necessary corrective action and 

must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 479

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

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

section. 

(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 479

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level. The alarm must be located where it is 

observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–

015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, 

including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the 

bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 230 of 479

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan and §60.13(c). For the purposes of 

this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also apply to the 

bag leak detection system. You must conduct the initial 

performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system 

within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

ash handling system operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that your meet the fugitive emissions 

limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 231 of 479

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 232 of 479

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 479

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 479

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow 

the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have 

the option to demonstrate continuous compliance using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You 

must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section, according to the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and 

(b). You may also petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed, you 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 479

must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on 

an annual basis (between 11 and 13 calendar months 

following the previous performance test). The performance 

test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §60.4900(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 

days of a process change, as defined in §60.4930. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you can conduct performance tests less 

often for a given pollutant, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if 

your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 

consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 

75 percent of the emission limit specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, and there are no changes in the operation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 479

of the affected source or air pollution control equipment 

that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not 

have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for 

the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test 

during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 

previous performance test. 

(ii) If your SSI unit continues to meet the emission 

limit for the pollutant, you may choose to conduct 

performance tests for the pollutant every third year if 

your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission 

limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of the 

affected source or air pollution control equipment that 

could increase emissions, but each such performance test 

must be conducted no more than 37 months after the previous 

performance test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 

75 percent of the emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until 

all performance tests over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance.(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 479

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system specified 

in §60.4900(b). For determining compliance with the carbon 

monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, 

the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon 

monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 238 of 479

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual 

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements specified in 

§60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to 

§60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour block 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 479

average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 240 of 479

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octa-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 479

chlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation 

report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 242 of 479

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.4880 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.4880(e). 

§60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits?

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

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

(d) of this section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 243 of 479

established in §60.4855. To determine compliance, you must 

use the data averaging period specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak 

detection system) unless a different averaging period is 

established under §60.4855. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.4855 and 

60.4870 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 244 of 479

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below 

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or re-establish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.4850(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 245 of 479

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test required in 

§60.4885(a) or any performance evaluation required in 

§60.4885(b)(5). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.4900(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 246 of 479

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 479

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging methods specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 248 of 479

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 249 of 479

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 250 of 479

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator’s 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 251 of 479

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before starting use of the continuous monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator one month 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 479

before stopping use of the continuous monitoring system, in 

which case you must also conduct a performance test prior 

to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with the modifications shown in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 253 of 479

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, 

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 479

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 

possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph 

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

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous 

emissions monitoring systems and the test methods specified 

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

section. Relative accuracy testing must be at 

representative operating conditions while the SSI unit is 

charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 255 of 479

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used as specified in 

Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used. Alternatively for 

mercury, Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be 

used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative 

accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system should be no greater than 20 

percent of the mean value of the method test data in terms 

of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per 

million dry volume absolute value of the mean difference 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 256 of 479

between the method and the continuous emissions monitoring 

system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 479

must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 

same location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

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

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 479

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 259 of 479

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

( 

(2) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in §60.4880. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(i). (d) 

Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 260 of 479

sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates the performance test. 

§60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

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

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 261 of 479

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in your annual deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 479

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

( 

 

 (b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 479

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

 (3) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 479

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.4910 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result 

of the siting requirements of §§60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 479

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the 

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 479

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of §60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.4840(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.4810, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 267 of 479

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test 

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs, as specified in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that 

the performance test was conducted under conditions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 479

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all 

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid 

flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 479

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used 

to comply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate 

or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.4850(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 479

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.4890. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.4855, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.4900(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.4915(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 479

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibrations, and validations checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.4900 and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.4880, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. If, consistent with 

60.4885(a)(3), you elect to conduct performance tests less 

frequently than annually, you must keep annual records that 

document that your emissions in the 2 previous consecutive 

years were at or below 75 percent of the applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, and 

document that there were no changes in source operations or 

air pollution control equipment that would cause emissions 

of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past 2 

years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 479

required under §60.4905(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record 

of the information submitted in your annual report in 

§60.4915(d)(16). 

§60.4915 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (j) of this section. See Table 5 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a 

notification prior to commencing construction that includes 

the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 

of this section: 

(1) A statement of intent to construct. 

(2) The anticipated date of commencement of 

construction. 

(3) All documentation produced as a result of the 

siting requirements of §60.4805. 

(4) Anticipated date of initial startup. 

(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit 

the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: 

(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity. 

(2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 479

feed rate. 

(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits specified in §60.4855. 

(4) The anticipated date of initial startup. 

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.4880, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 274 of 479

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.4875, including a 

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(16) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 275 of 479

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.4920.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the 

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average value and lowest average value recorded during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 276 of 479

reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and 

continuous automated sampling systems, report the highest 

and lowest 24-hour average emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

report the following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber 

liquid pH, the highest and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-

hour average values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.4910(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 479

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

conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you 

must include the dates of the last two performance tests, a 

comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 

two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in §60.4885(a)(3), and a statement as 

to whether there have been any process changes and whether 

the process change resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI 

unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but 

less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring system was out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 278 of 479

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(e) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on 

the averaging time specified in Table 3 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 479

operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions 

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated 

from any emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 280 of 479

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items 

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

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime 

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring 

data during each deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 479

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 282 of 479

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items: 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 283 of 479

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI 

during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standard. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(f) Qualified operator deviation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 284 of 479

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

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

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to 

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 285 of 479

notify the Administrator within 5 days of meeting 

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

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 479

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

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

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

previously made in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(i) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 479

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. (j) Changing report dates. If the 

Administrator agrees, you may change the semi-annual or 

annual reporting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating permit 

unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption 

specified in §60.4780. 

§60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit?

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a 

complete Title V permit application must be submitted on or 

before one of the dates specified in paragraph (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 288 of 479

Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)). 

(1) For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

SSI unit as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted not later than [INSERT 

THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) For a SSI unit that does not commence operation 

as a new SSI unit until after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

then a complete title V permit application must be 

submitted not later than 12 months after the date the unit 

commences operation as a new source. 

(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

subject to title V as a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than this subpart (for example, a unit 

subject to this subpart may be a major source or part of a 

major source), then your unit may be required to apply for 

a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one 

requirement triggers a source’s obligation to apply for a 

title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V 

permit application is triggered by the requirement that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 289 of 479

first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See 

section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and 

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

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

(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one 

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Definitions 

§60.4930 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Affected source means each individual SSI unit as 

defined in §60.4930. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 479

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or off-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 291 of 479

site analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 479

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 293 of 479

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 479

Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means 

an existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as 

defined in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

New sewage sludge incineration unit means a SSI unit 

the construction of which is commenced after October 14, 

2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a modified 

solid waste incineration unit. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 295 of 479

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 296 of 479

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A SSI 

unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage 

sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if 

any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit includes all ash 

handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers 

the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not include 

air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 479

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 479

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 4 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of a SSI unit that 

meets the criteria in §60.4770. 

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

9.6 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 299 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.24 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 300 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

27 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data). For 

determining 

compliance with 

the carbon 

monoxide 

concentration 

limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the 

correction to 7 

percent oxygen 

does not apply 

during periods of 

startup or 

shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon 

monoxide 

concentration 

without correcting 

for oxygen 

concentration in 

averaging with 

other carbon 

monoxide 

concentrations 

(corrected to 7 

percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-

hour average 

value. 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a RA of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of 

Procedure 1, +/- 

15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.013 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0044 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.0010 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c . 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

30 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 303 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 5.3 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 100 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, sample for a 

minimum duration 

of one hour per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981.c

Cadmium 0.0011 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Use GFAAS or 

ICP/MS for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Lead 0.00062 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 305 of 479

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

60 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 0.75 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 200 liters 

per run. For 

Method 26A, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 306 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

52 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 

1-hour averages 

of data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a relative 

accuracy of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of Procedure 

1, +/- 15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 307 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.045 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0022 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.15 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)c , collect 

a minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run. 

For Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum sample 

as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c, . 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

210 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 309 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 6, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 200 liters 

per run. For 

Method 6C, 

collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 40, 

appendix A-4; or 

ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981.c

Cadmium 0.0024 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the analytical 

finish. 

Lead 0.0035 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 310 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa

For these 

operating 

You must 

establish 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 311 of 479

parameters these 

operating 

limits 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Fugitive 

emissions 

from ash 

handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not applicable

Scrubber 

Pressure drop 

across each 

wet scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Scrubber 

liquid flow 

rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Scrubber 

liquid pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

3-hour block. 

Fabric Filter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 312 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Alarm time of

the bag leak 

detection 

system alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system

alarm (this operating limit is provided in §60.4850

and is not established on a site-specific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 313 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary 

voltage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 12-hour block 

Secondary 

amperage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent water 

flow rate at 

the outlet of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 12-hour block 

Activated carbon injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 314 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block 

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection rate

Carrier gas 

flow rate or 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block 

aAs specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block average 

specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You 

maintain records of 1-hour averages.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 479

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 479

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of 

construction 

Prior to 

commencing 

construction 

1. Statement of 

intent to 

construct 

2. Anticipated 

date of 

commencement of 

construction 

3. Documentation 

for siting 

requirements 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(a) 

Notification of 

initial startup 

Prior to initial 

startup 

1. Maximum design 

dry sewage 

sludge burning 

capacity 

2. Anticipated and 

permitted 

maximum feed 

rate 

3. If applicable, 

the petition 

for sitespecific 

operating 

limits 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(b) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

5. Site-specific 

monitoring plan 

6. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

3. Date of report 

4. Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

5. Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

6. The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods, as 

applicable, 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit 

7. Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

§60.4915(c) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

8. Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

Annual 

compliance 

report 

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

3. Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

4. If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

5. For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

§§60.4915(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

6. If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7. If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms 

8. If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations 

9. If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.4885(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs 

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions 

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 321 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control 

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations 

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan 

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(1)) 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits 

4. The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

5. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

6. Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

§60.4915(e) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 322 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

downtime 

incidents 

7. A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels 

8. For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(3)(

viii) 

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI 

4. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits 

5. The averaged 

and recorded 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 323 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

data for those 

dates 

6. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

7. A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards 

8. A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken 

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more) 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation 

2. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available 

3. The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible 

§60.4915(f) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 324 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

deviation 2. The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

3. Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.4835(b)(2)(i

) 

Within 5 days of 

obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2. Rationale for 

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3. Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

§60.4915(g) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 325 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

4. Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

1 month before 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60.4915(h) 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 326 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 327 of 479

Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states? 

60.5015 What must I include in my state plan? 

60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan? 

60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable? 

60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter? 

60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan? 

60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations? 

60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies? 

60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state? 

Applicability of State Plans 

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan? 

60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan? 

Use of Model Rule 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 328 of 479

60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 

60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan? 

60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule? 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of 

progress and achieving final compliance? 

60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress? 

60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 

60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

submittal of a control plan? 

60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

achieving final compliance? 

60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it? 

60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it? 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 

60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 329 of 479

60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)? 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits? 

60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 330 of 479

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.5230 What records must I keep? 

60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit? 

Model Rule—Definitions 

60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

TABLES 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 331 of 479

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes emission guidelines and 

compliance schedules for the control of emissions from 

sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollutants 

addressed by these emission guidelines are listed in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are 

developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent 

any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, the requirements of 

this subpart will apply. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 332 of 479

§60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality 

program in a state or United States protectorate with one 

or more SSI units that commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010, you must submit a state plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSERT 

THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

§60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?

No. You are not required to submit a state plan if 

there are no SSI units for which construction commenced on 

or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you submit a 

negative declaration letter in place of the state plan. 

§60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?

(a) You must include the nine items described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section in your 

state plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those 

that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in 

your state. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 333 of 479

(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit. 

(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator 

training and qualification requirements, and operating 

limits for affected SSI units that are at least as 

protective as the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan 

was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational 

affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or written submission. 

(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms 

that you selected for implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your state’s legal authority to 

carry out the sections 111(d) and 129 state plan. 

(b) Your state plan may deviate from the format and 

content of the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. However, if your state plan does deviate in 

content, you must demonstrate that your state plan is at 

least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 334 of 479

this subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory 

applicability, increments of progress for retrofit, 

operator training and qualification, emission limits and 

standards, performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of 

this part (Adoption and Submittal of state plans for 

Designated Facilities) in your state plan. 

§60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?

Yes. The EPA will review your state plan according to 

§60.27. 

§60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?

If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a 

negative declaration letter) by [INSERT THE DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA will develop a federal plan 

according to §60.27 to implement the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of SSI 

units not covered by an approved state plan must comply 

with the federal plan. The federal plan is an interim 

action and will be automatically withdrawn when your state 

plan is approved. 

§60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 335 of 479

declaration letter?

No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative 

declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter 

has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public 

docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register. If, 

at a later date, a SSI unit for which construction 

commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your 

state, the federal plan implementing the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart would automatically 

apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is approved. 

§60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan?

(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or 

before October 14, 2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require SSI units to achieve 

final compliance as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later than the earlier 

of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) Three years after the effective date of state 

plan approval. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 336 of 479

(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 

year following the effective date of state plan approval, 

state plans must include dates for enforceable increments 

of progress as specified in §60.5090. 

§60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B?

Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for 

developing and processing section 111(d) state plans. This 

subpart applies instead of the requirements in subpart B of 

this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section: 

(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

must be as protective as the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to 

comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This applies 

instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

are required to include two increments of progress for the 

affected SSI units. These two minimum increments are the 

final control plan submittal date and final compliance date 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 337 of 479

in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of the 

requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a state plan 

to include all five increments of progress for all SSI 

units. 

§60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there 

other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations?

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations by submitting an acceptable written 

request for delegation of the federal plan that meets the 

requirements of this section. This is the only other 

option for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request 

must include the following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under §60.5015(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(a)(7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on the state 

delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan 

submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 338 of 479

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation 

or written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date of the delegation 

and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of 

authority. Additional guidance and information is given in 

EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) federal 

plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved SSI Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation request for the 

revised federal plan, provided the requirements of 

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

the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal 

of EPA's previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

obligations are separate from its obligations under title V 

of the Clean Air Act. 

§60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state,

local, or tribal agencies?

The authorities that will not be delegated to state, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 339 of 479

local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and 

operating limits established under §60.5175 or §60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in §60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in §60.5155(b)(2). 

(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

§60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state?

(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI 

unit owners and operators in your state. However, SSI unit 

owners and operators must comply with the state plan you 

develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. States may choose to incorporate the model 

rule text directly in their state plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 340 of 479

subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA 

will implement and enforce a federal plan, as provided in 

§60.5025, to ensure that each unit within your state that 

commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010 

reaches compliance with all the provisions of this subpart 

by the dates specified in §60.5035. 

Applicability of State Plans 

§60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) Your state plan must address SSI units that meet 

all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition of a SSI unit 

as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under §60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of a SSI unit makes 

changes that meet the definition of modification after 

[INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSI unit 

becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this part and the state 

plan no longer applies to that unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 341 of 479

(c) If the owner or operator of a SSI unit makes 

physical or operational changes to a SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] primarily to comply with your state 

plan, subpart LLLL of this part does not apply to that 

unit. Such changes do not qualify as modifications under 

subpart LLLL of this part. 

§60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

Use of Model Rule 

§60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart?

(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission 

guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. The model 

rule provides these requirements in regulation format. You 

must develop a state plan that is at least as protective as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 342 of 479

the model rule. You may use the model rule language as 

part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used 

in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the model rule 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250, 

“you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specified in 

§60.5250. 

§60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan?

Use the model rule to satisfy the state plan 

requirements specified in §60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5). 

§60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule?

The model rule contains the nine major components 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward compliance. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 343 of 479

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments 

of progress and achieving final compliance?

If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year 

following the effective date of state plan approval, you 

must meet the two increments of progress specified in 

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

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?

Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for 

each increment of progress. 

§60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Your notification of achievement of increments of 

progress must include the three items specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of progress has 

been achieved. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 344 of 479

(b) Any items required to be submitted with each 

increment of progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of

achievement of increments of progress?

Notifications for achieving increments of progress 

must be postmarked no later than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?

If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must 

submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment 

of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must inform 

the Administrator that you did not meet the increment, and 

you must continue to submit reports each subsequent 

calendar month until the increment of progress is met. 

§60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for submittal of a control plan?

For your control plan increment of progress, you must 

satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 345 of 479

four items described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of 

this section. 

(1) A description of the devices for air pollution 

control and process changes that you will use to comply 

with the emission limits and standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

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

than sewage sludge is burned in the unit. 

(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning 

capacity. 

(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits under §60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control 

plan. 

§60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for achieving final compliance?

For the final compliance increment of progress, you 

must complete all process changes and retrofit construction 

of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, 

so that, if the affected SSI unit is brought online, all 

necessary process changes and air pollution control devices 

would operate as designed. 

§60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 346 of 479

restart it?

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it 

prior to the final compliance date in your state plan, you 

must meet the increments of progress specified in §60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it 

after your final compliance date, you must complete 

emission control retrofits and meet the emission limits, 

emission standards, and operating limits on the date your 

unit restarts operation. 

§60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it?

If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply 

with the state plan, submit a closure notification, 

including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the 

date your final control plan is due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 347 of 479

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 348 of 479

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the three dates specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 349 of 479

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2). 

§60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 350 of 479

§60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods 

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

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.5145. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.5140(a). 

§60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 

review of the information specified in §60.5160 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 351 of 479

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 352 of 479

operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.5230(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the 

information listed in §60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.5155(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee's 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 353 of 479

listed in §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

§60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by the final 

compliance date under the approved state plan, federal 

plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission limits 

and standards apply at all times the unit is operating and 

during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and 

standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent 

while sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., 

until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut 

off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge 

incineration residence time. 

§60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I 

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 354 of 479

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, re-established in §60.5210. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you establish in §60.5190 

for each operating parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 355 of 479

system specified in §§60.5200(b) and 60.5225(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time 

as specified in §60.5210(a)(2)(i). 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.5200(d) to ensure that your ash 

handling system will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section by the final compliance date under the 

approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 356 of 479

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, re-established according to §60.5210(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.5175. 

§60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 357 of 479

activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to 

comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.5190. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this 

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 358 of 479

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters, 

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will 

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 359 of 479

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). For 

determining compliance with the CO concentration limit 

using CO CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not 

apply during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured CO concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other CO concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent O2) to determine the 24-hour average 

value. 

§60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.5165, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to meet your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 360 of 479

burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and (ii) Could not have been 

prevented through careful planning, proper design or better 

operation and maintenance practices, and (iii) Did not 

stem from any activity or event that could have been 

foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance, and 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limits were being exceeded. 

Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 361 of 479

practicable to make these repairs, and (3) The frequency, 

amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions, and (4) If the excess 

emissions resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of 

life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health, and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, and 

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs, and 

(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated 

in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions, and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 362 of 479

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during 

a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of 

the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a written report to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in §60.5165 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 363 of 479

exceedance. 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, you have the option to demonstrate initial 

compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in 

§60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 364 of 479

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling using the performance 

test. The initial performance test must be conducted using 

the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the 

emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to 

this subpart). 

(2) You may use the results from a performance test 

conducted within the 2 previous years that was conducted 

under the same conditions and demonstrated compliance with 

the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, provided no process changes have been made since 

you conducted that performance test. However, you must 

continue to meet the operating limits established during 

the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 365 of 479

2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance test must have 

used the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated 

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.5220(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 366 of 479

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use 

the continuous emissions monitoring system and follow the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 367 of 479

requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limit in Table 2 to this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 368 of 479

subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems by your final compliance date 

(see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures and acceptance 

criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart, determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 369 of 479

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 5 

to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated in 

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

the total concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms 

of toxic equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified 

in §60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 370 of 479

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.5175, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.5185. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.5210(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or re-establishre-establish new operating 

limits using operating data recorded during any performance 

tests or performance evaluations required in §60.5205. You 

must follow the data measurement and recording frequencies 

and data averaging times specified in Table 4 to this 

subpart or as established in §60.5175, and you must follow 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §§60.5220 and 60.5225 or established in 

§60.5175. You are not required to establish operating 

limits for the operating parameters listed in Table 4 to 

this subpart for a control device if you use a continuous 

monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for the 

applicable pollutants, as follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor scrubber liquid 

flow rate or scrubber liquid pH if you use the continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 371 of 479

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if you use 

the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) 

and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection plates, or effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor sorbent injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 372 of 479

rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure 

drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified 

in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 

carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits.. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at 

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 373 of 479

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH 

for each wet scrubber used to meet the sulfur dioxide or 

hydrogen chloride emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, equal to the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid 

pH measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the sulfur dioxide and 

hydrogen chloride emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

 (f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average secondary electric power measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

Power input must be calculated as the product of the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. Both the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage must be recorded 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 374 of 479

during the performance test. (g) Minimum effluent water 

flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average effluent water flow rate 

at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits. (h) For activated carbon injection, 

establish the site-specific operating limits specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 375 of 479

with the applicable emission limit.. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.§60.5195 By what date 

must I conduct the initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, federal plan, or 

delegation, as applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final compliance date, you must 

conduct the air pollution control device inspection within 

60 days after installation of the control device. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 376 of 479

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 377 of 479

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 378 of 479

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 379 of 479

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., particulate matter scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 380 of 479

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a twopoint calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the operating limit pH level) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 381 of 479

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range. 

(4) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

performance evaluation at the time of each performance test 

but no less frequently than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

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

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 382 of 479

and current to the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 383 of 479

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) 

of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section, you must take the necessary corrective action and 

must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 384 of 479

of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

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

section. 

(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 385 of 479

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level. The alarm must be located where it is 

observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–

015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, 

including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the 

bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 386 of 479

system equipped with a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. (c) You must conduct an 

initial performance evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as 

applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan and to 

§60.13(c). For the purpose of this subpart, the provisions 

of §60.13(c) also apply to the bag leak detection system. 

You must conduct the initial performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation 

of the monitoring system 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

ash handling system operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that that your meet the fugitive emissions 

limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 387 of 479

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 388 of 479

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 389 of 479

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a 

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 390 of 479

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the 

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

applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, 

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). You may 

also petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a 

performance test for each such pollutant on an annual basis 

(between 11 and 13 calendar months following the previous 

performance test). The performance test must be conducted 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 391 of 479

using the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum 

sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 

days of a process change, as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you can conduct performance tests less 

often for a given pollutant, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if 

your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 

consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 

75 percent of the emission limit specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, and there are no changes in the operation 

of the affected source or air pollution control equipment 

that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not 

have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for 

the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 392 of 479

during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 

previous performance test.(ii) If your SSI unit continues 

to meet the emission limit for the pollutant, you may 

choose to conduct performance tests for the pollutant every 

third year if your emissions are at or below 75 percent of 

the emission limit, and if there are no changes in the 

operation of the affected source or air pollution control 

equipment that could increase emissions, but each such 

performance test must be conducted no more than 37 months 

after the previous performance test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 

75 percent of the emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until 

all performance tests over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 393 of 479

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the 

annual performance test required in paragraph (a) of this 

section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 394 of 479

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

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

must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 395 of 479

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required in your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 396 of 479

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with 

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 397 of 479

(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as 

specified in §60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation 

report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instance that 

you did not meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.5200 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 398 of 479

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.5200(e). 

§60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits? 

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

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

(d) of this section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. To determine compliance, you must 

use the data averaging period specified in Table 4 to this 

subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak 

detection system) unless a different averaging period is 

established under §60.5175. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.5175 and 

60.5190 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 399 of 479

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.5170(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below 

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 400 of 479

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or re-establish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.5170(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test required in 

§60.5205(a) or any performance evaluation required in 

§60.5205(b)(4). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 401 of 479

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.5220(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 402 of 479

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging method specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 403 of 479

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 404 of 479

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator's satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator's authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 405 of 479

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 406 of 479

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 407 of 479

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, 

in which case you must also conduct a performance test 

within prior to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 408 of 479

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with spans appropriate to the 

applicable emission limit. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, 

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 409 of 479

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 

possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 410 of 479

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of this 

section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 

60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions 

monitoring systems and the test methods specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this section. 

Relative accuracy testing must be at representative 

operating conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage 

sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used, as specified in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. Alternatively 

for mercury, either Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 411 of 479

A-8 or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008)(incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be 

used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative 

accuracy criterion for the inlet of the sulfur dioxide 

continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data 

in terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts 

per million dry volume absolute value of the mean 

difference between the method and the continuous emissions 

monitoring system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 412 of 479

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 

same location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 413 of 479

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified in §60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 414 of 479

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction as defined in §60.5250, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 415 of 479

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

(2) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in §60.5200. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(i). (d) 

Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that 

sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates the performance test. 

§60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 416 of 479

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified defined in §60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks 

and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods 

that you do not collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 417 of 479

Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be included in calculations used 

to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods 

that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction, 

as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

 

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 418 of 479

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

 (3) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 419 of 479

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.5230 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 420 of 479

in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final 

control plan and any additional notifications, reported 

under §60.5235. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 421 of 479

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the 

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of §60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.5160(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 422 of 479

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.5130, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.5140, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports.

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 423 of 479

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test 

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs as specified in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that 

the performance test was conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all 

average concentrations measured for mercury and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 424 of 479

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system and 

liquid flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with 

the emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used 

to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 425 of 479

or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.5170(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.5210. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.5175, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 426 of 479

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.5220(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.5235(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibration, and validation checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.5200, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5).(l) Less 

frequent testing. If, consistent with 60.5205(a)(3), you 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 427 of 479

elect to conduct performance tests less frequently than 

annually, you must keep annual records that document that 

your emissions in the two previous consecutive years were 

at or below 75 percent of the applicable emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, and document that there were 

no changes in source operations or air pollution control 

equipment that would cause emissions of the relevant 

pollutant to increase within the past 2 years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.5225(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record 

of the information submitted in your annual report in 

§60.5235(c)(16). 

§60.5235 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (i) of this section. See Table 6 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to 

achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective 

date of state plan approval, you must submit the following 

reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085(a) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 428 of 479

and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification of achievement 

of increments of progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the increment as specified in 

§§60.5095 and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you 

must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment, 

as specified in §60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than 

comply with the state plan, submit a closure notification 

as specified in §60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 429 of 479

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.5195, including a 

description of repairs. 

(9) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.5200, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 430 of 479

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.5240.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the 

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 431 of 479

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average value and lowest average value recorded during the 

reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and 

continuous automated sampling systems, report the highest 

and lowest 24-hour average emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

report the following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber 

liquid pH, the highest and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-

hour average values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 432 of 479

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.5230(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less 

frequently as allowed in §60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct 

a performance test during the reporting period, you must 

include the dates of the last two performance tests, a 

comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 

two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in §60.5205(a)(3), and a statement as 

to whether there have been any process changes and whether 

the process change resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified 

sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unavailable 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 433 of 479

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control§, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems were out of 

control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 434 of 479

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(d) Deviation reports.

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on 

the averaging time specified in Table 4 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum 

operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions 

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated 

from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 435 of 479

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items 

described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of 

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 436 of 479

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime 

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring 

data during each deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 437 of 479

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 438 of 479

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items:. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected 

source during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 439 of 479

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standards. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i)(A) through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 440 of 479

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to 

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within five days of meeting 

§60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming operation. 

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence, should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 441 of 479

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in §60.5220(a)(8), you must notify 

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

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

(h) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 442 of 479

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. 

 (i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 443 of 479

and effective CAA section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan 

or an applicable and effective federal plan, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating permit 

for your existing SSI unit unless you meet the relevant 

requirements for an exemption specified in §60.5065. 

§60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit?

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an 

earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted on or before the 

earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 

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

(1) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state or tribal plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan. 

(3) [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 444 of 479

months after the promulgation of this subpart applies 

regardless of whether or when any applicable federal plan 

is effective, or whether or when any applicable Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is approved by 

EPA and becomes effective. 

(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a 

result of some triggering requirement(s) other than those 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (for 

example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major 

source), then your unit may be required to apply for a 

title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requirement 

triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V 

permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit 

application is triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 

503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 

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

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

(d) A “complete” title V permit application is one 

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 445 of 479

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Model Rule—Definitions 

§60.5250 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the federal plan, the 

Administrator of the EPA or his/her authorized 

representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved state plan, the 

director of the state air pollution control agency or 

his/her authorized representative. 

Affected source means each individual SSI unit as 

defined in §60.5250. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 446 of 479

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 447 of 479

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 448 of 479

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 449 of 479

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 450 of 479

existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as defined 

in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 451 of 479

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 452 of 479

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A SSI 

unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage 

sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if 

any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit includes all ash 

handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers 

the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not include 

air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 453 of 479

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 454 of 479

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI 

unit. 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Comply with these increments 

of progress By these datesa

Increment 1—Submit final 

control plan 

(Dates to be specified in 

state plan) 

Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in 

state plan)b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the 

state. 

bThe date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date 

of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI 

units that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 455 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Particulate 

matter

18 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 5 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A3; Method 26A 

or Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Hydrogen 

chloride

0.51 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Carbon 

monoxide

64 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

10, 10A, or 10B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 456 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

1.2 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic 

meter(total mass 

basis); or

0.10 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7).

Mercury 0.037 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c

, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 457 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Oxides of 

nitrogen

150 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 7 

or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4).

Sulfur dioxide 15 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 60 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 40, 

appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME 

PTC-19.10-

1981.c

Cadmium 0.0016 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). Use GFAAS 

or ICP/MS for 

the analytical 

finish.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 458 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Lead 0.0074 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8. Use GFAAS 

or ICP/MS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer points) 

for no more than 

5 percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 459 of 479

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Particulate 

matter

80 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 0.75 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 5 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A3; Method 26A 

or Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Hydrogen 

chloride

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 26 

or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 460 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Carbon 

monoxide

3,800 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

10, 10A, or 10B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis)

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

5.0 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter; or

0.32 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 461 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Mercury 0.28 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c

, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c .

Oxides of 

nitrogen

220 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 7 

or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 462 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 40, 

appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10-

1981.c

Cadmium 0.095 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8).

Lead 0.30 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 463 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer points) 

for no more than 

5 percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 464 of 479

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion 

chamber operating 

temperature (not 

required if 

afterburner 

temperature is 

monitored)

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature

or 

afterburner 

temperature

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block.

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements

Not 

applicable

No 

applicable

Not 

applicable

Scrubber

Pressure drop 

across each wet 

scrubber

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

Scrubber liquid 

flow rate

Minimum flow 

rate

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 465 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Scrubber liquid 

pH

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes

3-hour block

Fabric Filter

Alarm time of the 

bag leak 

detection system 

alarm

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm (this operating limit is provided 

in §60.4850 and is not established on a sitespecific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 466 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Electrostatic precipitator

Secondary voltage 

of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates

Continuous Hourly 12-hour 

block

Secondary 

amperage of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Effluent water 

flow rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator

Minimum 

effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block

Activated carbon injection
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 467 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Mercury sorbent 

injection rate

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block 

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent injection 

rate

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate

Carrier gas flow 

rate or carrier 

gas pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

Afterburner

Temperature of 

the afterburner 

combustion 

chamber

Minimum 

temperature 

of the 

afterburner 

combustion 

chamber

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

aAs specified in §60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 468 of 479

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block average 

specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You 

maintain records of 1-hour averages.

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin1

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.01

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.3
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 469 of 479

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.01

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of 

progress report

No later than 10 

business days 

after the 

compliance date 

for the 

increment

1.Final control 

plan including 

air pollution 

control device 

descriptions, 

process 

changes, type 

of waste to be 

burned, and the 

maximum design 

sewage sludge 

burning 

capacity

2.Notification of 

any failure to 

meet an 

§60.5235(a)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 470 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

increment of 

progress

3. Notification of 

any closure

Initial 

compliance 

report

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report

3.Date of report

4.Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test

5.Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation

6.The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

7.Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter

8.Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

§60.5235(b)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 471 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs

9.The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

required under 

§60.5200

10. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

required under 

§60.5200

Annual 

compliance 

report

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official

3.Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report

4.If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

§60.5235(c)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 472 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

applicable

5.For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable

6.If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7.If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms

8.If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations

9.If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.5205(a)(3) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 473 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 474 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.5235(e)(1))

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3.The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

§60.5235(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 475 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year

operating 

limits

4.The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

5.Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

6.Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents

7.A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels

8.For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.5235(d)(3)(

viii)

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3.The total 

operating time 

of each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 476 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

affected SSI

4.The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits

5.The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

6.Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

7.A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards

8.A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

Within 10 days 

of deviation

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation

2.Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

§60.5235(e)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 477 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more)

a qualified 

operator will 

be available

3.The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible

2.The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

3.Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation

§60.5235(e)

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.5155(b)(2)(i

)

Within five days 

of obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.5235(e)

Notification of 

a force majeure

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2.Rationale for 

§60.5235(f)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 478 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3.Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

4.Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

1 month before 

starting or 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60. 5235(g)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 479 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

or stop use of a 

CMS

stopping use of 

a CMS 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 
Attachment E.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 1 of 479 

E.O. 12866 and 13563 SSI NSPS and EG 2060-AP90 20110118 

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-____-_] 

RIN 2060-AP90 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA’s new source 

performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage 

sludge incineration units located at wastewater treatment 

facilities designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. This 

final rule sets limits for nine pollutants under section 

129 of the Clean Air Act: cadmium, carbon monoxide, 

hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur dioxide. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 479

certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This docket 

includes previous actions including the standards proposed 

on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and a supplemental notice 

issued on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 

information or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and 

will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 479

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 

for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, 

Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

As Arsenic 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit 

CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 479

Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

Cr Chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators 

FF Fabric Filter 

FB Fluidized Bed 

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste 

Incineration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System 

ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

MH Multiple Hearth 

Mn Manganese 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustion 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

Ni Nickel 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 479

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

OTM Other Test Method 

OW Office of Water 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPM Parts per Million 

PPMV Parts per Million by Volume 

PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specifications 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 479

TMB Total Mass Basis 

TPD Tons per Day 

TPY Tons per Year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UL Upper Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The following outline 

is provided to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

C. Judicial Review

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what 

are the emissions? 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge? 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. What units are affected by the final standards? 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources? 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources? 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements? 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 479

SSI units? 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements? 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards? 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimation 

E. Compliance Requirements 

F. Definitions 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

D. Baseline Emissions 

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

H. Compliance Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units 

VII. Relationship of the Final Action to CAA Sections 

112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B)(ii), and 112(c)(6) 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 479

and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by the 

final action are those that operate sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSI). Although there is no specific NAICS 

code for SSI, these units may be operated by wastewater 

treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. The following NAICS codes could apply: 

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Solid waste 

combustors and 

incinerators 

562213 Municipalities with SSI units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 479

Category 

NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Sewage 

treatment 

facilities 

221320 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a general guide for identifying entities 

likely to be affected by the final action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected by the final 

action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of 

subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final action will also be available 

on the WWW through the TTN. Following signature, a copy of 

the final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The 

TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 479

areas of air pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the Court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

of the CAA further provides that “only an objection to this 

final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism 

for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f 

the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that 

it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 

period for public comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for public comment (but 

within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this 

rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to 

EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 479

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel 

(Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Note, under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled, “Solid Waste 

Combustion,” requires EPA to develop and adopt standards 

for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 

111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA 

to establish performance standards, including emission 

limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 

129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration unit” as 

“a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts 

any solid waste material from commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general public” (section 129(g)(1)). 

Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid waste” 

shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its 

authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sections 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 479

111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new 

units (i.e., NSPS), and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) 

address emissions from existing units (i.e., EG). The NSPS 

are directly enforceable federal regulations, and under CAA 

section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after 

promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not themselves 

directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implemented and 

enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a 

promulgated federal plan. States are required to submit a 

plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval 

not later than 1 year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA 

section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at least as 

protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance with all 

applicable requirements not later than 3 years after the 

state plan is approved by EPA, or 5 years after 

promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is sooner. 

EPA’s procedures for submitting and approving state plans 

are set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state 

plan is approved by EPA, the plan requirements become 

federally enforceable, but the state has primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan. 

However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce 

a federal plan for solid waste incineration units located 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 479

in any state which has not submitted an approvable state 

plan within 2o years after the date of promulgation of the 

relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal plan must 

assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to 

the federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of 

the EG not later than 5 years after the date the relevant 

guidelines are promulgated. EPA views the federal plan as 

a “place-holder” that remains in effect only until such 

time as a state without an approved plan submits and 

receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an 

applicable state plan has been approved, the requirements 

of the federal plan no longer apply to solid waste 

incineration units covered by that state plan. 

The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating 

emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute 

also provides EPA with substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of incineration 

units within a category while setting standards. In the 

first stage of setting standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

requires EPA to establish technology-based emission 

standards that reflect levels of control EPA determines are 

achievable for new and existing units, after considering 

costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 479

energy requirements associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then directs 

EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary 

every 5 years. In the second stage, CAA section 129(h)(3) 

requires EPA to determine whether further revisions of the 

standards are necessary in order to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to 

establish the first-stage technology-based standards for 

the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that 

standards “applicable to solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this section shall 

reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 

[certain listed air pollutants] that the Administrator, 

taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines 

is achievable for new and existing units in each category.” 

This level of control is referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first 

calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and 

existing solid waste incineration units in a category, 

generally based on levels of emissions control achieved or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 479

required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum 

level of stringency is called the MACT “floor,” and CAA 

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

stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or 

existing sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA 

section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for existing 

units may be less stringent than standards for new units, 

but “shall not be less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in the category.” 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology analyses involve 

an assessment of the emissions from the best performing 

unit or units in a source category. The assessment can be 

based on actual emissions data, knowledge of the air 

pollution control in place in combination with actual 

emissions data, state regulatory requirements that may 

enable EPA to estimate the actual performance of the 

regulated units, or other emissions information. For each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 479

source category, the assessment involves a review of actual 

emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can 

also be used, if the methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual emissions performance of 

a source or sources. In addition to the MACT floor limit, 

EPA must examine whether more stringent “beyond-the-floor” 

standards should be adopted. In considering whether such 

standards are appropriate, EPA must consider the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. 

The CAA requires that the MACT floor for new sources be no 

less stringent than the emissions control achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar unit. EPA is also 

required to consider beyond-the-floor standards for new 

sources, consistent with the factors described above. 

Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies five categories 

of solid waste incineration units: 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity 

greater than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal 

to or less than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious 

waste. 

• Units that combust commercial or industrial waste. 

• Units that combust waste and which are not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 479

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) 

through (D) are referred to in section 129(a)(1)(E) as 

“other categories” of solid waste incineration units. 

A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the 

volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through 

(D), have been interpreted to be part of the broader 

category of “other categories” of solid waste. EPA has 

issued emission standards for large and small MWC, HMIWI, 

CISWI, and OSWI units; however, as explained further below, 

none of those emission standards apply to SSI units. 

EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on 

December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74870). Based on EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA at that time, the OSWI standards 

did not include emission standards for SSI units. EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI 

standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of 

certain categories, including SSI1. While EPA granted the 

petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final 

review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded 

 

1Sierra Club v. EPA; D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 479

that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005 OSWI 

rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being 

held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the 

emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that 

rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI units. 

In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA 

stated that it had decided not to regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regulate SSI 

units under CAA section 112, pointing to a statement in 

EPA’s 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating that sewage 

sludge incinerators do not combust waste from a commercial 

or industrial establishment or the general public. We 

declined to revise that decision to regulate SSI units 

under 112 in the response to the petition for 

reconsideration on this issue for five reasons, including 

our position that section 129(a)(1)(E) did not require 

regulation of all “other” solid waste incineration units 

and that section 129(g)(1)’s enumerated exemptions to the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” were not 

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

discretion to choose whether to regulate incinerators under 

section 112 or section 129 of the Act. (72 FR 2620). In 

June 2007, in a separate decision related to EPA’s December 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 479

1, 2000, emission standards for CISWI units, the Court, held 

that any unit combusting any solid waste must be regulated 

under section 129 of the CAA. The impact of this decision 

on EPA’s regulation of SSI is explained in detail in the 

NPRM.2

EPA considers SSI units to be “other solid waste 

incineration units,” since that category is intended to 

encompass all solid waste incineration units that are not 

included in the first four categories identified in CAA 

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

standards for the remaining OSWI units at a later time. 

EPA is taking final action on emission standards for SSI 

units at this time because these emission standards are 

needed as part of EPA's fulfillment of its obligations 

under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 

112(c)(6). Clean Air Act section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls 

for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP which, as the result of 

emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to 

public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA 

must then ensure that sources representing 90 percent of 

the aggregate area source emissions of each of the 30 

 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 479

identified HAP are subject to standards pursuant to section 

112(d)3. Sewage sludge incineration units are one of the 

source categories identified for regulation to meet the 90 

percent requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. 

EPA is ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation under 

CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 

20114. 

In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of 

source categories for regulation under CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA 

requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven 

specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for 

not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each 

such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 

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

incineration units are one of the identified source 

categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in 

the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meeting the 

Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the 

 

3 CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 

4Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 479

Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559).Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prior 

to taking action on the remaining source categories that 

will be regulated under CAA section 129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI 

units. 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions?

Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by 

municipalities or other entities. Incineration continues 

to be used to dispose of sewage sludge. Combustion of 

solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the 

release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which 

exist in the waste feed material and are released unchanged 

during combustion, and some of which are generated as a 

result of the combustion process itself. The pollutants 

for which numerical limits must be established, as 

specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, HCl, 

Hg, NOx, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO2; and, where 

appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be 

established. These emissions come from the SSI unit’s 

stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by the 

associated visible emissions, also occur from ash handling. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 479

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge

and associated air emissions?

Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, 

as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated 

regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 503 

designed to protect public health and the environment from 

any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain 

pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 

503 regulations establish requirements for the final use 

and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge is 

applied to the land for a beneficial use (e.g., for use in 

home gardens); 2) the sludge is disposed on land by placing 

it on surface disposal sites; and 3) the sewage sludge is 

incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate or 

treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who 

uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment 

works. 

The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in 

a SSI are in subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E 

includes general requirements; pollutant limits; 

operational standards; management practices; and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 479

These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the 

National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in 

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The 

regulations also require that the allowable concentration 

of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated using 

equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants 

included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the 

equations must be determined on a case-by-case basis, 

except for the risk-specific concentration for the 

inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when 

these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific variables 

for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor, 

control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be 

used to calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, 

Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.

Also included in subpart E of part 503 is an 

operational standard for THC. The value for THC in the 

final part 503 regulation cannot be exceeded in the exit 

gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and frequency 

of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

are also included in this subpart. 

Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing 

limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covered by the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 479

current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and the 

following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NOx, SO2, PM, 

and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covered here, 

there are other differences between the part 503 

regulations and these final standards. The emission limits 

for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based 

numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 503 does 

not distinguish between new and existing units or between 

incinerator types (i.e., MH or FB incinerator) for setting 

emission limits since emission limits are based on risks to 

a highly exposed individual. 

Because both part 503 and these final standards cover 

the same universe of facilities, there are certain issues 

that arise in terms of potential impacts to current SSI 

facilities. First, the regulation of sewage sludge under 

CAA section 129 will result in stricter emission standards 

than under the current CWA rule. Additional pollution 

controls will increase costs for facilities that continue 

to use the incineration disposal method. If the additional 

costs are high enough, many entities may choose to adopt 

alternative disposal methods (e.g., surface disposal in 

landfills or other beneficial land applications). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 479

Consequently, a potential impact of this rule is that some 

of the estimated 110 facilities that operate SSI as the 

primary means of disposal could discontinue this practice 

and would instead landfill or land apply their sewage 

sludge. Second, one must consider the available capacity 

of surface disposal sites to receive additional sewage 

sludge and the potential for added costs if the use of SSI 

is discontinued. Third, SSI will be subject to two 

different sets of requirements (numeric standards, 

operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting) under the two different statutes, creating an 

additional burden to these facilities unless alternative 

regulatory approaches are implemented. EPA plans to 

evaluate the requirements under both statutes to determine 

what changes, if any, should be made to the part 503 

regulations. 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

This preamble discusses the final standards as they 

apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI 

unit. This preamble also describes the major requirements 

of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the 

final requirements and compliance times, see the SSI 

standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 479

A. What units are affected by the final standards?

The final standards and guidelines apply to owners or 

operators of SSI units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 

CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facilities 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI unit is an 

enclosed device or devices using controlled flame 

combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel 

feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat 

recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI 

unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the 

bottom ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash 

system ends at the truck loading station or similar 

equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal. The 

SSI unit does not include air pollution control equipment 

or the stack. The affected facility is each individual SSI 

unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM apply to 

new and existing SSI units that burn sewage sludge as 

defined in the subparts. The final standards define two 

subcategories for new and existing SSI units: MH 

incinerators and FB incinerators. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 479

The combustion of sewage sludge that is not burned in 

a SSI unit located at a wastewater treatment facility 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to 

other section 129 standards, such as the CISWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the 

OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), 

the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, 

AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous Waste 

Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources?

The final emission limits for existing sources in the 

MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory 

are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existing 

sources may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB 

emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 1. Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,800 64 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.28 0.037 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 479

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 220 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 15 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources?

The final emission limits for new sources in the MH 

incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are 

presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing sources 

may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emission 

limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 2. Emission Limits for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0024 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 52 27 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.15 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 30 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 479

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0035 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.045 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 60 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 5.3 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?

These final standards require all new and existing SSI 

units to demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the 

emission limits using EPA-approved emission test methods. 

The final standards also provide an option for less 

frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their 

emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresholds of 

the emission limits. 

For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, continuous 

parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air 

pollution control devices, if they are used to meet the 

emission limits. Additionally, existing units are required 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 479

to conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) 

visible emissions test of the ash handling operations 

during each compliance test. 

For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, as well as 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. The final rule requires all new SSI units 

to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are also 

required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions testing of 

the ash handling operations during each compliance test. 

For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOx, PM, 

Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling 

with periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to 

parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing. For 

new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl, 

NOx, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous 

sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approved 

alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance 

testing. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 479

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units?

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to meet operator training and qualification 

requirements, which include: ensuring that at least one 

operator or supervisor per facility complete the operator 

training course, that qualified operator(s) or 

supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course 

specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding training. 

Owners or operators of new SSI units are required to 

conduct a siting analysis, which includes submitting a 

report that evaluates site-specific air pollution control 

alternatives that minimize potential risks to public health 

or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors related to 

the practicability of the alternatives. 

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to submit a monitoring plan for any continuous 

monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to 

comply with the rule. They must also submit a monitoring 

plan for their ash handling system that specifies the 

operating procedures they will follow to ensure that they 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 479

meet the fugitive emission limit. 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS 

tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data, 

continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspections of 

the air pollution control devices, the siting analysis (for 

new units only), monitoring plan and operator training and 

qualification must be maintained for 5 years. The results 

of the stack tests and PS tests and values for operating 

parameters are required to be included in initial and 

subsequent compliance reports. 

G. What are the SSM provisions?

The Court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

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

“General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 479

comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 

emission standard during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA

directly affects only the subset of CAA section 112(d) 

rules that incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by 

reference and that contain no other regulatory text 

exempting or excusing compliance during SSM events, the 

legality of source category-specific SSM provisions is 

questionable. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is requiring 

that emission limitations in these final standards apply at 

all times the unit is operating. In establishing these 

standards, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 

periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

established different standards for those periods. 

We are not promulgating a separate emission standard 

for the source category that applies during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Based on the information available 

at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to 

meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units 

we have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or 

distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the 

unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions from 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 479

burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil 

are expected to generally be lower than from burning solid 

wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also 

generally lower than emissions during normal operations 

because the materials in the incinerator would be almost 

fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked 

individual SSI units based on actual performance for each 

pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting 

of emissions variability. Because we accounted for 

emissions variability, we believe we have adequately 

addressed any minor variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined 

as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 479

129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 

Nothing in CAA section 129 or in case law requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the innumerable types of 

potential malfunction events in setting emission standards.5 

Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 129 

as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 

129 uses the concept of “best controlled” or “best 

performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying 

the concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a 

source that is malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best controlled or best 

performing sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of their units. 

 

5 See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (“ In the nature of things, no general limit, 

individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, 

sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety 

of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement 

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 479

Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting 

CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, 

and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, 

malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be 

reported in deviation reports. We will then review the 

deviation reports to determine if the deviation is a 

violation of the standards. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 

rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether 

the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 129 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 479

standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.”6 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can fail and that such 

failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard.7 EPA is therefore finalizing the 

proposed affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by 

malfunctions, with some revisions to the proposed 

regulatory provision.8 Under this provision, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has 

met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 

 

6 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction).

7 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(Feb. 15, 1983).

8 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR 

§60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense 

put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 479

40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by 

poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, 

to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess 

emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are designed 

to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, 

to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs 

were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable 

emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 

excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health....” In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 479

of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 

part 22.77). 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements?

All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final 

SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

permit. These Title V operating permits assure compliance 

with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, 

including all applicable CAA section 129 requirements9. 

The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 

source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on 

when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title 

V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit 

and is not subject to an earlier permit application 

deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before the relevant date below. 

• For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a 

 

9 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 479

complete Title V permit application no later than 12 

months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL; or 

• For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new 

source after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title 

V permit application no later than 12 months after the 

date the SSI unit commences operation as a new 

source10. 

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject 

to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source 

must submit a complete Title V permit application by the 

earlier of the following dates: 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan 

(i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that 

implements the SSI EG); or 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan; or 

 

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

71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 479

• Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 

60, subpart MMMM. 

For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any applicable 

federal plan is effective, or whether or when any 

applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is 

approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA sections 

129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

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

If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of 

some triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned 

above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or 

part of a major source), then you may be required to apply 

for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specified 

above. If more than one requirement triggers a source’s 

obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time 

frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered 

by the requirement which first causes the source to be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 479

subject to Title V11. 

For additional background information on the interface 

between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s 

interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating 

existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing 

Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 

(68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0156). 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?

New SSI units that commence construction after October 

14, 2010, or that are modified 6 months or more after the 

date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission limits of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within 6 months after the 

promulgation date of the standards or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Under the final EG, and consistent with CAA section 

129 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 60, subpart B, states are required to 

submit state plans containing the existing source emission 

 

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

70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 479

limits of subpart MMMM of this part, and other requirements 

to implement and enforce the EG within 1 year after 

promulgation of the EG. States must submit state plans to 

EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (including 

SSI that are modified prior to and including the date 6 

months after promulgation) and must be at least as 

protective as the EG. 

The final EG requires existing SSI to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards as expeditiously as 

practicable after approval of a state plan, but no later 

than 3 years from the date of approval of a state plan or 5 

years after promulgation of the EG, whichever is earlier. 

Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects states to 

require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. 

However, because we believe that many SSI units will find 

it necessary to retrofit existing emissions control 

equipment and/or install additional emissions control 

equipment in order to meet the final limits, EPA 

anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3-year 

compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA 

does not approve a state plan or issue a federal plan, then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 479

the compliance date is 5 years from the date of the final 

rule. 

EPA intends to develop a federal plan that will apply 

to existing SSI units in any state that has not submitted 

an approved state plan within 2 years after promulgation of 

the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject to 

the federal plan up to 5 years after promulgation of the EG 

to demonstrate compliance with the standards, as allowed by 

CAA section 129(b)(3). 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA?

EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 

reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, 

not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators to locate, collect, and submit 

emissions test data because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. One improvement 

that has occurred in recent years is the availability of 

stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 479

for cumbersome paper copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve 

data accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of 

reporting for sources. Owners and operators of SSI 

facilities are required to submit, to EPA’s ERT database, 

electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests 

required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Data entry will be 

through an electronic emissions test report structure 

called the Emissions Reporting Tool (ERT) whenever 

conducting performance tests. The ERT was developed with 

input from stack testing companies who generally collect 

and compile performance test data electronically and 

offices within state and local agencies that perform field 

test assessments. The ERT is currently available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html, and access 

to direct data submittal to EPA’s electronic emissions 

database (WebFIRE) will become available by December 31, 

2011. 

The requirement to submit source test data 

electronically to EPA would not require any additional 

performance testing and would apply to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 479

form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The website listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT. In 

addition, when a facility submits performance test data to 

WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for 

emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we believe 

industry will benefit from development of improved emission 

factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and better 

regulation development as discussed below. The information 

to be reported is already required for the existing test 

methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the 

test method. 

One major advantage of submitting source test data 

through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and 

store much of the documentation required to be reported by 

this rule that also clearly states what testing information 

would be required. Another important benefit of submitting 

these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted 

is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved 

in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has 

source category performance test data in hand, there will 

likely be fewer or less substantial data collection 

requests in conjunction with prospective required residual 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 479

risk assessments or technology reviews. This results in a 

reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) 

and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the results). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that 

their review may be more streamlined and accurate because 

they would not have to re-enter the data to assess the 

calculations and verify the data entry. Finally, another 

benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE electronically 

is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality 

of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing 

the pool of emissions test data upon which the emission 

factor is based and by ensuring that data are more 

representative of current industry operational procedures. 

A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is 

that emissions factors are outdated or not representative 

of a particular source category. Receiving and 

incorporating data for most performance tests will ensure 

that emissions factors, when updated, represent accurately 

the most current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development, and other air pollution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 479

control activities, receiving test data already collected 

and using them in the emissions factors development program 

will save industry, state/local/tribal agencies, and EPA 

significant time, money, and effort while improving the 

quality of emission inventories and related regulatory 

decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that 

will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a website 

accessible through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE website was 

constructed to store emissions test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report 

through EPA’s CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE 

database. Although ERT is not the only electronic 

interface that can be used to submit source test data to 

the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data 

very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT 

can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

EPA received over 90 public comments on the proposed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 479

rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public hearing 

to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. 

After consideration of public comments received, EPA is 

making several changes to the standards. Following are the 

major changes to the standards since the proposal. The 

rationale for these and any other significant changes can 

be found in section V of this preamble or in the “Sewage 

Sludge Incineration (SSI) Rule: Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

A. Applicability

 The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of sewage 

sludge is burned in an incinerator at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI standards in 

subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning sewage 

sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge 

that is not burned in a SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 479

Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. Subcategories

 The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new sources. 

In the final NSPS, SSI units at new sources are 

subcategorized into two subcategories: MH and FB. 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits

At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation to 

determine variability. For the final rule, for existing FB 

units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calculation 

to account for the biasing of emissions data from one 

facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH units. 

In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, 

skewness and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the 

data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or lognormally distributed. If both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values had skewness and 

kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis 

of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the 

reported values and the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the reported data values was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 479

chosen to be conservative. We have modified our 

assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests 

do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal 

distribution better represents the data, or when there are 

not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the lognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond-thefloor emission standards for Hg emissions from existing MH 

units. In the final rule, we are establishing MACT floor 

emission limits but are not setting beyond-the-floor 

standards. Also, we are not finalizing the proposed 

opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limits for 

both PCDD/PCDF TMB and PCDD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units 

to meet both limits. In the final standards, we are 

allowing affected sources to comply with either the 

PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits. 

In the proposed rule, we did not compare the CO span 

of the test to the measured CO values to determine if the 

values were consistent. For the final rule, we reviewed 

the CO values obtained from emission test reports to 

determine whether the span of the test used was capable of 

accurately reading the reported value. If the span was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 479

inconsistent with the reported value, the CO levels were 

adjusted to provide a value that was more consistent with 

the span. We revised the CO limits based on the results of 

this analysis. 

The final emission limits resulting from the revised 

MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 through 6 

of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emission 

limits. 

Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

FB SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0019 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 56 64 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.49 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0033 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 63 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0098 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.056 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.61 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 12 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 22 15 

Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

MH SSI Units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 479

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.095 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900 3,800 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.0 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.02 0.28 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 220 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 5.0 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 80 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 26 

Table 5. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New FB SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 27 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.013 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 5.3 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 479

Table 6. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New MH SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0024 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 52 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.15 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 210 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.0035 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0022 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.045 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 60 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 26 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and Impacts Estimation

 For the final rule, we have revised the baseline 

emissions, costs, and impacts to incorporate information 

provided by commenters. A discussion of the changes is 

presented in section V of this preamble. The results of 

these analyses are summarized in section VI of this 

preamble. 

E. Compliance Requirements

For both the standards, the following changes have been 

made: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 479

• SSI units must submit (at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test date) a monitoring plan to 

establish that their ash handling system will meet the 

visible emissions limit on a continuous basis. 

• The alternative to test less frequently (every third 

year) is being revised to be the following: 

o If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a 

specified threshold during two consecutive 

performance tests, they may test every 3 years 

instead of annually. Any year that the emission 

threshold is not met, the SSI must test annually 

until the threshold is met over a consecutive 2 

year period. The alternative in the standards no 

longer requires that SSI units establish that 

they meet the lower thresholds for three 

consecutive years. 

o For all pollutants, less frequent testing is 

allowed if emissions are no greater than an 

emissions threshold of 75 percent of the emission 

limit. 

o For fugitive emissions from ash handling, less 

frequent testing is allowed as long as visible 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 479

emissions of combustion ash occur less than or 

equal to two percent of each hourly observation 

period (the standard is five percent of each of 

three hourly observation periods). 

• The final rule removes the requirements in the 

standards to maintain sludge feed rate and moisture 

content within specified parameters. However, sludge 

feed rate and sludge moisture content are still 

required to be monitored during performance test runs, 

and daily records of sludge feed rate and sludge 

moisture content are required to be kept. 

• At proposal, operating limits were calculated based on 

a specified percentage of the average parameter value 

recorded during pollutant performance tests. In the 

final standards, operating parameter limits are 

determined on a site-specific basis as the minimum or 

maximum operating parameter value for the parameter, 

as applicable, recorded during pollutant performance 

tests. 

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annual 

performance tests was each 10-12 months. This has 

been changed to specify that performance tests must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 479

conducted on a calendar year basis (no less than nine 

calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months 

following the previous performance test); and you must 

complete five performance tests for each such 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. 

• The averaging time for demonstrating compliance with 

the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed from 

a 4-hour rolling averaging period to a 24-hr block 

averaging period. The averaging times for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, has 

been changed from a 4-hour rolling averaging period to 

a 12-hour block averaging period. 

• During each compliance test run, SSI units must be 

operated at a minimum of 85 percent of their maximum 

permitted capacity. 

F. Definitions

The following definitions have been revised: 

• Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific 

emission units for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 479

wastewater treatment facility associated with the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary 

treatment at the facility, which changes the 

method used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent 

used for activated carbon injection). 

• Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the 

purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by 

removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge 

incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and 

multiple hearth. A SSI unit also includes, but is not 

limited to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary 

fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste 

heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash 

system. The SSI unit includes all ash handling 

systems connected to the bottom ash handling system. 

The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 479

transfers the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit 

does not include air pollution control equipment or 

the stack. 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. EPA received many comments on this 

subpart covering numerous topics. EPA’s responses to all 

comments, including those below, can be found in the 

comment response document for SSI units in the docket. 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129

 Comment: Many commenters contended that SSI are 

within the CWA definition of POTW; therefore, according to 

CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA must regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 112(d), and not CAA section 129. The 

commenters emphasized that SSI units are located within 

each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the 

solids handling and treatment processes at each POTW. 

 Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be 

regulated under CAA section 129 because they are combusting 

material that is generated by the POTW, which is neither a 

commercial or industrial establishment nor the general 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 479

public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The 

commenters added that, based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste, even if they had a new point of generation 

within the POTW where they were generating solid waste, the 

POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and does not 

pass the broad applicability for solid waste incineration 

under CAA section 129. Another commenter added that CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set standards 

for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal 

waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipal waste, 

the unit must first be a solid waste incineration unit. 

The commenters concluded that this would not include SSI 

units. 

 Several commenters stated that EPA’s determination to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradicts 

previous decisions where EPA has stated that regulations 

were being developed for SSI under CAA section 112. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s revision to the list of 

source categories under CAA section 112 to delete SSI units 

was because there were no major sources in the source 

category. One commenter added that EPA’s decision to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 is based on an 

overly broad reading of the NRDC case. The commenter also 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 479

claimed that SSI units are not within the scope of the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” in section 

129 because sewage sludge is not generated by a commercial 

or industrial establishment or by the general public. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion 

that regulation of SSI units under section 129 is 

inconsistent with past EPA statements. As explained in the 

NPRM, EPA issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 

pursuant to section 112(d), and those emissions standards 

did not include standards for SSI units. In the proposed 

POTW emissions standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge 

incineration will be regulated under section 129 of the 

CAA[.]” See 63 FR 66087 (December 1, 1998). EPA also 

explained in the NPRM for today’s action that the EPA’s 

statements regarding SSI units during its promulgation of 

emissions standards for OSWI units are squarely in conflict 

with the Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 

(D.C. Cir. 2007), which states in pertinent part that any 

unit that combusts any solid waste at all is subject to CAA 

section 129. The commenter does not appear to disagree 

with that conclusion, but instead simply argues that EPA 

cannot regulate SSI units under section 129 because it 

previously stated that it would regulate them under section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 479

112. However, the NRDC decision precludes EPA from doing 

so. Additionally, section 112 (c)(6) requires that EPA 

promulgate emission standards assuring that sources 

accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of each of the HAP identified in section 

112(c)(6) are subject to emission standards. EPA has 

determined that section 129 source categories can be 

included to meet our 90 percent obligations. Therefore, 

EPA has included SSI units in the section 112 (c)(6) list 

of sources because SSI units are need to meet our 90 

percent requirement for mercury. This decision is 

documented in the memorandum “Emission Standards for 

Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 

112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559) 

Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to 

issue emissions standards for SSI units under section 

112(d). Rather, it simply governs the schedule for the 

issuance of section 112(d) emissions standards for POTW. 

Section 112(e), titled “Schedule for Standards and Review,” 

generally requires EPA to establish emissions standards for 

initially listed source categories as expeditiously as 

practicable, with certain specific deadlines in section 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 479

112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EPA shall 

prioritize source categories for regulation, and requires 

EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissions 

standards for section 112 listed source categories. 

Finally, Congress specified a different schedule for POTW 

in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standards 

shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. Thus, 

section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI 

units under section 112(d), but rather simply identifies 

the date by which EPA must issue emissions standards for 

POTW. 

Additionally, the commenter’s interpretation of 

section 112(e)(5) would conflict with section 129(g) and 

with the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of section 129(g) as 

explained in NRDC v. EPA. Section 129(g) defines “solid 

waste incineration unit” to include any unit combusting any 

solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s 

position that it could choose to regulate certain units, 

combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead of under 

section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid waste, EPA 

does not have the discretion under section 129 to create an 

exemption for SSI units from the statutory definition of 

solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) itself 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 479

specifies certain units that combust solid waste but are 

exempt from the definition, and noted that where Congress 

created such enumerated exemptions, the EPA lacks 

discretion to create additional ones. 

EPA also disagrees with the commenter that SSI units 

do not combust waste from the general public. Sewage 

sludge clearly originates from the general public, 

including residential and commercial facilities. Simply 

because the waste is treated at a POTW prior to combustion 

does not change the original source of the sewage sludge. 

The commenter refers to a statement in EPA’s 2000 Unified 

Regulatory Agenda to support its argument. However, the 

Regulatory Agenda did not represent an Agency 

interpretation following a notice and comment process. 

Moreover, as explained above, EPA’s position regarding the 

section of the Act under which SSI units must be regulated 

has changed since 2000, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in NRDC v. EPA. Finally, EPA notes that its final 

action on reconsideration of the OSWI rule did not refer to 

the source of sewage sludge as a basis for concluding that 

regulation under section 129 was not required. Instead, as 

explained above, it referred to discretion the Agency 

believed it had at the time to choose to regulate certain 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 479

solid waste incinerators under section 112 – discretion the 

Agency no longer believes it has. 

The commenter’s reference to statements made in other 

Federal Register notices that pre-date the NRDC decision 

similarly fail to support its argument that EPA must 

regulate SSI units under section 112. Specifically, 

commenters refer to EPA’s inclusion of SSI on the list of 

area source categories listed under section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. See 67 Fed. Reg. 70427 (Nov. 22, 

2002). However, that listing does not lead to the 

conclusion that SSI must be regulated under section 112. 

First, as explained above, EPA’s interpretation of its 

authority to regulate SSI has changed following the 

issuance of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

which occurred after the 2002 listing referred to by the 

commenter. Additionally, that listing included source 

categories that would clearly be regulated under section 

129, such as medical waste incinerators and municipal waste 

combustors, Id. at 70428, because EPA’s regulation of 

incinerator source categories under section 129 serves 

towards meeting its statutory obligations under section 

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

SSI on that list does not indicate that such units must be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 479

regulated under section 112. 

EPA further disagrees that regulation of SSI units under 

section 129 is unnecessary because SSI units are already 

regulated under section 405 of the CWA and that section 129 

regulation will therefore provide no public health or 

environmental benefit. As explained in section VI of this 

preamble, today’s action will benefit public health and the 

environment by achieving reductions of the section 129 

pollutants from SSI units beyond those required by 

regulations issued pursuant to the CWA. Today’s action

must be undertaken to comply with the Clean Air Act and the 

court decision in NRDC v. EPA. EPA further notes that 

section 405 of the CWA expressly provides that nothing in 

that section is intended to waive more stringent 

requirements of any other law. Therefore, Congress clearly 

did not intend for regulation of SSI units under the CWA to 

preclude any other regulations, including regulation under 

CAA section 129. Overlap with Other Standards

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that 

other types of solid waste incineration units could be 

considered SSI units and subject to the SSI standards if 

they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some commenters 

added that the definition of a SSI does not have a de 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 479

minimus level of sewage sludge burned. Other commenters 

requested clarification on whether SSI units burning nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SSI and 

CISWI. Some commenters suggested that SSI units be 

consistent with the MWC standards and provide an exemption 

for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less by weight 

of sewage sludge. 

Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide 

exclusions for all solid waste incineration units that meet 

the applicability requirements of other CAA section 129 

standards, including MWCs regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, 

Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters noted that the CISWI 

standards specifically exempted MWC units and other units 

subject to CAA section 129 standards. 

Several commenters contended that EPA should exempt 

incineration units subject to hazardous waste combustor 

regulations and/or hazardous waste management permits under 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The commenters added that 

CAA section 129(g)(1) states that a solid waste 

incineration unit does not include incinerators or other 

units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the 

SWDA. Other commenters requested EPA include an exemption 

for hazardous waste combustion units that are affected 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 479

sources under 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE. 

 Response: Section 129 defines solid waste incineration 

unit to include any unit combusting any solid waste. 

Therefore, EPA is not setting de minimus levels for solid 

waste burned in incinerators. An incinerator located at a 

wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic 

sewage sludge that combusts any amount of sewage sludge is 

subject to the final SSI standards. We have clarified that 

the final standards and guidelines do not apply to sewage 

sludge that is not burned in a SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. Sewage sludge that is not burned in a SSI located 

at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat 

domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 

standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of 

this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR 

part 63 subpart EEE). 

Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to 

have a permit under CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standards per 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 479

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

exemption is needed for this rule. 

 Comment: Several commenters objected to EPA issuing 

the proposed SSI standards prior to making determinations 

regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. 

Response: EPA is not making determination in this rule 

about the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. Section 

129 of the CAA states that “solid waste” shall have meaning 

promulgated by the Administrator under RCRA. Therefore, 

today’s action is consistent with using the defintion of 

non-hazardous secondary materials promulagted RCRA rule, 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Comment: Several commenters contended that sewage 

sludge is not a solid waste, as the CAA defines solid waste 

by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. 

The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage sludge in 

what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage 

exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states that 

solid waste does not include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage. 

Response: This comment is not relevant to EPA’s 

establishment of emissions standards for SSI units. 

Rather, it is relevant to EPA’s proposed Identification of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 479

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste 

rule, and is addressed in EPA’s final action on that 

proposed rule. 

B. Subcategories

 Comment: Many commenters agreed with the development 

of separate EG for existing MH and FB units. The 

commenters also requested adding the same subcategories for 

the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappropriate 

to consider the best performing FB SSI as the best 

performing similar source for the MH SSI new source 

category. They also stated that, as proposed, the NSPS 

standards would discourage a POTW’s ability to modify 

existing MH units, including modifications to improve 

combustion efficiency or boost steam output for electricity 

generation. Some commenters stated that, by using the best 

performing FB unit as the basis for the NSPS for MH units, 

EPA was effectively setting a beyond-the-floor MACT limit 

for SSI units without considering any criteria that the 

statute requires. Other commenters agreed with the 

decision to use the best-performing FB unit as the best 

similar source for the MH SSI source category. 

 Other commenters requested further subcategorization 

based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 479

incinerated, limited use units, and distance over which the 

SSI would need to transport its sludge for disposal. 

Response: We have considered the commenters’ concerns 

and are setting separate standards for FB and MH units at 

new sources in the final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, 

there are two types of incinerators currently used to 

combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. The 

differences between the two combustor designs result in 

significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas 

stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control 

of temperature and other process variables, auxiliary fuel 

use and other characteristics. To reflect the differences 

in their combustion mechanisms, two subcategories, FB and 

MH, were developed in the NPRM for new and existing SSI 

sources. 

At proposal for the MH new source subcategory, we 

considered the best-performing FB incinerator to be the 

best-performing similar source because we were not aware of 

any new MH sources that have been constructed in the last 

20 years, and information provided by the industry 

indicates that future units that will be constructed are 

likely to be FB incinerators. 

We have re-evaluated our decision. Although few MH 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 479

units have been constructed over the last 20 years, there 

is no technical reason that would preclude a source from 

constructing a MH unit. The same design differences that 

distinguish existing FB and MH units also apply to new 

units, and provide a similar basis for subcategorizing 

between the two types of units. Therefore, we are setting 

separate standards for MH units at new and reconstructed 

sources. Such subcategorization is appropriate based on the 

differences between FB and MH units described above, and 

will also serve to ensure that MH units do not avoid making 

modifications that may require them to meet standards based 

on FB units. We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any 

other basis because we do not have data to support 

distinguishing units based on class, type, or size. 

Without such information, we do not have a basis for 

concluding that these types of units should be placed in a 

different subcategory. 

C. MACT Floor Analysis

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach

Comment: Many commenters objected to setting the MACT 

floors using a pollutant by pollutant approach because none 

of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneously meet 

all the proposed standards. One commenter stated that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 479

EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review 

of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability". However, the commenter contended 

that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practical 

manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units and that 

this results is unrealistically stringent limits that are 

not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters noted that 

this was especially true for the new source standards. 

Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis violates the statute and its own views of the 

statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot 

demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneously meet 

all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 

129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards because 

the "floor standards would force industry-wide 

technological upgrades without consideration of the factors 

(cost and energy in particular) which Congress mandated for 

consideration when establishing beyond-the-floor 

standards." 

Many commenters specifically mentioned that EPA's 

pollutant-by-pollutant, lowest emission methodology for 

setting the CO and NOx standards is flawed because EPA did 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 479

not take into account the inherent conflict in complying 

with two standards. The commenters noted that CO and NOx

emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters 

explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NOx and vice 

versa. The commenters added that high temperature 

combustion with long residence times and high oxygen 

concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that 

those same operating conditions favor high NOx emissions. 

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize 

CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel 

and produce more CO2 emissions. 

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most 

advanced control technologies, and those EPA indicated were 

costed in the impacts analysis, would not meet the emission 

limits for all of the pollutants all of the time. The 

commenter provided an example showing that of 11 of 30 test 

data points from the SSI unit in EPA’s database would not 

comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points would not 

comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not comply with 

the HCl standard, six of six data points would not comply 

with the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ, 86 of 105 would not comply 

with the CO standard, and eight of 15 would not comply with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 479

the NOx standard. The commenter concluded that data 

variability has not been appropriately accounted for and 

that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor based on 

the best performing unit for each pollutant is not 

reasonable. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters who object 

to setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. 

EPA previously has explained that although CAA section 129 

does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors must be 

established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying the 

requirement to set MACT floors based on what has been 

achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonable 

interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provision (62 

FR 48363-64). 

 EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a)(2) 

to support establishing emissions standards based on the 

actual emissions of “the best controlled similar unit” or 

“best-performing 12 percent of units in the category” for 

each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclude that 

the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonable under 

the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 479

interpretation is certainly not compelled by the statute. 

We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable under the 

statute and appropriate given the problems associated with 

implementing the commenters’ approach. 

 The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “establish 

performance standards and other requirements pursuant to 

section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each 

category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursuant to 

CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). 

Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance standards 

promulgated under section [111] of this title and this 

section [129] and applicable to solid waste incineration 

units shall specify numerical emissions limitations for the 

following substances or mixtures: PM (total and fine), 

opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 

chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, 

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.” Thus, the statute 

requires EPA to set individual numeric performance 

standards based on the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions actually achieved for each of nine listed 

pollutants. Based on this, EPA believes – and has long 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 479

believed – the statute supports, if not requires, that MACT 

floors be derived for each pollutant based on the emission 

levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, although the 

provisions do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress singled 

out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of devices 

that only control some of these pollutants well. 

 Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in the 

1997 rulemaking for medical waste incinerators “The EPA 

does not agree that the MACT floors are to be based upon 

one overall unit” (62 FR 48364). Pointing for instance to 

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

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified pollutant. 

Moreover, although the provisions do not state 

whether there is to be a separate floor for each 

pollutant, the fact that Congress singled out 

these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of 

devices that only control some of these 

pollutants well. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 479

Id.

 Since 1997, the courts have consistently repeated that 

EPA must set emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. See, e.g., Cement 

Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (D.C. Cir.) (“[T]he Agency first 

sets emission floors for each pollutant and source 

category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach has, as outlined above, been in place since 1997 

for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under section 129. See, 

e.g., 59 FR 48198 (September 20, 1994) (municipal waste 

combustors). In addition, such an approach has been upheld 

in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing 

CWA best available technology standards on a pollutant-bypollutant basis was a rational interpretation of EPA’s 

obligations under that similar statute). We note that the 

CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA program. S. 

Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. 

 Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would likely 

result in EPA setting the standards at levels that could, 

for some pollutants, actually be based on emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 479

limitations achieved by the worst-performing unit, rather 

than the best-performing unit, as required by the statute. 

See 61 FR 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363-64 

(September 15, 1997). For example, if the best performing 

12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF 

as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, the floor 

for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflecting best 

performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach would 

require EPA to make value judgments as to which pollutant 

reductions are most critical in working to identify the 

single unit that reduces emissions of the nine pollutants 

on an overall best-performing basis. Such value judgments 

are antithetical to the command of the statute at the MACT 

floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to 

prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relative risk 

to human health of each pollutant, a criterion that has no 

place in the establishment of MACT floors. Sierra Club v. 

EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 

The fact that the statute does not contain the phrase 

“for each pollutant” does not compel any inference that 

Congress was sub silentio mandating a different result when 

it left the provision ambiguous on this issue. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 479

argument that MACT floors set pollutant-by-pollutant are 

based on the performance of a hypothetical facility, so 

that the limitations are not based on those achieved in 

practice, just re-begs the question of whether CAA section 

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

pollutants. All of the emission limitations in this rule 

reflect actual performance and are achieved in practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level of control must 

be limited by the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively “guts the standards” 

by including worse performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident 

Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the 

average performance of best performing sources. Since 

Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, 

and EPA’s interpretation effectuates statutory goals and 

policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation must be 

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

Commenters made much of the fact that no single 

facility is presently achieving all of the nine pollutant 

limits proposed. However, the available information 

compared to the final standards disputes this assertion. 

For the final standards, based on the data we have, our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 479

estimate of baseline emissions, and the revised emission 

limits, we are estimating that 155 of 204 existing SSI 

units can meet standards for all nine pollutants, without 

installing additional pollution control. We cannot make 

this assessment for new sources, because none have been 

constructed. However, we are not aware of any technical 

reason that new units could not install the most advanced 

pollution control techniques or reduce the pollutant 

concentrations in the sludge to meet the new source 

standards. 

We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in this 

case, increase the overall cost of the regulation compared 

to what would result under a unit-based methodology. We 

interpret CAA section 129 to require that the MACT floor be 

determined in this manner, and we believe that Congress 

did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regulations 

developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limits that 

are achieved by the best controlled unit for each 

pollutant, as long as the control systems are compatible 

with each other. To our knowledge, there is no technical 

reason why these air pollution control systems cannot be 

combined. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 479

Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and NOx

with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the 

SSI facility to determine whether combustion conditions can 

be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install NOx

controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, 

FGR, or low NOx burners). In the proposed rule, we 

conjectured reasons why SCR and SNCR were not used or may 

not be able to be used at SSI units. While we are not 

aware of any SSI unit that currently uses SNCR or SCR, we 

also do not know of technical reason why they could not be 

used. Given the limited data available on SSI units with 

FGR, we could not definitely determine how effective the 

technology was on SSI units. However, we also do not know 

of a technical reason why they could not be used, if 

necessary, to meet NOx limits, and commenters did not 

provide any reasons they could not be used. 

Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis

Comment: Many commenters urged EPA to collect more 

information to set the standards. Many commenters 

contended that EPA does not have sufficient actual emission 

data from enough SSI units to properly set the MACT floor. 

Some commenters contended that the floor-setting provision 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 479

in section 129 requires them to set the existing floor 

standards "based on the best performing 12 percent of 

sources in the category" and not just based on the sources 

for which they have information. The commenters contended 

that EPA did not have emissions data from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources or even from 12 percent of 

sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is 

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collected data 

are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EPA is 

using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a 

subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determine how 

the top 12 percent perform. 

Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit its 

ICR to just nine entities because collecting information 

from ten or more entities would have triggered the PRA 

obligations and a more rigorous OMB review. The commenters 

concluded that EPA’s plan to circumvent the PRA and OMB 

review resulted in an inadequate dataset for this 

rulemaking that leaves EPA unable to reliably take the 

first necessary step in a section 129 rulemaking: to 

determine which of the SSI units are the best performing 

sources. 

Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 479

ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest emissions 

based on the type of unit and the installed air pollution 

controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targeted 

approach to collecting data from expected top performers 

undermines its ability to presume the data is a random 

sample representative of the entire source category or 

subcategory. The commenters stated that if the data 

gathered are not representative at the outset, then the 

data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equation to 

predict the emissions data across the source category or 

subcategory. 

Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has used 

permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed 

rate control, and other information to establish MACT 

standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenters stated 

that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method 

in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actual 

emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at 

least 12% of the units. 

Another commenter stated that EPA used emission data 

from state databases for an additional nine MHs. The 

commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Court to 

collect data from the best-performing 12% of existing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 479

sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emissions data 

from the state databases for the additional nine MHs were 

the 12% best performing MHs. 

Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, EPA requested several SSI to conduct emissions 

testing and provide the results to EPA for purposes of this 

rulemaking. Specifically, EPA collected information on 

the best-performing sources to establish MACT floor 

standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent emissions tests 

requests under section 114 of the CAA to nine entities that 

own and operate SSI units. EPA identified SSI units that 

were expected to be the best-controlled sources and the 

best performers for further emissions testing. The Agency 

acknowledges that this selection methodology targets 

identifying the best-performing sources rather than 

selecting a representative sample of sources. However, 

given the court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue the final 

SSI rule, it was not possible to undertake the timeconsuming process of sending an ICR to all the affected SSI 

units consistent with the requirements of the PRA. 

To select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the 

inventory of SSI units for the control devices being 

operated, and identified a subset of units expected to have 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 479

the lowest emissions based on the type of unit and the 

installed air pollution controls. These controls generally 

achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA section 

129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify for each 

pollutant the units with the lowest emissions. For 

example, units were selected that operated more than one of 

the following technologies: activated carbon injection to 

reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to 

reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; 

high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and 

impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, 

particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO2; and 

units with multiple control devices that could reduce PM, 

Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi scrubber in 

combination with impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or with 

another particulate control device. The 9 owners or 

operators selected were from different states in different 

regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum of 

sources for sludge generated. 

Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, 

resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the nine 

operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 479

owners of multiple units at a facility provided information 

for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit 

instead of 2, because not all units were in operation 

during the test period. Of those 20 units from the nine 

surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 17 units 

that were in operation (11 MH units and 6 FB units). While 

testing was being undertaken, the EPA also collected 

emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collected from 

state environmental agencies public databases. For some 

pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental test 

reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sources. 

The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use all the 

emissions information from these test reports in the MACT 

floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test reports 

that were older than 15 years. The older reports were 

determined to not be appropriate for this rulemaking 

because they were unlikely to represent current emissions 

performance, due to their age and because they pre-dated 

required compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In 

total, emissions information were collected from 6 FB units 

and 20 MH units from facilities responding to the ICR and 

additional test reports provided by state environmental 

agencies. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 479

As discussed in the NPRM and background documentation, 

the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the 

minimum number of observations needed to accurately 

characterize the distribution of the best-performing 12 

percent of units in each subcategory. The results showed 

that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the number 

of observations necessary to provide an accurate 

representation of that data distributed from the bestperforming 12 percent of the source population. The EPA 

maintains that the emissions information that we have 

collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor for the 

best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to use other types of data, such 

as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate controls 

with the emissions information to calculate the MACT floor. 

The other types of data mentioned do not represent the 

actual emissions or operation of the unit but are potential 

values in their permits or limits. Most units are 

typically operating at lower than permitted levels or 

emission limits. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to incorporate 

such data into the EPA’s UPL calculation because the UPL 

calculation is based on emission test runs of actual data, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 479

rather than limits based on permits. The permit or 

emission limits would be on a different basis and 

potentially skew the MACT floor UPL calculation. 

The EPA has also updated the inventory of sources 

based on additional data provided in the comment letters. 

The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB units and 

144 MH units. Given this change in population, 12 percent 

of each subcategory are equal to 8 FB units and 18 MH 

units. Although we do not have any more emissions 

information than at proposal, the change in inventory 

results in more than 12 percent of MH units with data for 

PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT 

floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of emissions 

data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). EPA solicited 

additional emission test reports in the NPRM. Although 

many commenters summarized the results of their most recent 

emission tests when comparing their site-specific emissions 

to EPA’s baseline emissions, none of the commenters 

actually provided the emissions test reports. The emission 

test reports are necessary for the EPA to review the test 

methods and procedures to ensure consistency with other 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 479

emissions data, and to verify the tests represent a valid 

test result that can be used in the MACT floor analysis. 

Additionally, the test reports provide information 

necessary to correct the emissions measured into the units 

used for the MACT floor analysis. Therefore, these 

additional test result summaries, without background 

documentation, could not be used in the MACT floor UPL 

calculation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, to fill the data 

gap caused by the lack of actual emissions data from the 

required number of units in each subcategory, EPA applied 

statistical analysis to single test run results. Several 

commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data 

available for MACT development, EPA counted each test run 

as a separate data point. 

Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on 

test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The commenters 

noted that CAA section 129 states that MACT standards for 

existing sources must be as stringent as the "emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in, the category." The commenters added that, 

assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limitation" 

with the concept of emission level (as often stated by 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 479

EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emission 

levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floors. The 

commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes 

a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid emissions 

level test. The commenter stated that a test run is not an 

accurate measure of the performance of the unit and should 

not be used as if it were. Commenters added that EPA 

should use the results of the test for each unit (comprised 

of at least three test runs) to represent what is being 

achieved by a unit. 

Several commenters contended that EPA must go back and 

reset the process based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI sources 

(not individual incinerators). The commenters added that 

it is important that individual sources, not units, be 

utilized because the composition of the sludge varies 

greatly from source to source and utilizing multiple units 

at one source skews the data development process and 

ultimately provides the basis for a flawed MACT standard at 

best. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 

percent UPL values were calculated for each pollutant and 

for each subcategory using the test run data for those 

units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consistent with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 479

EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as HMIWI, 

CISWI, and boilers, the MACT floor emission limits were 

calculated on a run basis since compliance is based on the 

average of a 3-run test. The 99 percent UPL represents the 

value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run 

performance tests form the best-performing 12 percent of 

sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample observations 

from the same best-performing sources. 

Variability Calculation

For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are 

incorporating variability in the MACT floor calculation for 

this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also 

following the same procedures for establishing limits and 

incorporating non-detect values as discussed in the NPRM. 

We have made three revisions to the variability calculation 

for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT floor 

variability calculation to incorporate weighted UPL’s for 

existing FB units. Second, we selected log-normal results 

when it is not clear that data are normally distributed. 

Lastly, we revised the CO limits based on an analysis of 

the span of the test. The weighted UPL’s and log-normal 

results are discussed in responses to comments. The 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 479

revision to the CO limits based on reviewing the CO span 

was done to correct errors in the CO values provided in 

test reports and to be consistent with the calculation 

methods used in the CISWI and boilers rules. 

Carbon monoxide values obtained from emission test 

reports were reviewed to determine whether the span of the 

test used was capable of accurately reading the reported 

value. If the span was inconsistent with the reported 

value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a value that 

was more consistent with the span. EPA Method 10 is 

structured such that measurement data quality relative to 

the calibration span of the instrument can be assessed. 

For a measurement made using an instrumental test method, 

the equivalent of the method detection level can be 

assessed using: a square root formula, the reported 

calibration span value, and the allowable data quality 

criteria (i.e. the allowable calibration error, bias, and 

drift values). The estimated CO measurement error resulting 

from the square root formula was adjusted by a factor of 

three to be consistent with the methodology EPA applied for 

non-detect data (where limits no less than three times the 

method detection level were established). 

In order to develop a basis for measurement error, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 479

instrument calibration spans in available test reports were 

reviewed. Where no span values could be found, it was 

assumed that if the test was conducted on or before May, 

2008, the associated CO span would be 1000 ppm, and tests 

conducted after May 2008 would have a CO span of 100 ppm. 

This assumption was made because, before revisions were 

made to Method 10 in May of 2008, it was common that units 

were using the prescriptive span guidance that was listed 

in the old method. The current version of EPA Method 10 

does not include these span requirements but instead 

requires the tester to choose calibration ranges that 

reflect the range of expected emission concentrations at 

the unit. In cases where the reported emission 

concentrations were lower than their corresponding 

measurement errors, the default measurement errors were 

used in lieu of the reported concentration. 

These revisions are further documented in the 

memorandum “Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage 

Sludge Incinerator Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 7 of this preamble shows the 

revised results of the MACT floor analysis for existing 

sources, and Table 8 of this preamble shows the results for 

new sources. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 479

Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0016 0.095 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

64 3,800 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.51b 1.2 

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.037 0.28 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

150 220 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.0074 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.1 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

1.2 5.0 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

18 80 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

15 26 

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd mg/dscm 0.0011 0.0024 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 479

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

@7% O2

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

27 52 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.24 1.2 c

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0010 0.15 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

30 210 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.00062 0.0035 

CDD/CDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.0044 0.0022 

CDD/CDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.013 0.045 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

9.6 60 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

5.3 26 c

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level.

c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less 

stringent than EG. 

Comment: One commenter contended that because CAA 

section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floors 

reflecting the “average” emission level achieved by the 

best sources, setting floors that instead reflect a UPL for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 479

those sources is unlawful. The commenter, added that by 

claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top 

twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider 

variability under the CAA and relevant case law. The 

commenter explained that, although EPA may consider 

variability in estimating an individual source’s actual 

performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case law 

even suggests that EPA may account for differences in 

performance between sources except as section 129 provides, 

by averaging the emission levels achieved by the sources in 

the top twelve percent. 

 Response: In assessing sources’ performance, EPA 

may consider variability both in identifying which 

performers are “best” and in assessing their level of 

performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 

875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 

(D.C. Cir 2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, based on 

an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, 

to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources considering these 

sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision 

indicated that floors for existing sources must reflect the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 479

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision 

also reiterated that EPA may account for variability in 

setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA erred in 

assessing variability because it relied on data from the 

worst performers to estimate best performers’ variability. 

The Court held that “EPA may not use emission levels of the 

worst performers to estimate variability of the best 

performers without a demonstrated relationship between the 

two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. 

In determining the MACT floor limits, we first 

determine the floor, which, for existing sources, is the 

emissions limitation achieved in practice by the average of 

the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the level 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest 

emissions limitation as the measure of best performance. 

We then assess variability of the best performers by using 

a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor 

level based on the average of the best performing sources 

using the expected distribution of future compliance tests. 

We used the UPL to perform this calculation, as explained 

below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 479

Variability can be accounted for using different 

statistical methods. For example, recent standards have 

used the UL or the UPL to determine the MACT floor emission 

limits. A UL is based on the distribution of the available 

emission observations (e.g., test runs), and does not 

embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A prediction 

interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an 

interval that will, with a specified degree of confidence, 

contain the next (or some other pre-specified) randomly 

selected observation from a population. In other words, 

the prediction interval estimates what future values will 

be, based on present or past background samples taken. 

Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the 

mean of three future test run observations (three-run 

average) can be expected to fall below, based on the 

results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same 

population. Therefore, should a future test condition be 

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

of three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the 

reported level will fall below a MACT floor emission limit 

calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an appropriate 

statistical tool to use in determining variability in the 

SSI data. For this source category, where there is a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 479

limited sampling of the source category and we do not have 

test data from all of the SSI units in the best performing 

12% for each subcategory, the predictive aspect of the UPL 

calculation is especially important. 

Because the UPL represents the value which we can 

expect the mean (i.e., average) of three future 

observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon the 

results of the independent sample size from the same 

population, the UPL reflects average emissions. The UPL is 

also consistent with other recent rulemakings. 

Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting 

MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized 

data from all available test runs for the best performing 

units without regard to the number of data points available 

for each unit. The commenters added that, for all 

pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to 

unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases 

the statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by 

over-weighting the performance of the units that have more 

data. The commenter suggested that EPA should employ an 

alternate methodology which determines the emissions 

limitation achieved for each best performing unit first, 

and then averages these limitations to determine the least 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 479

stringent standard, or MACT floor. 

Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed 

units contains data from six units at four facilities. The 

entities surveyed were requested to provide recent (within 

the previous 5 years) emissions test reports. Most survey 

recipients provided only the most recent report. One 

facility, with three units, provided results of emissions 

test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year 

period. This facility also uses the most advanced 

pollution controls on their fluidized bed units in the 

subcategory. This facility constitutes 70 percent of the 

Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and 75 

percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the 

existing source MACT floors calculated using the UPL 

methodology, and all the test run data from the one 

facility, effectively result in calculating more stringent 

limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an 

existing source MACT floor, because it is based primarily 

on only the emissions performance of the best-performing 

single source, rather than the average of the bestperforming 12 percent of sources.. In order to adequately 

incorporate the emissions from the best-performing SSI 

units in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 479

used for calculating the existing source MACT floors for 

the final rule. The weighted UPL is calculated from a 

weighted mean and weighted variance as described below. 

There are many different types of weighting 

procedures. We have chosen the most straightforward 

methodology, to base it on the number of data points (i.e., 

test runs) from each SSI unit.12 This weighting scheme 

ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool 

is over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. 

The first step in weighting procedure is to assign a 

weighting factor to each test run by multiplying each 

observation for source i and run j with a weight term, wij, 

as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble: 













×















=

M N

w

i

ij

1 1

 (Eq. 1)

 

Where: 

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

N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool. 

 

12 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIST Handbook 148: 

DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June 2003. [Available at 

www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html] 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 479

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance 

for the weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 

2 and 3 of this preamble: 

Weighted Mean: 

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

= N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

ij ij

weighted

i

i

w

w x

x

1 1

1 1

 Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

( )

( )

K

K w

w x x

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

weighted

ij ij U

weighted

i

i

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

−

−

=

1 1

1 1

2

1

ν

Equation 3

Where: 

∑=

=

N

i

K Mi

1

is the total number of observations in the MACT best 

performers pool. 

When the weights are equal to one, the above equations 

reduce to those for un-weighted data, as expected. As 

shown in Equation 4 of this preamble, the weighted mean and 

weighted variance are then used in the UPL calculation 

(discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e., unweighted) mean and variance. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 479

( ) ( ) 















= + − × × +

i i

weighted

i

weighted

n m

UPL x t n

1 1

99.0 , 1 ν Equation 4 

For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions 

data from a larger number of facilities/units. For 

example, we have data on Cd and Pb from 11 facilities with 

14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT 

floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units or 

facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing 

multiple hearth units does not need to be calculated using 

a weighted UPL. 

The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are 

discussed in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should 

determine the MACT floor emission limits to be consistent 

with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Manual, 

which holds that it is more likely that environmental data 

are distributed log-normally. The commenter considered it 

reasonable to believe that environmental emission 

distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots 

typically show many readings approaching zero and fewer 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 479

large readings forming an elongated tail to the right. The 

commenter concluded that normal distributions may exist for 

certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many 

standard deviations away from zero, and values are 

controlled by an air pollution control process with set 

points and feedback and control loops. 

Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and 

agree with the commenter that the referenced document shows 

that environmental data are more likely to be log-normally 

distributed than normally distributed. In the proposed 

rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used to calculate the 

MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed. If 

both the reported values and the natural-log transformed 

reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 

indicated neither were normally distributed, the reported 

dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis 

hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the 

natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done 

on the reported data values was chosen to be conservative. 

Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: 

Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/084, July 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 479

2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whether a 

normal or log-normal distribution better represents the 

data, or when there are not enough data to complete the 

skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have 

chosen to use the log-normal results for the final MACT 

floor calculation. 

Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA 

incorrectly presumes that stack test results account for 

the full variability of a SSI’s performance. Several 

commenters stated that emissions from SSI units are 

affected not just by control technology but also by other 

factors including the contents of the sludge that a unit is 

burning. Many commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT 

floor limits by incorporating the variability of the sludge 

contents. The commenters added that the methodology in 

developing the proposed standards does not take into 

account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions are a 

function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and 

sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits 

were based on test results obtained with sludge containing 

very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and sulfur. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 479

The commenter explained that if the sludge burned during an 

emissions test was not at or near the maximum constituent 

concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a 

new source emission limit based on these data could not be 

achieved over the full range of expected normal operating 

conditions confronted by the best performing source. 

The commenters contended that EPA must consider all 

available data (including Part 503 data) for the best 

performing source and use that to establish a variability 

factor applied to the stack test data. The commenters 

added that EPA’s request for metals data during the stack 

test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source 

variability. The commenters added that variability for the 

compounds not regulated by Part 503 must also be accounted 

for as well before setting the new source limit. 

The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI 

units, are statutorily obligated to manage all of the 

sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, 

resulting in highly variable and often unpredictable spikes 

in concentrations. The commenters continued that POTW inlet 

concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of 

dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat 

wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 479

dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment 

opportunities also vary because POTW authority to control 

discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way 

that authority is exercised varies. The commenters also 

noted that the nature of sewage entering the POTW changes 

over time as the character of a community changes, the age 

of the population changes, and commercial and industrial 

dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without 

the use of long-term data to support the level of emission 

standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based 

limits impractical and infeasible. The commenters also 

explained that POTW also face significant regional and 

seasonal variability that is not captured by EPA’s dataset. 

The commenters stated that initial high flow periods in the 

spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier material 

that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow 

periods, which often results in a spike in metals 

concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage sludge. The 

commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in January and 

February that were used for the EPA database would not have 

captured these events. The commenter also noted that 

northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways 

experience significant increases in chlorides during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 479

winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known 

to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at existing wet 

scrubbers. 

Response: The variability analysis is based on 

emissions information gathered from nine different 

facilities located in nine different states. The 

facilities we collected emissions information from are 

located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and 

western states. Each facility has its own unique sludge 

characteristics from different residential and commercial 

populations. We agree that the emissions data represents a 

“point in time”. However, combined together, they 

represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and 

populations that adequately incorporates variability in 

wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We have also 

incorporated variability using the UPL. The variability 

analysis based on the emissions data collected adequately 

characterizes the potential differences in sludge contents 

and regional differences. Because we have a mixture of 

southern and northern states in the emissions database, we 

believe that it also adequately considers differences 

between cold and warm weather climates. Additionally, we 

did not have sufficient information at proposal to consider 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 479

if it were appropriate to incorporate variability based on 

sludge content. We requested additional information in the 

NPRM, but did not receive adequate sampling data from the 

best-performing sources. 

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s 

identification of the relevant best performing units for 

both existing and new unit standards is both unlawful and 

arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control technology 

as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pollution 

control technology is the only factor determining emission 

levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated that, in 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. 

Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Club's 

challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely on 

the performance of one method: add-on technology. The 

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule because 

EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities control 

emissions. The commenters stated that this requirement is 

consistent with doing a more complete study as required by 

section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based 

solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this 

fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 479

control. The commenters concluded that EPA's performance 

data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did 

not check for all methods that sources use to reduce 

pollution. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges 

that EPA has not properly identified the best performing 

SSI units for purposes of calculating MACT floor limits. 

As explained above, EPA targeted its emissions testing 

requests to units it believed had the lowest emissions, 

while accounting for factors such as sludge content and 

seasonal variation by selecting units in different 

geographic areas of the country. 

EPA further notes that SSI units currently employ nontechnology measures (pollution prevention) to reduce 

emissions to comply with CWA regulations at 40 CFR Part 

503. These regulations establish daily average 

concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage 

sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also 

requires that SSI meet the National Emission Standards for 

Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 

CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 

standards, facilities are already incorporating management 

practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 479

concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI 

units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated 

wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-treatment 

standards for non-domestic users discharging wastewater to 

POTW. Thus, the facilities from which EPA received 

emissions test results are already applying non-technology 

measures to reduce emissions. 

Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs 

the statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it 

should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated 

that the 99.9 percent UPL represents a 0.1 percent 

probability of a failure for individual tests, or a one 

percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual 

performance test program. The commenter concluded that 

this value better encompasses unit emissions variability 

and represents a manageable risk to the responsible 

facility operator. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the 

final standards, we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is 

appropriate and sufficiently addresses variability in the 

emissions information. Our analysis of variability is 

explained in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 479

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit 

of zero percent because opacity is a subjective measurement 

and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. 

Another commenter suggested that control and monitoring of 

PM is sufficient. 

Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero 

opacity) limit for combustion processes is impractical for 

both compliance and enforcement purposes. We also believe 

that a measurable opacity may or may not be indicative of 

compliance with a PM emissions limit when applied to 

multiple sources within the category. That is, an opacity 

limit applied to one facility could very readily correspond 

to a PM emissions level different than that same opacity 

limit applied to another facility and one or both may be 

emitting above the PM limit. That opacity limits do not 

apply very well when wet control devices are used further 

confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. We also 

agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific parametric 

monitoring approaches applicable to various control devices 

that can be more closely aligned with PM control and 

compliance with the PM emissions limit than would an 

opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 479

establishing opacity limits that may or may not assure 

compliance with PM emissions limits, the final rules 

include rigorous requirements for establishing sitespecific operating limits derived from the results of 

performance testing. The rules also include a requirement 

that sources update those enforceable operating limits with 

each repeated performance test. Re-establishing operating 

limits periodically will assure that the monitoring will 

continue to indicate compliance with the PM emissions 

limits. The rules also provide the source the option of 

apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of interest in 

lieu of parametric monitoring. We believe that continuous 

compliance with operating limits and periodic stack testing 

to verify the operating limits plus the CEMS option will 

ensure that sources demonstrate continuous compliance with 

the PM emission limits more effectively than would periodic 

or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable opacity 

limit. 

Format of the Standards

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

develop emission limits for some pollutants in different 

units or to provide a control efficiency alternative. The 

commenters expressed concern that the use of concentration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 479

limits would not reflect the variability of the unique 

sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly 

penalize units with very low or very high feed 

concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or 

Pb. Some commenters suggested establishing limits similar 

to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided emission limits 

based on control efficiencies coupled with feed 

concentration limits. 

 Response: We did not have sufficient data to set 

alternative control efficiency standards or standards in 

other units at proposal. We requested additional 

information in the proposal. However, sufficient data were 

not provided in response to our request for alternative 

formats to be developed. 

D. Baseline Emissions

 Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated 

baseline emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate 

parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge 

feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters provided 

stack test data, emission estimates, and corrections to the 

EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters noted that 

EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate 

factors in combination with pollutant concentrations 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 479

corrected to seven percent oxygen. 

 Response: We have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. In some cases, commenters did not 

provide information sufficient for us to revise the 

inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter’s 

facility. For example, commenters may have provided an 

average concentration for a pollutant, but did not provide 

run-specific information that would allow us to convert the 

concentration information provided to standardized units (7 

percent oxygen). Other commenters may have provided 

emission rates in pounds per hour, but did not provide vent 

gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to 

convert to concentration units. None of the commenters 

provided test reports that would have include this 

information. 

 We have also revised the calculation of baseline 

emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI units 

where information was not available. Defaults were 

necessary to be assigned because, even after new data were 

received in comments, a significant number of units did not 

have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A 

detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 479

baseline emissions for the final standards is presented in 

the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emissions 

from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other 

corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions 

shown in Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range 

of emissions for each pollutant. The lower bound 

represents an estimation of actual emissions based on the 

actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their 

units were running. The upper bound represents an 

estimation of potential emissions if the sludge feed rate 

was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We estimated 

the potential emissions because the amount of wastewater 

treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantly based 

on changes in population or sources of wastewater. 

Facilities have the potential to burn up to their units 

permitted capacity although they may not be doing so 

currently. 

Table 9. Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 479

FB MH Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

Cd 0.0022-0.0015 0.91-1.2 0.91-1.2 

CO 73-100 8,400-11,500 8,500-11,600 

HCl 1.6-2.2 26-41 28-43 

Hg 0.040-0.058 0.85-1.15 0.9-1.2 

NOx 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 

Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQa

0.00012-

0.00016 

0.00076-0.0010 

0.0009-0.0012 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMBa

0.0014-0.0020 

0.011-0.015 

0.013-0.017 

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 

SO2 43-57 660-1,020 700-1,100 

a Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF. 

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the beyond-the-floor Hg limit for MH units 

because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and costs for 

Hg control were understated. Many of the commenters 

contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology 

for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility 

with FB units. The commenters added that the facility is 

undergoing significant issues with the technology. 

Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon 

injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 479

such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. 

The commenters added that the high moisture content in the 

form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will plug FFs, 

and additional equipment may be necessary to keep the 

temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner. 

Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor 

analysis to incorporate changes made to the baseline 

emissions, new facility specific data and inputs provided 

by commenters, and revised control options. We analyzed 

several beyond-the-floor controls for the final rule. 

First, we evaluated the use of an afterburner for control 

of CO at MH units. We then evaluated whether additional 

control of Hg should be required at MH units. We have 

reviewed the commenters concerns regarding Hg control 

technologies and agree that applying carbon injection to 

existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be 

effective at removing Hg. For combustion sources that are 

not SSI, such as boilers, carbon injection in combination 

with a FF has proven to be highly effective in removing Hg. 

However, for high moisture flue gas streams, such as 

emitted from SSI units, the use of FFs is problematic due 

to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with 

a FF with high moisture streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 479

or afterburner is necessary to maintain a high enough 

temperature to keep the stream above the dew point prior to 

sending the stream to the FF. 

Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of using 

an afterburner, carbon injection, and FF for additional 

control of Hg at MH units. Additional equipment may also 

be necessary to reduce the temperature of the flue gas to 

prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. Sufficient 

information was not collected to estimate this cost. Table 

10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existing SSI 

units to apply different controls that were analyzed. 

Table 10. Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units to Apply 

MACT Controls Analyzed(2008$) 

Control Analyzed 

Total Capital 

Costs 

(million $) 

Total Annualized 

Costs (million 

($/Yr)a

1 - MACT Floor 55 18

2 - MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for MH 

units 

155 46

3 – MACT Floor+ 

Afterburner and

Activated carbon 

injection and FF for 

MH units 

490 138

a Calculated using a seven percent discount factor. 

Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 479

reductions of each pollutant for various controls analyzed. 

Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units 

to Apply the MACT Controls Analyzed 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions for MACT Controls Analyzed (TPY) 

MACT Floor 

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner for 

MH Units 

MACT Floor + 

Afterburner + ACI 

and FF for MH 

Units 

Cd 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.87-1.1 

CO 0 6,900-9,300 6,900-9,300 

HCl 19-30 19-30 19-30 

Hg 0.0022-0.0025 0.0022-0.0025 0.67-0.89 

NOx 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16 

Pb 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 2.3-2.9 

PCDD/PCDF TEQ 0 0 0.0000003-

0.0000004 

PCDD/PCDF TMB 0 0 0.000005-0.000007 

PM 58-70 58-70 300-400 

SO2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this 

preamble were calculated using data gathered for each 

source (e.g., emissions, vent gas flow rates, controls 

currently used), as well as default values for emissions, 

sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate for sources where 

data were unavailable. We estimate that requiring the use 

of an afterburner for MH units not already having an 

afterburner could require as much as 1,010 million cubic 

feet of natural gas a year to be burned, resulting in NOx
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 479

and CO emissions of 51 and 43 TPY, respectively. We 

estimate that applying activated carbon injection with a FF 

and an afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg and 

PCDD/PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 

million dollars (using a discount rate of seven percent) 

and would achieve Hg reductions of 0.67-0.89 TPY. The 

incremental cost-effectiveness of adding afterburners/RTO, 

activated carbon injection, and FFs to all MH units is 

estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per pound of Hg 

removed. Costs would increase if equipment necessary to 

cool the flue gas is also necessary. Therefore, given these 

factors, we are not finalizing any beyond-the-floor 

requirements for SSI units. 

We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require 

packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, 

a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR 

for additional NOx reduction. We determined that it was 

not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater 

reduction of HCl, SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOx considering the 

cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor 

analyses for the final standards are documented in the 

memorandum “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 479

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for 

Existing SSI Units” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts

 Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

underestimated the cost of the proposed rule for the 

beyond-the-floor option of Hg control as well as for the 

MACT floor for other pollutants because it only has 

information for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The 

commenters added that EPA used information from these 

limited sources and applied it to remaining sources for 

which they did not have. The commenters contended that 

this results inaccurate determinations of which units could 

meet the proposed emission limits and which could not. The 

commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of 

sources that could meet the proposed standards resulting in 

a significant underestimation of controls. 

 Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of 

controls to cost for compliance with the proposed standards 

were inappropriate for SSI units. Many commenters stated 

that the high moisture content of flue gas streams in some 

applications may mean that FFs would not be an appropriate 

control for PM, Cd, or Pb. 

 Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 479

technology or method. A source is required to meet the 

final emissions limits in these standards, and has the 

flexibility to use the control method or technology that is 

best suited for their individual facility. EPA’s costs are 

estimated based on technologies we believe may be 

appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions limits. 

At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated 

costs and emissions reductions based on the best available 

information to us. We acknowledge that the inventory 

database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI 

units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flue gas 

flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other 

inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses 

using data provided by the commenters as summarized in 

section IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following 

Proposal and the memorandum titled, “Post-Proposal SSI 

Database Revisions and Data Gap Filling Methodology” in the 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). However, for a number of 

inputs, we are still assigning default values where data 

were not available for each SSI. For the final rule, we 

have correlated some of the defaults to populations served 

by the facilities in order to better estimate costs and 

emission reductions more specifically to each facility. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 479

Sources will have the best idea of the costs of controls 

for their site specific conditions. For some sources, the 

costs and emission reductions estimated by EPA may be 

higher than what the source estimates, and for others they 

will be less. EPA’s estimates are estimates based on the 

best information available to us. We also note that the 

MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination 

of the number of sources estimated to require control, 

estimated for the final rule are also based on the revised 

MACT floor limits. 

 For the final standards we have also revised the types 

of controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed scrubbers for SSI 

that we estimate will need further control of HCl or SO2. 

At the MACT floor level, we do not estimate that any SSI 

will need to add control for Hg, PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A 

detailed discussion of the costs and emissions reductions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 479

estimates for the final standards is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

incorrectly calculated the costs of the landfilling 

alternative because it used dry tons of sewage sludge 

instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is 

the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the 

dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent 

moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimates for 

landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The 

commenters added that because of the error, EPA has 

significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting 

sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not 

evaluated the negative social impact of hauling sludge to a 

landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not consider 

the additional costs for specific state landfilling 

regulations. 

 Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly 

estimated the on-site sludge storage requirements because 

calculations were not done on a wet basis. Commenters 

added that the cost of the storage units would be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 479

significant and would need to include odor control as well 

as a settling basin. 

 Other commenters expressed concern regarding the 

availability of landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. 

The commenters contended there was insufficient landfill 

capacity to handle the influx of sewage sludge. 

Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the 

landfill alternative based on comments received on the 

proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of 

this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of 

this alternative if small entities choose to landfill 

rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed 

discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

The selection of a management option for sewage sludge is 

often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 479

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

 Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA’s 

proposed language requiring facilities to meet the proposed 

SSI standards “at all times” because it would be difficult 

to comply with certain proposed emission limits during 

startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters were 

specifically concerned about not being able to meet the 

proposed CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI 

because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold 

vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combustion is 

completed creating a small flow of CO. One commenter 

contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard 

without any evidence that it can be achieved during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. This commenter provided 

an example of CO data from one hazardous waste combustor 

that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal operations but 

averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during 

shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters 

stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to increase 

during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combustion 

that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and noted that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 479

the influence of unstable combustion may be more pronounced 

during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining 

sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters 

recommended that EPA account for situations where higher 

emissions occur during the time it takes to bring control 

equipment from startup to steady-state operations. 

 Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a 

separate emission standard for the source category that 

applies during periods of startup and shutdown. We do not 

have data that would allow us to set a separate standard 

during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested 

information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. 

Based on the information available at this time, we believe 

that SSI units will be able to meet the emission limits 

during periods of startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to start 

the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill 

gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be 

lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions during 

periods of shutdown are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the materials in the 

incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 479

occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT 

floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on 

actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with 

an appropriate accounting of emissions variability. 

Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe 

we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may 

potentially occur during startup or shutdown. 

 Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

were not needed to be factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at 

all times. We note that continuous compliance is 

demonstrated using continuous parametric monitoring, except 

for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are required for new 

source using a 24-hour block average. 

 Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly 

claims that its authority to prescribe unique standards for 

SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated that EPA 

has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 479

during SSM periods. One commenter contended that the 

Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA 

section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 

111), and pointed out that this interpretation is not 

merely a technical distinction. The commenter pointed out 

that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions during SSM 

events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111 

(referenced 40 CFR §60.8(c)). The commenter argued that 

Congress enacted the continuous basis language in section 

302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 

111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that there is 

nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amendments 

to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that 

practice. 

 Response: As explained above, EPA believes the 

reasoning in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA applies equally to section 129. Additionally, EPA 

explains above the reasons it is not establishing different 

emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the 

proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pressure 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 479

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion 

temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) would not 

be achievable. They explained that these ranges are too 

narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the 

operating standards already required by 40 CFR 60 subpart 

O, 40 CFR 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed 

with the proposed operating parameter ranges. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by 

the commenters and determined that proposed procedure for 

establishing the operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the 

average of three test runs and as 90 percent of the minimum 

value recorded during the applicable performance tests) may 

be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of 

energy or other operating needs. We determined that the 

operating limits should be more appropriately based on 

values recorded during the performance test runs. The 

final rule requires that operating limits be established on 

a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, as 

appropriate) operating parameter value measured during the 

performance test. This approach has been incorporated into 

the final rule for all operating parameters and will result 

in achievable operating ranges that will ensure that the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 479

control devices used for compliance will be operated to 

achieve continuous compliance with the emissions limits. 

Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed 

operating range for sludge feed rate would not be 

achievable, that it results in the EPA changing the current 

state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and that it could 

force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum 

rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach 

fails to take into account the normal feed condition and 

rate variation that occur on a daily and seasonal basis. A 

few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent 

to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a steadier 

state of control and more efficient combustion of the 

sludge. 

Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating 

range for sludge moisture content would not be achievable 

and that EPA does not need sludge moisture content to 

determine whether SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. They explained that sludge moisture is 

very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, 

seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by a SSI, 

temperature changes, the biological systems that treat the 

sewage, and to operational changes, and that these changes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 479

cannot always be anticipated and are not always immediately 

correctable. 

Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to 

require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge within 

specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit 

for temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner 

temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion 

practice, and that moisture content is not needed to 

establish that SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture content, 

the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with their 

operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber. 

We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge 

moisture content within specified ranges. We are also no 

longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates 

within specified ranges due to the seasonal variability at 

wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate information 

is necessary during performance test runs to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that 

they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We 

are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of 

sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI units 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 479

should already be keeping records of these parameters, and 

this information will be useful in establishing 

representative operating limitations for a SSI unit. 

EPA added a requirement that performance tests be 

conducted at 85 percent of the permitted maximum capacity. 

This level has been selected based on the performance test 

operating information provided by the commenters and 

previous EPA standards. 

Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour 

rolling averaging period selected in the proposed rule for 

determining compliance with the operating parameters and CO 

limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They 

explained that the recordkeeping and compliance burden is 

less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both 

based on a 24-hour block average. They also explained that 

the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis 

would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to 

achieve with FB incinerators. 

Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block 

averaging period for compliance with the CO CEMS 

requirement for new sources will provide a sufficient 

indication of compliance and will allow more flexibility 

for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 479

guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI 

units has changed in the final guidelines to 27 ppm, and 

this change is discussed in Section IV of this preamble. 

We have also revised the averaging periods for all other 

operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH, to be on a 

12-hour block average instead of a 4-hour rolling average 

basis in order to relate the averaging time for operating 

limits to the duration of the performance tests (e.g., a 

three run test of 4 hour test runs would equal a 12-hour 

averaging time). For scrubber liquid pH, we chose 3-hour 

averages to be consistent with the performance test 

duration for acid gas scrubbers. 

In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the 

alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 129 

requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regulated 

pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be used in 

place of the regulated pollutants. 

Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the 

requirement in the proposed rule for annual testing, and 

argued that annual testing of each SSI is not needed to 

demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsistent with 

current Title V permits. They also argued that Method 22 

compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 479

feasible or difficult to conduct due to space constraints, 

and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash removal 

systems that do not require annual testing. They explained 

that the cost for emissions testing may be significantly 

higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They 

further explained that Title V permits require facilities 

to test each of its SSI units once per 5 years. They 

pointed out that current management practices and strict 

health-based sludge content limits under the CWA section 

405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help ensure 

that SSI units are in compliance with their emission 

limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed 

compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will 

essentially shorten the testing year by one month each 

year. 

Response: The proposed standards included provisions 

for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has 

revised these provisions, making it easier for facilities 

to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less 

frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that 

facilities that do less frequent testing are well below 

their emission limits. In the final standards, owners or 

operators are required to establish that emissions of a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 479

given pollutant are under a specified threshold for two 

consecutive years, rather than 3 years as proposed, to 

qualify for less frequent testing for that pollutant. We 

have also extended the option to do less frequent testing 

to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. The 

threshold is 75 percent of the emission limit for each of 

the nine regulated pollutants. In order to allow a 

decrease in testing frequency, EPA must have assurance that 

SSI units can meet a more stringent threshold than the 

limits. This is particularly necessary because of the 

variability in sludge that may occur at wastewater 

treatment facilities. Additionally, in the final standards 

we are also providing assurance that the SSI unit is being 

operated properly and emission limits are being met 

continuously by requiring stringent parametric monitoring 

requirements. Specifically, exceedances of the minimum or 

maximum values established during the performance tests are 

considered deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash 

handling, owners or operators must demonstrate that visible 

emissions occur no more than 2 percent of the time during 

each Method 22 1-hour observation period. This allowance 

for fugitive ash emissions has been included in the final 

standards with a new requirement that all facilities must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 479

submit a monitoring plan at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test to establish that their ash 

handling system will continuously meet the visible 

emissions limit. 

Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility 

regarding their test dates, to ensure that facilities are 

not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months, and to 

ensure that facilities are testing once per year, we have 

revised the testing schedule provisions. In the final 

standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that 

qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a 

calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar months and 

no more than 15 calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and facilities must complete five 

performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that the 

definition of “process change” be revised to exclude the 

provision that a process change include an increase in the 

allowable wastewater received from an industrial source. 

They pointed out that any such increase would trigger a 

performance test, as required by the proposed standards, 

and that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 479

explained that industrial discharges often constitute only 

a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3.5 

percent, four to eight percent), that such discharges are 

sometimes from sources that do not discharge the pollutants 

regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food 

processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities 

regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from other 

regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it 

is difficult for impossible to anticipate some industrial 

load changes ahead of time. Several commenters argued that 

this proposed requirement would be redundant to the 

National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, which are 

incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require them to 

establish local limits on industrial discharges to prevent 

interference with sludge processes, use, and disposal. The 

commenters anticipate that they would establish similar 

limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission 

limits. A few commenters suggested that the proposed 

provision for industrial discharges is vague and open to 

interpretation. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process 

change” and agrees with the commenters that there are some 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 479

situations where an increase in the allowable wastewater 

received from an industrial source should not trigger a 

performance test. We have revised the definition of 

“process change” to more specifically and clearly identify 

the type of process change that will trigger a performance 

test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” 

as pollutant-specific and as including only situations 

where the SSI has undergone a significant permit revision. 

This revision will ensure that facilities retest whenever 

they have a significant change in the process that could 

trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant. 

Comment: Several commenters requested EPA clarify 

what equipment are included as part of the SSI unit. The 

commenters stated that the proposed rules do not specify 

the equipment and without clarification, a SSI unit could 

be interpreted inconsistently or over-broadly. Commenters

requested clarification regarding whether the 

“modification” (which refers to an “SSI unit”) applies to 

the multiple hearth or fluid bed “reactor” or whether it 

includes the entire system including all air emission 

controls and auxiliary equipment. 

Response: We agree that the definition of the SSI 

unit in the proposed rule was unclear as to what equipment 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 479

constitutes the SSI unit. We have revised the definition 

of SSI unit in the final rule. A SSI unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. We have 

clarified that a SSI unit also includes, but is not limited 

to, the sewage sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed 

system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery 

equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit 

includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom 

ash handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system 

ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment that 

transfers the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not 

include air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 479

 As discussed in sections IV and V of this preamble, we 

have made several revisions to the impacts analyses for the 

final rules. We have incorporated revisions to the 

variability calculation. These revisions include: 

incorporating weighted UPL’s for existing FB units, 

selecting log-normal results when it is not clear that data 

are normally distributed, and revising CO limits based on 

an analysis of the span of the test. The result of these 

changes increased UPL values for most pollutants. 

Additionally, we have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. We have also revised the calculation of 

baseline emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI 

units where information was not available. These changes 

resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for each of 

the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL and 

decreased baseline emissions resulted in less SSI units 

estimated to need additional control to meet the MACT floor 

limits. 

For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floor 

level of control for both subcategories instead of 

selecting a beyond-the-floor requirement. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 479

For the final rules we have also revised the types of 

controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI 

that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb 

to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a 

more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. We 

have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will 

need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor limits. 

As at proposal, we have costed out packed-bed scrubbers for 

SSI that we estimate will need further control of HCl or 

SO2. 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions 

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits. As discussed in section V of this 

preamble, we have revised the estimation of baseline 

emissions and emission reductions to present a range to 

show the variability in the emission calculations between 

estimated actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. 

Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The 

analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 479

of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI 

Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits 

Pollutant 

Range of Reductions Achieved 

Through Meeting MACT By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Reductions 

FB MH (TPY) 

Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 

CO 0 0 0 

HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 

Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 

NOx 6.8-16 0 6.8-16 

Pb 0 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

0 

0 

0 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

0 

0 

0 

PM 0 58-70 58-70 

SO2 17-21 420-680 430-700 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, 

which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 234 million gallons per year of additional 

wastewater will be generated as a result of operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 479

additional controls or increased sorbents. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 

Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the 

proposed emission limits consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. We 

anticipate that an additional 5,420 megawatt-hours per year 

will be required for the additional and improved control 

devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The combustion of fuel needed to generate 

additional electricity will yield slight increases in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 479

emissions, including NOx, CO, PM and SO2 and an increase in 

CO2 emissions. Since NOx and SO2 are covered by capped 

emissions trading programs, and methodological limitations 

prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do 

not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for this 

rule from additional electricity demand. 

5. What are the cost and economic impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing 

units to add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, 

inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to 

comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standards). 

Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $55 million with an associated total 

annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and using 

a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of 

this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will 

need to install one or more air pollution control devices 

for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission 

limits. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in 

the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 479

Table 13. Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities 

Comply With Proposed Emission Limits (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 10.1 3.1 

MH 45.0 14.7 

Total 55.0 17.8 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At 

proposal, we evaluated landfilling as an alternative 

disposal method. We have revised our costs and impacts of 

this alternative based on comments received on the proposal 

and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of this 

preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this 

alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather 

than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of 

the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

However, the selection of a management option for sewage 

sludge is often a local decision that is based on 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 479

environmental protection concerns, community needs, 

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, 

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

Table 14. Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that 

Landfill in Lieu of Incineration (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 278 38 

MH 313 42.7 

Total 591 80.7 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units

As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI 

units constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB 

incinerators, and information provided by the industry on 

likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI units 

constructed are likely to be FB incinerators. 

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions 

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits on two new FB incinerators potentially 

being constructed in the next 5 years. Table 15 of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 479

preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT 

compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 

Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 15. Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., 

Fluidized Bed Incinerators) Constructed 

Pollutant Emission Reduction (TPY) 

Cd 0 

CDD/CDF, TEQ 0.0000000033 

CDD/CDF, TMB 0.000000051 

CO 0.26 

HCl 0 

Hg 0.0026 

NOx 14 

Pb 0.00053 

PM 0 

PM2.5 0 

SO2 0 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources would need to apply 

controls in addition to what they would have planned to 

include in the absence of this rule to meet the final 

emission limits. These controls may utilize water, such as 

wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 479

an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of 

additional wastewater will be generated as a result of 

operating additional controls or increased sorbents for the 

two new units expected to come on-line in the next 5 years. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

Likewise, the application of PM controls results in 

particulate collected that would require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be used by some 

sources, which would result in solid waste needing 

disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will 

require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY 

from activated carbon injection for the two units. 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the final 

emission limits would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 479

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 megawatthours per year will be required for the additional and 

improved control devices for the two new units modeled to 

come on-line in the next 5 years. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of Secondary 

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category 

Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 

5. What are the cost impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units 

coming on-line in the next 5 years. This analysis is based 

on a model plant, the assumption that two new units will 

come on-line and will add the necessary controls, 

monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI 

standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an 

overall total capital investment of $8 million (2008$) with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 479

an associated total annualized cost of $2 million (2008$ 

and using a seven percent discount rate). This analysis 

assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB 

incinerators. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this 

action is a "significant regulatory action” because it was 

likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more based on the proposed standards. However, 

the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed 

standards we are simply updating the RIA rather than 

revising it. 

A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 479

proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on the 

lower costs associated with the selected alternative in 

this final action we are providing an update of the RIA 

rather than completely revising the RIA. Within this 

update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the 

controls analyzed and have provided a comparison of the 

selected controls with the alternatives.13 While the 

characteristics of the controls analyzed have changed, we 

have also provided a comparison of the costs and benefits 

of the proposed controls analyzed with the selected 

alternative in this final action. A summary of the 

differences are presented below. 

• Costs for the selected controls analyzed for 

promulgation are 80% lower and benefits are 81% lower 

than they were for the selected controls analyzed for 

proposal. 

• Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a 

government provided service that does not involve a 

market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts were 

 

13 In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred to as Option 1 (MACT 

floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and 

Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated carbon injection 

and fabric filter for MH units).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 479

estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impact 

analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to 

total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% 

lower for the selected controls analyzed for 

promulgation compared to the proposed controls analyzed, 

the control costs are expected to be a smaller portion 

of government revenues for the selected controls for 

promulgation than they were for the proposed controls. 

• Because of insufficient information, employment changes 

due to the requirements for operating and maintaining 

control equipment were not estimated. Also, we did not 

have the information needed to estimate any labor 

changes related to governmental decisions to switch from 

incineration to landfilling. 

• Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the 

selected option by $3 million to $34 million at three 

percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven percent. 

The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NOx and SO2, ecosystem effects, and 

visibility impairment have not been monetized, including 

reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of 

Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd. 

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and 

EG (millions of $2008) 

MACT Floor (Selected) 3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

Costs $18 to $18 $18 to $18 

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

Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

NSPS and EG 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 479

Total Monetized Benefits for 

Final Controls Analyzed 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH units 

$20 to $50 $18 to $45 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and

Activated carbon injection and

fabric filter for MH units 

$55 to $140 $50 to $130

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

MACT Floor (millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

Selected Controls Analyzed 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$11

0 

t

o 

$270

$10

0 

t

o 

$250

Final (MACT Floor) $21 

t

o 

$52 $19 

t

o 

$47 

% Change -81% -81% 

Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG 

Total Costs for Final Controls 

Analyzed (millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

MACT Floor (Selected) $18 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 479

MACT Floor + Afterburner for 

MH units 

$46 

MACT Floor + Afterburner and

activated carbon injection + 

fabric filter for MH units 

$138 

Costs Changes for MACT Floor 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all 

comply) 

$63 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -71% 

Cost Changes for Selected 

Controls Analyzed (millions of 

2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) 

$92 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -80% 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

information collection requirements are not enforceable 

until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA 

have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, 

and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 479

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

rule are based on the information collection requirements 

in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provisions (40 

CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory 

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

information other than emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The requirements in this action result in industry 

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review 

of the amendments for all SSI and initial and annual 

compliance with the emission limits using EPA approved 

emissions test methods. The burden also includes 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. Operators are required to obtain 

qualification and complete annual training. New units are 

also required to submit a report prior to construction, 

including a siting analysis. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 479

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 

Subparts LLLL and MMMM. An affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can 

demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are 

satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 C.F.R. 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by 

poor maintenance and or careless operation) and where the 

source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In 

addition, the source must meet certain notification and 

reporting requirements. For example, the source must 

prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written 

report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the 

conditions and requirements for assertion of the 

affirmative defense. 

To provide the public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by a source, EPA 

provides an administrative adjustment to this ICR that 

shows what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 479

requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense might entail. EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and records, including the 

root cause analysis, totals $3,141 and is based on the time 

and effort required of a source to review relevant data, 

interview plant employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of 

an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and reports for submission to 

EPA. EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only incurred if there has 

been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of 

the affirmative defense. 

The annual average burden associated with the emission 

guidelines over the first 3 years following promulgation is 

estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours 

at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and total 

annualized capital/startup and operation and maintenance 

costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the 

monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and 

photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. 

The annual inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor costs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 479

The annual average burden associated with the NSPS 

over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated 

to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost of 

$40,000. The total annualized capital/startup costs are 

estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumulative 

annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in this final. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 479

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action 

on small entities, a small entity is defined as follows: 

1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; or 

3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

In the proposal, we certified that there would not be 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The economic analysis conducted at 

proposal identified 18 small entities none of which had 

cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost 

analysis for the final standards showed a significant 

decrease (35 to 98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 

small entities. The cost-revenue-ratios were again 

estimated using the costs for the final rule and the same 

revenue estimates used in the proposal screening analysis. 

The revenue estimates were obtained using census average 

per capita revenue numbers ($1,696 for entities with 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 479

populations between 10 thousand and 25 thousand and $1,677 

for entities with populations between 25 thousand and 50 

thousand) The resulting cost-revenue-ratios ranged between 

0.04% and 0.5. Thus all cost-revenue-ratios were well 

below 1%. Therefore, we consider the final rule to have no 

significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

After considering the economic impacts of this final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, this is not 

considered to be a significant impact. 

Although the final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule 

on small entities by allowing optional CEMS instead of 

requiring them, allowing information from tests conducted 

in recent years to show compliance rather than require all 

new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued 

compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 479

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this final rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the 

UMRA a written statement that is summarized in section 

VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, October 14, 

2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found 

in the docket. 

At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the 

estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA 

prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of costs and 

benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. Based on 

estimated compliance costs associated with the final rule 

and the predicted change in prices and production in the 

affected industries, the estimated social costs of the 

final rule are $55 million ($). 

At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities 

expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consistent 

with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 479

section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are discussed 

in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260). 

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Because this final rule’s requirements 

apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by 

governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private 

entities, there would be no requirements that uniquely 

apply to such government or impose any disproportionate 

impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an 

action that has federalism implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 479

incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults 

with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated expenditures of 

greater than $100 million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA 

consulted with elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national organizations, 

when developing regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state and local 

governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local government officials, 

as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 

FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on 

the action. The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the 

proposed standards and EG for SSI units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have 

federalism implications, as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’s 

direct compliance costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 479

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or 

operated by an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, 

Executive Order 13175 did not appear to have implications. 

However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outreach and 

discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts. 

EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and 

specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed 

action from tribal contacts in the proposal period via the 

NTAA conference calls. 

EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; 

those comments can be reviewed in the public docket, 

document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559-0130.1. Commenters 

expressed that SSI units located in proximity to Indian 

country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger 

tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from 

the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 479

failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the 

standards and have failed to fully assess the potential 

impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly, 

commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that 

accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can 

acquire a better understanding on how they might be 

affected by such sites and these standards in general. 

EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to 

discuss the rule development process, first to provide 

general information on the development of the SSI standards 

and second providing more specific background information 

on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locations of 

units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying 

questions and requested information if any NTAA members 

were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge 

in Indian Country. EPA will provide a map overlay for the 

SSI docket so that tribes can acquire a better 

understanding on how they might be affected by SSI sites 

and the standards in general. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 479

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This final action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 

solely on technology performance. We note however, that 

reductions in air emissions by these facilities will 

improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 

104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 479

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Service 

Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted 

VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 

decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses," for its manual methods of measuring the 

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These 

parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to 

EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the 

ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), 

"Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, ParticleBound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)" is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also decided to 

use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, l0A, l0B, 22, 23, 

26A, 29 and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 479

22. 

During the search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference 

method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it 

as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards 

were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires significant method 

validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA 

reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

The search identified other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined 

that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 

(2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC¬38-1980 (1985), ASTM 

D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981, IS0 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM 

D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 

(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 479

(2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/CSA 

Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 

1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA 

Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final rule and any 

amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 479

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection 

for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any 

minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the 

Agency has reviewed this final rule to determine if there 

was existing disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An 

analysis of demographic data showed that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus 

most likely to be effected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national averages. The results 

of the demographic analysis are presented in “Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy of which 

is available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 479

This final action establishes national emission 

standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 204 such units 

covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions 

of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This 

includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. Adverse health 

effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of 

the lungs, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central 

nervous system and damage to the kidneys and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NOx, PM and 

PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NOx are precursors for 

the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions 

will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health 

effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and 

acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. For additional information, 

please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. In EPA’s July 2010 “Interim Guidance on 

Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of 

an Action,” EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 479

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. 

To help achieve EPA’s goal for Environmental Justice 

(i.e., the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people), EPA places particular emphasis on the public 

health of and environmental conditions affecting minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations. In recognizing that 

these populations frequently bear a disproportionate burden 

of environmental harms and risks, EPA works to protect them 

from adverse public health and environmental effects of its 

programs. EPA looks at the vulnerabilities of these 

populations because they have historically been exposed to 

a combination of physical, chemical, biological, social, 

and cultural factors that have imposed greater 

environmental burdens on them than those imposed on the 

general population. 

To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a 

communication and outreach strategy to ensure that 

interested communities have access to this final rule, are 

aware of its content and have an opportunity to comment 

during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA 

publicized the rulemaking via environmental newsletters, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 479

tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and 

the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will 

also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is 

this important for my community) for environmental justice 

community groups and conduct conference calls with 

interested communities. In addition, state and federal 

permitting requirements will provide state and local 

governments and members of affected communities the 

opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions 

associated with permitting the sources affected by this 

rulemaking. 

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

states. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 479

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units--Page 178 of 479 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

_______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 479 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93); 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4); and 

c. Adding paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), approved April 1, 2008, IBR 

approved for §§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 

to subpart CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

§§60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 479

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4), §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), §60.106(e)(2), 

§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), 

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), §60.105a(d)(4), 

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

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

(a)(3)(v), and §60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§§60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 479

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 272-0167, 

http://www.epa.gov. 

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997, IBR approved for 

§§60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2), 60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 

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

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and 

MMMM to read as follows: 

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit? 

60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart? 

60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 

60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured? 

60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 479

performance standards apply at the same time? 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis? 

60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

Operator Training and Qualification 

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 

60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of 

60.4835(a)? 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits? 

60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 479

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 479

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.4910 What records must I keep? 

60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

Title V Operating Permits 

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit? 

Definitions 

60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.4760 What does this subpart do?

This subpart establishes new source performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 479

standards for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To 

the extent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent 

with the requirements of subpart A of this part, the 

requirements of this subpart will apply. 

§60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Some of the requirements in this 

subpart apply to planning a SSI unit and must be completed 

even before construction is initiated on a SSI unit (i.e., 

the preconstruction requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). 

Other requirements such as the emission limits, emission 

standards, and operating limits apply after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

§60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit?

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets 

all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit for which 

construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 479

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit as defined in 

§60.4930. 

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under §60.4780. 

§60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?

(a) A new SSI unit is a SSI unit that meets either of 

the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010. 

(2) Commenced modification after [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI 

unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM 

of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not qualify 

as a modification under this subpart. 

§60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 479

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

§60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by 

the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If 

the Administrator has delegated authority to your state, 

local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the 

Administrator) has the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal 

agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in 

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

(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 479

and standards in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and 

operating limits established under §60.4850. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(5) The requirements in §60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in §60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 and 

§60.4805. 

§60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured?

These new source performance standards contain the 

nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) 

of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 479

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 

performance standards apply at the same time?

No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence construction of the SSI 

unit. The operator training and qualification, emission 

limits, emission standards, operating limits, performance 

testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to 

commence construction of a SSI unit after October 14, 2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are 

required to submit an initial application for a 

construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the modification of your 

SSI unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 479

§60.4805 What is a siting analysis?

(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution 

control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific 

basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks 

to public health or the environment, including impacts of 

the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visibility, 

soils, and vegetation. In considering such alternatives, 

the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair 

environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s impacts that are 

prepared to comply with state, local, or other federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to satisfy the 

requirements of this section, provided they include the 

consideration of air pollution control alternatives 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the siting 

requirements of this section as required under 

§60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 479

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4835. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 479

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator 

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 479

(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(b) The date before an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2). 

§60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 479

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods 

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

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.4825. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.4820(a). 

§60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 479

review of the information specified in §60.4840 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.4915(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 479

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the 

information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 479

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee’s 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

§60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating, and during 

periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards 

apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage 

sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 198 of 479

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, re-established in §60.4890. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.4890(a)(2)(i). 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

an emission limit, you must meet the site-specific 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 199 of 479

operating limits that you establish in §60.4870 for each 

operating parameter associated with each air pollution 

control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §§60.4880(b) and 60.4905(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time 

as specified in §60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.4880(d) to ensure that your ash 

handling system will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed 

rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its 

initial startup, whichever comes first. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 479

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, re-established according to §60.4890(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.4855. 

§60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 479

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions in some 

other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requirements 

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

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.4870. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 479

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this 

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters, 

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will 

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 479

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.4845, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 204 of 479

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices, and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that 

could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance, and (2) 

Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limits were being exceeded. Off-shift 

and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to 

make these repairs, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 205 of 479

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions, and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

severe property damage, and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health, and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, and 

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs, and 

(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated 

in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions, and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 479

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during 

a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of 

the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a written report to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in §60.4845 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) 

of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 479

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedance. 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option 

to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as 

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

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 479

calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). Except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate, or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that your SSI 

unit meets the emission limits and standards specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from 

ash handling using the performance test. The initial 

performance test must be conducted using the test methods, 

averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or 

durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and 

according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §60.4900(a). 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated 

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 209 of 479

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system specified in §60.4900(b). For 

determining compliance with the carbon monoxide 

concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the 

correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon 

monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 479

emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 

substitute the use of a continuous monitoring system in 

lieu of conducting the initial performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, 

you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 211 of 479

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 212 of 479

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems according to the provisions of 

§60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be conducted 

using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 

§60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 4 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 479

to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified 

in §60.4915(c). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 479

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.4855, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.4865. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.4890(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or re-establish new operating limits using 

operating data recorded during any performance tests or 

performance evaluations required in §60.4885. You must 

follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and 

data averaging times specified in Table 3 to this subpart 

or as established in §60.4855, and you must follow the 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements specified 

in §§60.4900 and 60.4905 or established in §60.4855. You 

are not required to establish operating limits for the 

operating parameters listed in Table 3 to this subpart for 

a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Table 

1 or 2 to this subpart for the applicable pollutants, as 

follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor , scrubber 

liquid flow rate or scrubber liquid pH if you use the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 479

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if you use 

the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) 

and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection plates, or effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, and lead. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor sorbent injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 216 of 479

rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure 

drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified 

in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 

carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at 

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 217 of 479

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride 

emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average power measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits. Power input must be 

calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator 

collection plates. Both the secondary voltage and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 479

secondary amperage must be recorded during the performance 

test. 

(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

(h) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 479

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.§60.4875 By what date 

must I conduct the initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of 

installing an air pollution control device or within 180 

days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollution 

control device, whichever comes first. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 479

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 221 of 479

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 479

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to the following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 479

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., particulate matter scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 479

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a 

two-point calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating limit) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 225 of 479

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range.(4) Conduct a temperature 

measurement device performance evaluation at the time of 

each performance test but no less frequently than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

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

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 

and current to the electrostatic precipitator collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 479

plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 479

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) 

of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section, you must take the necessary corrective action and 

must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 479

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

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

section. 

(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 479

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level. The alarm must be located where it is 

observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–

015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, 

including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the 

bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection 

system equipped with a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 230 of 479

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan and §60.13(c). For the purposes of 

this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also apply to the 

bag leak detection system. You must conduct the initial 

performance evaluation of each continuous monitoring system 

within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

ash handling system operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that your meet the fugitive emissions 

limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 231 of 479

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 232 of 479

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 479

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 479

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow 

the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have 

the option to demonstrate continuous compliance using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You 

must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section, according to the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and 

(b). You may also petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed, you 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 479

must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on 

an annual basis (between 11 and 13 calendar months 

following the previous performance test). The performance 

test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §60.4900(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 

days of a process change, as defined in §60.4930. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you can conduct performance tests less 

often for a given pollutant, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if 

your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 

consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 

75 percent of the emission limit specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, and there are no changes in the operation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 479

of the affected source or air pollution control equipment 

that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not 

have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for 

the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test 

during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 

previous performance test. 

(ii) If your SSI unit continues to meet the emission 

limit for the pollutant, you may choose to conduct 

performance tests for the pollutant every third year if 

your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission 

limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of the 

affected source or air pollution control equipment that 

could increase emissions, but each such performance test 

must be conducted no more than 37 months after the previous 

performance test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 

75 percent of the emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until 

all performance tests over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance.(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 479

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system specified 

in §60.4900(b). For determining compliance with the carbon 

monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, 

the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during 

periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon 

monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 238 of 479

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual 

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements specified in 

§60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to 

§60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour block 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 479

average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission 

concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 240 of 479

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octa-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 479

chlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation 

report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 242 of 479

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.4880 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.4880(e). 

§60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits?

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

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

(d) of this section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 243 of 479

established in §60.4855. To determine compliance, you must 

use the data averaging period specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak 

detection system) unless a different averaging period is 

established under §60.4855. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.4855 and 

60.4870 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 244 of 479

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below 

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or re-establish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.4850(d). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 245 of 479

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test required in 

§60.4885(a) or any performance evaluation required in 

§60.4885(b)(5). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.4900(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 246 of 479

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 479

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging methods specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 248 of 479

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 249 of 479

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 250 of 479

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator’s 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 251 of 479

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before starting use of the continuous monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator one month 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 479

before stopping use of the continuous monitoring system, in 

which case you must also conduct a performance test prior 

to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with the modifications shown in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 253 of 479

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, 

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 479

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 

possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in paragraph 

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

within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the continuous 

emissions monitoring systems and the test methods specified 

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

section. Relative accuracy testing must be at 

representative operating conditions while the SSI unit is 

charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 255 of 479

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used as specified in 

Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used. Alternatively for 

mercury, Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or ASTM 

D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be 

used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative 

accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system should be no greater than 20 

percent of the mean value of the method test data in terms 

of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per 

million dry volume absolute value of the mean difference 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 256 of 479

between the method and the continuous emissions monitoring 

system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 479

must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 

same location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

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

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 479

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 259 of 479

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

( 

(2) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in §60.4880. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(i). (d) 

Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 260 of 479

sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates the performance test. 

§60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

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

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 261 of 479

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in your annual deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 479

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

( 

 

 (b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 479

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

 (3) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 479

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.4910 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result 

of the siting requirements of §§60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 479

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the 

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 479

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of §60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.4840(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.4810, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 267 of 479

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test 

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs, as specified in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that 

the performance test was conducted under conditions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 479

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all 

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid 

flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 479

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used 

to comply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate 

or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.4850(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 479

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.4890. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.4855, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.4900(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.4915(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 479

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibrations, and validations checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.4900 and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.4880, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. If, consistent with 

60.4885(a)(3), you elect to conduct performance tests less 

frequently than annually, you must keep annual records that 

document that your emissions in the 2 previous consecutive 

years were at or below 75 percent of the applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, and 

document that there were no changes in source operations or 

air pollution control equipment that would cause emissions 

of the relevant pollutant to increase within the past 2 

years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 479

required under §60.4905(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record 

of the information submitted in your annual report in 

§60.4915(d)(16). 

§60.4915 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (j) of this section. See Table 5 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a 

notification prior to commencing construction that includes 

the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 

of this section: 

(1) A statement of intent to construct. 

(2) The anticipated date of commencement of 

construction. 

(3) All documentation produced as a result of the 

siting requirements of §60.4805. 

(4) Anticipated date of initial startup. 

(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit 

the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: 

(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity. 

(2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 479

feed rate. 

(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits specified in §60.4855. 

(4) The anticipated date of initial startup. 

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.4880, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 274 of 479

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.4875, including a 

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(16) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 275 of 479

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.4920.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the 

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average value and lowest average value recorded during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 276 of 479

reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and 

continuous automated sampling systems, report the highest 

and lowest 24-hour average emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

report the following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber 

liquid pH, the highest and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-

hour average values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.4910(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 479

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

conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you 

must include the dates of the last two performance tests, a 

comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 

two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in §60.4885(a)(3), and a statement as 

to whether there have been any process changes and whether 

the process change resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI 

unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but 

less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring system was out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 278 of 479

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(e) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on 

the averaging time specified in Table 3 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 479

operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions 

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated 

from any emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 280 of 479

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items 

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

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime 

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring 

data during each deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 479

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 282 of 479

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items: 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 283 of 479

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI 

during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standard. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(f) Qualified operator deviation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 284 of 479

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

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

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to 

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 285 of 479

notify the Administrator within 5 days of meeting 

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

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 479

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

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

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

previously made in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(i) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 479

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. (j) Changing report dates. If the 

Administrator agrees, you may change the semi-annual or 

annual reporting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to 

seek approval to change your reporting date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating permit 

unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption 

specified in §60.4780. 

§60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit?

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a 

complete Title V permit application must be submitted on or 

before one of the dates specified in paragraph (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 288 of 479

Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)). 

(1) For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

SSI unit as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted not later than [INSERT 

THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) For a SSI unit that does not commence operation 

as a new SSI unit until after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

then a complete title V permit application must be 

submitted not later than 12 months after the date the unit 

commences operation as a new source. 

(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

subject to title V as a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than this subpart (for example, a unit 

subject to this subpart may be a major source or part of a 

major source), then your unit may be required to apply for 

a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one 

requirement triggers a source’s obligation to apply for a 

title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V 

permit application is triggered by the requirement that 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 289 of 479

first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See 

section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and 

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

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

(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one 

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Definitions 

§60.4930 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Affected source means a sewage sludge incineration 

unit as defined in §60.4930. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 479

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or off-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 291 of 479

site analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 479

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 293 of 479

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 479

Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means 

an existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as 

defined in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

New sewage sludge incineration unit means a SSI unit 

the construction of which is commenced after October 14, 

2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a modified 

solid waste incineration unit. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 295 of 479

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 296 of 479

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A SSI 

unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage 

sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if 

any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit includes all ash 

handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers 

the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not include 

air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 479

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 479

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 4 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of a SSI unit that 

meets the criteria in §60.4770. 

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

9.6 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 299 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.24 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 300 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

27 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data). For 

determining 

compliance with 

the carbon 

monoxide 

concentration 

limit using carbon 

monoxide CEMS, the 

correction to 7 

percent oxygen 

does not apply 

during periods of 

startup or 

shutdown. Use the 

measured carbon 

monoxide 

concentration 

without correcting 

for oxygen 

concentration in 

averaging with 

other carbon 

monoxide 

concentrations 

(corrected to 7 

percent oxygen) to 

determine the 24-

hour average 

value. 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a RA of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of 

Procedure 1, +/- 

15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.013 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0044 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.0010 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c . 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

30 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 303 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 5.3 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 100 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, sample for a 

minimum duration 

of one hour per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981.c

Cadmium 0.0011 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Use GFAAS or 

ICP/MS for the 

analytical 

finish. 

Lead 0.00062 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the 

analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 305 of 479

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

60 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 0.75 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 26, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 200 liters 

per run. For 

Method 26A, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 306 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

52 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 

1-hour averages 

of data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring system. 

(Performance 

Specification 4B 

of this part, 

using a low-range 

span of 100 ppm 

and a high-range 

span of 1000 ppm, 

and a relative 

accuracy of 0.5 

ppm instead of 5 

ppm specified in 

section 13.2. For 

the cylinder gas 

audit of Procedure 

1, +/- 15% or 0.5 

whichever is 

greater). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 307 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.045 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0022 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.15 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(For Method 29 

and ASTM D6784-

02 (Reapproved 

2008)c , collect 

a minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run. 

For Method 30B, 

collect a 

minimum sample 

as specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c, . 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

210 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-4). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 309 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry

volume 

3-run average 

(For Method 6, 

collect a 

minimum volume 

of 200 liters 

per run. For 

Method 6C, 

collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C at 

40 CFR part 40, 

appendix A-4; or 

ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981.c

Cadmium 0.0024 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the analytical 

finish. 

Lead 0.0035 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a 

minimum volume 

of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. Use 

GFAAS or ICP/MS 

for the analytical 

finish. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 310 of 479

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging 

methods and 

minimum sampling 

volumes or 

durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa

For these 

operating 

You must 

establish 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 311 of 479

parameters these 

operating 

limits 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Fugitive 

emissions 

from ash 

handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not applicable

Scrubber 

Pressure drop 

across each 

wet scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Scrubber 

liquid flow 

rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block.

Scrubber 

liquid pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

3-hour block. 

Fabric Filter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 312 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Alarm time of

the bag leak 

detection 

system alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system

alarm (this operating limit is provided in §60.4850

and is not established on a site-specific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 313 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary 

voltage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 12-hour block 

Secondary 

amperage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent water 

flow rate at 

the outlet of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 12-hour block 

Activated carbon injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 314 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data averaging 

period for 

compliance 

Mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block 

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection rate

Carrier gas 

flow rate or 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

12-hour block 

aAs specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block average 

specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You 

maintain records of 1-hour averages.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 479

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 479

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of 

construction 

Prior to 

commencing 

construction 

1. Statement of 

intent to 

construct 

2. Anticipated 

date of 

commencement of 

construction 

3. Documentation 

for siting 

requirements 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(a) 

Notification of 

initial startup 

Prior to initial 

startup 

1. Maximum design 

dry sewage 

sludge burning 

capacity 

2. Anticipated and 

permitted 

maximum feed 

rate 

3. If applicable, 

the petition 

for sitespecific 

operating 

limits 

4. Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(b) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

5. Site-specific 

monitoring plan 

6. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

3. Date of report 

4. Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

5. Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

6. The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods, as 

applicable, 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit 

7. Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

§60.4915(c) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

8. Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

Annual 

compliance 

report 

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

3. Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

4. If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

5. For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

§§60.4915(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

6. If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7. If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms 

8. If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations 

9. If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.4885(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs 

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions 

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 321 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control 

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations 

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan 

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(1)) 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits 

4. The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

5. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

6. Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

§60.4915(e) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 322 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

downtime 

incidents 

7. A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels 

8. For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(3)(

viii) 

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address 

2. Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

3. The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI 

4. The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits 

5. The averaged 

and recorded 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 323 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

data for those 

dates 

6. Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

7. A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards 

8. A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken 

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more) 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation 

2. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available 

3. The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible 

§60.4915(f) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 324 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

deviation 2. The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

3. Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.4835(b)(2)(i

) 

Within 5 days of 

obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2. Rationale for 

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3. Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

§60.4915(g) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 325 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

4. Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

1 month before 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60.4915(h) 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 326 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 327 of 479

Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states? 

60.5015 What must I include in my state plan? 

60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan? 

60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable? 

60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter? 

60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan? 

60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations? 

60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies? 

60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state? 

Applicability of State Plans 

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan? 

60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan? 

Use of Model Rule 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 328 of 479

60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 

60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan? 

60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule? 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of 

progress and achieving final compliance? 

60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress? 

60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 

60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

submittal of a control plan? 

60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

achieving final compliance? 

60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it? 

60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it? 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 

60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 329 of 479

60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)? 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits? 

60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 330 of 479

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.5230 What records must I keep? 

60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit? 

Model Rule—Definitions 

60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

TABLES 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 331 of 479

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes emission guidelines and 

compliance schedules for the control of emissions from 

sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollutants 

addressed by these emission guidelines are listed in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are 

developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent 

any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, the requirements of 

this subpart will apply. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 332 of 479

§60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality 

program in a state or United States protectorate with one 

or more SSI units that commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010, you must submit a state plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSERT 

THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

§60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?

No. You are not required to submit a state plan if 

there are no SSI units for which construction commenced on 

or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you submit a 

negative declaration letter in place of the state plan. 

§60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?

(a) You must include the nine items described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section in your 

state plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those 

that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in 

your state. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 333 of 479

(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit. 

(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator 

training and qualification requirements, and operating 

limits for affected SSI units that are at least as 

protective as the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan 

was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational 

affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or written submission. 

(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms 

that you selected for implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your state’s legal authority to 

carry out the sections 111(d) and 129 state plan. 

(b) Your state plan may deviate from the format and 

content of the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. However, if your state plan does deviate in 

content, you must demonstrate that your state plan is at 

least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 334 of 479

this subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory 

applicability, increments of progress for retrofit, 

operator training and qualification, emission limits and 

standards, performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of 

this part (Adoption and Submittal of state plans for 

Designated Facilities) in your state plan. 

§60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?

Yes. The EPA will review your state plan according to 

§60.27. 

§60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?

If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a 

negative declaration letter) by [INSERT THE DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA will develop a federal plan 

according to §60.27 to implement the emission guidelines 

contained in this subpart. Owners and operators of SSI 

units not covered by an approved state plan must comply 

with the federal plan. The federal plan is an interim 

action and will be automatically withdrawn when your state 

plan is approved. 

§60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 335 of 479

declaration letter?

No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative 

declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter 

has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public 

docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register. If, 

at a later date, a SSI unit for which construction 

commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your 

state, the federal plan implementing the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart would automatically 

apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is approved. 

§60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan?

(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or 

before October 14, 2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require SSI units to achieve 

final compliance as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later than the earlier 

of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) Three years after the effective date of state 

plan approval. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 336 of 479

(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 

year following the effective date of state plan approval, 

state plans must include dates for enforceable increments 

of progress as specified in §60.5090. 

§60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B?

Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for 

developing and processing section 111(d) state plans. This 

subpart applies instead of the requirements in subpart B of 

this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section: 

(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

must be as protective as the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to 

comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This applies 

instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

are required to include two increments of progress for the 

affected SSI units. These two minimum increments are the 

final control plan submittal date and final compliance date 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 337 of 479

in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of the 

requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a state plan 

to include all five increments of progress for all SSI 

units. 

§60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there 

other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations?

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations by submitting an acceptable written 

request for delegation of the federal plan that meets the 

requirements of this section. This is the only other 

option for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request 

must include the following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under §60.5015(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(a)(7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on the state 

delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan 

submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 338 of 479

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation 

or written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date of the delegation 

and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of 

authority. Additional guidance and information is given in 

EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) federal 

plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved SSI Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation request for the 

revised federal plan, provided the requirements of 

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

the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal 

of EPA's previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

obligations are separate from its obligations under title V 

of the Clean Air Act. 

§60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state,

local, or tribal agencies?

The authorities that will not be delegated to state, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 339 of 479

local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and 

operating limits established under §60.5175 or §60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in §60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in §60.5155(b)(2). 

(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

§60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state?

(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI 

unit owners and operators in your state. However, SSI unit 

owners and operators must comply with the state plan you 

develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. States may choose to incorporate the model 

rule text directly in their state plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 340 of 479

subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA 

will implement and enforce a federal plan, as provided in 

§60.5025, to ensure that each unit within your state that 

commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010 

reaches compliance with all the provisions of this subpart 

by the dates specified in §60.5035. 

Applicability of State Plans 

§60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) Your state plan must address SSI units that meet 

all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition of a SSI unit 

as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under §60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of a SSI unit makes 

changes that meet the definition of modification after 

[INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSI unit 

becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this part and the state 

plan no longer applies to that unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 341 of 479

(c) If the owner or operator of a SSI unit makes 

physical or operational changes to a SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] primarily to comply with your state 

plan, subpart LLLL of this part does not apply to that 

unit. Such changes do not qualify as modifications under 

subpart LLLL of this part. 

§60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

Use of Model Rule 

§60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart?

(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission 

guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. The model 

rule provides these requirements in regulation format. You 

must develop a state plan that is at least as protective as 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 342 of 479

the model rule. You may use the model rule language as 

part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used 

in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the model rule 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250, 

“you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specified in 

§60.5250. 

§60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan?

Use the model rule to satisfy the state plan 

requirements specified in §60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5). 

§60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule?

The model rule contains the nine major components 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward compliance. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 343 of 479

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments 

of progress and achieving final compliance?

If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year 

following the effective date of state plan approval, you 

must meet the two increments of progress specified in 

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

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?

Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for 

each increment of progress. 

§60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Your notification of achievement of increments of 

progress must include the three items specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of progress has 

been achieved. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 344 of 479

(b) Any items required to be submitted with each 

increment of progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of

achievement of increments of progress?

Notifications for achieving increments of progress 

must be postmarked no later than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?

If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must 

submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment 

of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must inform 

the Administrator that you did not meet the increment, and 

you must continue to submit reports each subsequent 

calendar month until the increment of progress is met. 

§60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for submittal of a control plan?

For your control plan increment of progress, you must 

satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 345 of 479

four items described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of 

this section. 

(1) A description of the devices for air pollution 

control and process changes that you will use to comply 

with the emission limits and standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

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

than sewage sludge is burned in the unit. 

(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning 

capacity. 

(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits under §60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control 

plan. 

§60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for achieving final compliance?

For the final compliance increment of progress, you 

must complete all process changes and retrofit construction 

of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, 

so that, if the affected SSI unit is brought online, all 

necessary process changes and air pollution control devices 

would operate as designed. 

§60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 346 of 479

restart it?

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it 

prior to the final compliance date in your state plan, you 

must meet the increments of progress specified in §60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it 

after your final compliance date, you must complete 

emission control retrofits and meet the emission limits, 

emission standards, and operating limits on the date your 

unit restarts operation. 

§60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it?

If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply 

with the state plan, submit a closure notification, 

including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the 

date your final control plan is due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 347 of 479

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 348 of 479

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the three dates specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 349 of 479

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2). 

§60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash 

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 350 of 479

§60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods 

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

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.5145. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.5140(a). 

§60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 

review of the information specified in §60.5160 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 351 of 479

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 352 of 479

operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.5230(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the 

information listed in §60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.5155(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee's 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 353 of 479

listed in §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and 

Operating Limits and Requirements 

§60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by the final 

compliance date under the approved state plan, federal 

plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission limits 

and standards apply at all times the unit is operating and 

during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and 

standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent 

while sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., 

until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut 

off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge 

incineration residence time. 

§60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I 

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 354 of 479

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, re-established in §60.5210. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you establish in §60.5190 

for each operating parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 355 of 479

system specified in §§60.5200(b) and 60.5225(b)(3)(i) and 

operate the bag leak detection system such that the alarm 

does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 

during a 6-month period. You must calculate the alarm time 

as specified in §60.5210(a)(2)(i). 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.5200(d) to ensure that your ash 

handling system will meet the emission standard for 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section by the final compliance date under the 

approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 356 of 479

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and 

requirements, re-established according to §60.5210(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.5175. 

§60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 357 of 479

activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to 

comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.5190. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this 

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 358 of 479

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters, 

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will 

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 359 of 479

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). For 

determining compliance with the CO concentration limit 

using CO CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not 

apply during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the 

measured CO concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other CO concentrations 

(corrected to 7 percent O2) to determine the 24-hour average 

value. 

§60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.5165, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to meet your 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 360 of 479

burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner, and (ii) Could not have been 

prevented through careful planning, proper design or better 

operation and maintenance practices, and (iii) Did not 

stem from any activity or event that could have been 

foreseen and avoided, or planned for, and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance, and 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible 

when the applicable emission limits were being exceeded. 

Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 361 of 479

practicable to make these repairs, and (3) The frequency, 

amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions, and (4) If the excess 

emissions resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of 

life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health, and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices, and 

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess 

emissions were documented by properly signed, 

contemporaneous operating logs, and 

(8) At all times, the affected facility was operated 

in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions, and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared 

the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and 

eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the 

excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 362 of 479

issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best 

monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of 

excess emissions that were the result of the malfunction. 

(b) The owner or operator of the SSI unit 

experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during 

a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone 

or facsimile (fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the initial occurrence of 

the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense shall also submit a written report to 

the Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in §60.5165 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before 

the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for 

an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit 

such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 363 of 479

exceedance. 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 

limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, you have the option to demonstrate initial 

compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in 

§60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 364 of 479

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling using the performance 

test. The initial performance test must be conducted using 

the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the 

emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to 

this subpart). 

(2) You may use the results from a performance test 

conducted within the 2 previous years that was conducted 

under the same conditions and demonstrated compliance with 

the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, provided no process changes have been made since 

you conducted that performance test. However, you must 

continue to meet the operating limits established during 

the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 365 of 479

2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance test must have 

used the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated 

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.5220(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 366 of 479

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use 

the continuous emissions monitoring system and follow the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 367 of 479

requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour block averages to determine compliance 

with the mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week block averages to determine compliance 

with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) emission limit in Table 2 to this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 368 of 479

subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems by your final compliance date 

(see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures and acceptance 

criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart, determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) Multiply the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

(tetra- through octa-chlorinated) isomer by its 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 369 of 479

corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 5 

to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated in 

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

the total concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms 

of toxic equivalency. 

(d) Submit an initial compliance report, as specified 

in §60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 370 of 479

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating 

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.5175, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.5185. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.5210(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or re-establishre-establish new operating 

limits using operating data recorded during any performance 

tests or performance evaluations required in §60.5205. You 

must follow the data measurement and recording frequencies 

and data averaging times specified in Table 4 to this 

subpart or as established in §60.5175, and you must follow 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §§60.5220 and 60.5225 or established in 

§60.5175. You are not required to establish operating 

limits for the operating parameters listed in Table 4 to 

this subpart for a control device if you use a continuous 

monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for the 

applicable pollutants, as follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor scrubber liquid 

flow rate or scrubber liquid pH if you use the continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 371 of 479

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber or scrubber liquid flow rate if you use 

the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) 

and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for particulate matter, cadmium, and lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, 

secondary amperage of the collection plates, or effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor sorbent injection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 372 of 479

rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas pressure 

drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified 

in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not 

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or 

carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous 

monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber 

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, 

lead, and cadmium emission limits.. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at 

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 373 of 479

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH 

for each wet scrubber used to meet the sulfur dioxide or 

hydrogen chloride emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, equal to the lowest 1-hour average scrubber liquid 

pH measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the sulfur dioxide and 

hydrogen chloride emission limits. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

4-hour average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) measured during the most recent 

performance test demonstrating compliance with all 

applicable emission limits. 

 (f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour 

average secondary electric power measured during the most 

recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limits. 

Power input must be calculated as the product of the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. Both the 

secondary voltage and secondary amperage must be recorded 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 374 of 479

during the performance test. (g) Minimum effluent water 

flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average effluent water flow rate 

at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator measured 

during the most recent performance test demonstrating 

compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits. (h) For activated carbon injection, 

establish the site-specific operating limits specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest 4-hour average mercury sorbent injection rate 

measured during the most recent performance test 

demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limit. 

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate measured during the most recent performance 

test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total 

mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 375 of 479

with the applicable emission limit.. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured during 

the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance 

with the applicable emission limit.§60.5195 By what date 

must I conduct the initial air pollution control device 

inspection and make any necessary repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, federal plan, or 

delegation, as applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final compliance date, you must 

conduct the air pollution control device inspection within 

60 days after installation of the control device. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 376 of 479

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. You must operate and maintain the continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 377 of 479

monitoring system in continuous operation according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria (e.g., calibrations). 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 378 of 479

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but is not limited to, the following: 

(A) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of no greater than 2 percent of the expected process flow 

rate. 

(3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 

disturbances. 

(4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance 

evaluation in accordance with your monitoring plan at the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 379 of 479

time of each performance test but no less frequently than 

annually. 

(B) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure 

(e.g., particulate matter scrubber pressure drop). 

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 

1.27 centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 

percent of the pressure monitoring system operating range, 

whichever is less. 

(4) Perform checks at least once each process 

operating day to ensure pressure measurements are not 

obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at the time of each performance test but no less frequently 

than annually. 

(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 380 of 479

manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, 

conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring 

system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm 

that the pressure monitoring system continues to meet the 

performance requirements in your monitoring plan. 

Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new 

pressure sensor. 

(C) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH 

monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH 

monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan 

at least once each process operating day. 

(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a twopoint calibration with one of the two buffer solutions 

having a pH within 1 of the operating limit pH level) of 

the pH monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than quarterly. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 381 of 479

(D) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of 

this section. 

(1) Install the temperature sensor and other 

necessary equipment in a position that provides a 

representative temperature. 

(2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range. 

(4) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

performance evaluation at the time of each performance test 

but no less frequently than annually. 

(E) If you have an operating limit that requires a 

secondary electric power monitoring system for an 

electrostatic precipitator, you must meet the requirements 

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

(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 382 of 479

and current to the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric 

power monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring 

plan at the time of each performance test but no less 

frequently than annually. 

(F) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injection 

rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Install the system in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorbent 

injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your 

monitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no 

less frequently than annually. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 383 of 479

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous monitoring system is out of control 

if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or (a)(7)(i)(B) 

of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 

(B) The continuous monitoring system fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative 

accuracy audit, relative accuracy test audit, or linearity 

test audit. 

(ii) When the continuous monitoring system is out of 

control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this 

section, you must take the necessary corrective action and 

must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 384 of 479

of-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems. 

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system in 

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

section. 

(i) Install the bag leak detection sensor(s) in a 

position(s) that will be representative of the relative or 

absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhaust 

stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a positive 

pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(ii) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 385 of 479

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 

cubic meter or less. 

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with 

a system that will sound an alarm when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level. The alarm must be located where it is 

observed readily and any alert is detected and recognized 

easily by plant operating personnel. 

(3) Evaluations of the performance of the bag leak 

detection system, performed in accordance with your 

monitoring plan and consistent with the guidance provided 

in Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–

015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see 

§60.17). 

(4) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(5) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system, 

including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts 

inventory list. 

(6) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the 

bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 386 of 479

system equipped with a device to continuously record the 

output signal from the sensor. (c) You must conduct an 

initial performance evaluation of each continuous 

monitoring system and bag leak detection system, as 

applicable, in accordance with your monitoring plan and to 

§60.13(c). For the purpose of this subpart, the provisions 

of §60.13(c) also apply to the bag leak detection system. 

You must conduct the initial performance evaluation of each 

continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation 

of the monitoring system 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

ash handling system operating procedures that you will 

follow to ensure that that your meet the fugitive emissions 

limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 387 of 479

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the 

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 388 of 479

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant 

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 389 of 479

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a 

case-by-case basis, that additional or alternative 

operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing 

operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 390 of 479

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and 

fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the 

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

applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, 

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). You may 

also petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a 

performance test for each such pollutant on an annual basis 

(between 11 and 13 calendar months following the previous 

performance test). The performance test must be conducted 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 391 of 479

using the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum 

sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60 

days of a process change, as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section, you can conduct performance tests less 

often for a given pollutant, as specified in paragraphs 

(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) You can conduct performance tests less often if 

your performance tests for the pollutant for at least 2 

consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 

75 percent of the emission limit specified in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart, and there are no changes in the operation 

of the affected source or air pollution control equipment 

that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not 

have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for 

the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 392 of 479

during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 

previous performance test.(ii) If your SSI unit continues 

to meet the emission limit for the pollutant, you may 

choose to conduct performance tests for the pollutant every 

third year if your emissions are at or below 75 percent of 

the emission limit, and if there are no changes in the 

operation of the affected source or air pollution control 

equipment that could increase emissions, but each such 

performance test must be conducted no more than 37 months 

after the previous performance test. 

(iii) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 

75 percent of the emission limit for a pollutant, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until 

all performance tests over 2 consecutive years show 

compliance. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 393 of 479

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the 

annual performance test required in paragraph (a) of this 

section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. For determining compliance with the 

carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide 

CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured 

carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen 

concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 394 of 479

concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine 

the 24-hour average value. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable 

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

must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 395 of 479

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required in your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 396 of 479

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan 

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with 

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with 

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 397 of 479

(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as 

specified in §60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation 

report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instance that 

you did not meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.5200 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 398 of 479

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.5200(e). 

§60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits? 

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

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

(d) of this section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. To determine compliance, you must 

use the data averaging period specified in Table 4 to this 

subpart (except for alarm time of the baghouse leak 

detection system) unless a different averaging period is 

established under §60.5175. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.5175 and 

60.5190 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 399 of 479

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.5170(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below 

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 400 of 479

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or re-establish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.5170(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test required in 

§60.5205(a) or any performance evaluation required in 

§60.5205(b)(4). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 401 of 479

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.5220(c), no later than 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 402 of 479

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging method specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 403 of 479

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 404 of 479

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the 

Administrator's satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator's authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30 

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 405 of 479

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment. 

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 406 of 479

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 407 of 479

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, 

in which case you must also conduct a performance test 

within prior to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 408 of 479

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part with spans appropriate to the 

applicable emission limit. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, 

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 409 of 479

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 5 in appendix F of this 

part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs and resume 

operation of your monitoring system as expeditiously as 

possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 410 of 479

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of this 

section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 

60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions 

monitoring systems and the test methods specified in 

paragraph (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this section. 

Relative accuracy testing must be at representative 

operating conditions while the SSI unit is charging sewage 

sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used, as specified in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. Alternatively 

for mercury, either Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 411 of 479

A-8 or ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008)(incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), may be used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be 

used. For sources that have actual inlet emissions less 

than 100 parts per million dry volume, the relative 

accuracy criterion for the inlet of the sulfur dioxide 

continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the method test data 

in terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts 

per million dry volume absolute value of the mean 

difference between the method and the continuous emissions 

monitoring system, whichever is greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–

1981 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as 

applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 412 of 479

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, 

must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the 

same location as the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average. 

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 413 of 479

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified in §60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). Any such periods that you do 

not collect data using the continuous monitoring system 

constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and 

must be reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 414 of 479

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction as defined in §60.5250, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 415 of 479

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation. 

(2) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(3) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according 

to the requirements in §60.5200. This requirement also 

applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(i). (d) 

Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any time that 

sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is an 

emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed in 

Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of the bypass stack 

during a performance test invalidates the performance test. 

§60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 416 of 479

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement 

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions that occur during periods 

specified defined in §60.5200(a)(7)(i), repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks 

and required zero and span adjustments). Any such periods 

that you do not collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 417 of 479

Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in 

§60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be included in calculations used 

to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods 

that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction, 

as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all 

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

 

(2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitoring 

system according to your monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880. Additionally: 

(i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 418 of 479

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

(b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additionally: 

(1) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each 

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(2) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

 (3) You must initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 419 of 479

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.5230 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 420 of 479

in paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final 

control plan and any additional notifications, reported 

under §60.5235. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 421 of 479

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the 

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the 

provisions of §60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.5160(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 422 of 479

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.5130, met the criteria for qualification under 

§60.5140, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports.

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 423 of 479

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine 

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test 

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs as specified in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that 

the performance test was conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all 

average concentrations measured for mercury and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 424 of 479

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system and 

liquid flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with 

the emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and scrubber liquid 

flow rate and scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber used 

to comply with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart for sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, secondary voltage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates and secondary 

amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection 

plates, and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

wet electrostatic precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, sorbent flow rate and carrier gas flow rate 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 425 of 479

or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.5170(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.5210. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.5175, you must 

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 426 of 479

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.5220(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.5235(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibration, and validation checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.5200, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5).(l) Less 

frequent testing. If, consistent with 60.5205(a)(3), you 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 427 of 479

elect to conduct performance tests less frequently than 

annually, you must keep annual records that document that 

your emissions in the two previous consecutive years were 

at or below 75 percent of the applicable emission limit in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, and document that there were 

no changes in source operations or air pollution control 

equipment that would cause emissions of the relevant 

pollutant to increase within the past 2 years. 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.5225(d). 

(n) If a malfunction occurs, you must keep a record 

of the information submitted in your annual report in 

§60.5235(c)(16). 

§60.5235 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs 

(a) through (i) of this section. See Table 6 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to 

achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective 

date of state plan approval, you must submit the following 

reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085(a) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 428 of 479

and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification of achievement 

of increments of progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the increment as specified in 

§§60.5095 and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you 

must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment, 

as specified in §60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than 

comply with the state plan, submit a closure notification 

as specified in §60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 429 of 479

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.5195, including a 

description of repairs. 

(9) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.5200, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 430 of 479

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(16) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.5240.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the 

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 431 of 479

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

average value and lowest average value recorded during the 

reporting period, as follows: 

(i) For continuous emission monitoring systems and 

continuous automated sampling systems, report the highest 

and lowest 24-hour average emission value. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

report the following values: 

(A) For all operating parameters except scrubber 

liquid pH, the highest and lowest 12-hour average values. 

(B) For scrubber liquid pH, the highest and lowest 3-

hour average values. 

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 432 of 479

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.5230(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you elect to conduct performance tests less 

frequently as allowed in §60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct 

a performance test during the reporting period, you must 

include the dates of the last two performance tests, a 

comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 

two performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit 

threshold specified in §60.5205(a)(3), and a statement as 

to whether there have been any process changes and whether 

the process change resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified 

sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unavailable 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 433 of 479

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting 

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control§, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems were out of 

control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(16) If you had a malfunction during the reporting 

period, the compliance report must include the number, 

duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 

that caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 434 of 479

description of actions taken by an owner or operator during 

a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions 

in accordance with §60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(d) Deviation reports.

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded operating parameter level, based on 

the averaging time specified in Table 4 to this subpart, is 

above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum 

operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions 

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash 

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated 

from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 435 of 479

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items 

described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of 

this section. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 436 of 479

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime 

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring 

data during each deviation and any test report that 

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 437 of 479

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 438 of 479

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items:. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected 

source during the reporting period. 

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 439 of 479

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standards. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the 

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i)(A) through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 440 of 479

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to 

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within five days of meeting 

§60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming operation. 

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence, should have known that the event may 

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 441 of 479

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 

(3) As specified in §60.5220(a)(8), you must notify 

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

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

(h) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 442 of 479

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after 

the date of completing each performance test, as defined in 

§63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with this 

subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test audit 

(i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., 

compliance test) data, except opacity data, electronically 

to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/) or other 

compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted electronically into EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. 

 (i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 443 of 479

and effective CAA section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan 

or an applicable and effective federal plan, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating permit 

for your existing SSI unit unless you meet the relevant 

requirements for an exemption specified in §60.5065. 

§60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit?

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an 

earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted on or before the 

earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 

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

(1) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state or tribal plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan. 

(3) [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 444 of 479

months after the promulgation of this subpart applies 

regardless of whether or when any applicable federal plan 

is effective, or whether or when any applicable Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is approved by 

EPA and becomes effective. 

(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a 

result of some triggering requirement(s) other than those 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (for 

example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major 

source), then your unit may be required to apply for a 

title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requirement 

triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V 

permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit 

application is triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 

503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 

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

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

(d) A “complete” title V permit application is one 

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 445 of 479

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Model Rule—Definitions 

§60.5250 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the federal plan, the 

Administrator of the EPA or his/her authorized 

representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved state plan, the 

director of the state air pollution control agency or 

his/her authorized representative. 

Affected source means a sewage sludge incineration 

unit as defined in §60.5250. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 446 of 479

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 447 of 479

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 448 of 479

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 449 of 479

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

that meets one of two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 450 of 479

existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as defined 

in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 451 of 479

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 452 of 479

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A SSI 

unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage 

sludge feed system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate 

system, flue gas system, waste heat recovery equipment, if 

any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit includes all ash 

handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling 

system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the 

truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers 

the ash to final disposal. The SSI unit does not include 

air pollution control equipment or the stack. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 453 of 479

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a 

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 454 of 479

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and 

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI 

unit. 

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Comply with these increments 

of progress By these datesa

Increment 1—Submit final 

control plan 

(Dates to be specified in 

state plan) 

Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in 

state plan)b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the 

state. 

bThe date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date 

of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI 

units that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 455 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Particulate 

matter

18 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 5 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A3; Method 26A 

or Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Hydrogen 

chloride

0.51 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

26A at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Carbon 

monoxide

64 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

10, 10A, or 10B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 456 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

1.2 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic 

meter(total mass 

basis); or

0.10 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7).

Mercury 0.037 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c

, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c .
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 457 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Oxides of 

nitrogen

150 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 7 

or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4).

Sulfur dioxide 15 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 60 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 40, 

appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME 

PTC-19.10-

1981.c

Cadmium 0.0016 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). Use GFAAS 

or ICP/MS for 

the analytical 

finish.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 458 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Lead 0.0074 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8. Use GFAAS 

or ICP/MS for 

the analytical 

finish.

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer points) 

for no more than 

5 percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 459 of 479

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Particulate 

matter

80 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 0.75 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 5 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A3; Method 26A 

or Method 29 at 

40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).

Hydrogen 

chloride

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run)

Performance 

test (Method 26 

or 26A at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 460 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Carbon 

monoxide

3,800 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 

10, 10A, or 10B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4).

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis)

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

5.0 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter; or

0.32 nanograms 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 23 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A7).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 461 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Mercury 0.28 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008)c

, collect a 

minimum volume of 

1 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; Method 30B 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8; or ASTM 

D6784-02 

(Reapproved 

2008)c .

Oxides of 

nitrogen

220 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 7 

or 7E at 40 CFR 

part 60, 

appendix A-4).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 462 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run)

Performance 

test (Method 6 

or 6C at 40 CFR 

part 40, 

appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10-

1981.c

Cadmium 0.095 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8).

Lead 0.30 milligrams 

per dry standard 

cubic meter

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 1 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run)

Performance 

test (Method 29 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 463 of 479

For the air 

pollutant

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations

And determining 

compliance 

using this 

method

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer points) 

for no more than 

5 percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods

Visible 

emission test 

(Method 22 of 

appendix A-7 of 

this part).

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 464 of 479

c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion 

chamber operating 

temperature (not 

required if 

afterburner 

temperature is 

monitored)

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature

or 

afterburner 

temperature

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block.

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements

Not 

applicable

No 

applicable

Not 

applicable

Scrubber

Pressure drop 

across each wet 

scrubber

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

Scrubber liquid 

flow rate

Minimum flow 

rate

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 465 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Scrubber liquid 

pH

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes

3-hour block

Fabric Filter

Alarm time of the 

bag leak 

detection system 

alarm

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm (this operating limit is provided 

in §60.4850 and is not established on a sitespecific basis)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 466 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Electrostatic precipitator

Secondary voltage 

of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates

Continuous Hourly 12-hour 

block

Secondary 

amperage of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Effluent water 

flow rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator

Minimum 

effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block

Activated carbon injection
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 467 of 479

For these 

operating 

parameters

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Data 

averaging 

period for 

compliance

Mercury sorbent 

injection rate

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate

Hourly Hourly 12-hour 

block 

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent injection 

rate

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate

Carrier gas flow 

rate or carrier 

gas pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

Afterburner

Temperature of 

the afterburner 

combustion 

chamber

Minimum 

temperature 

of the 

afterburner 

combustion 

chamber

Continuous Every 15 

minutes

12-hour 

block

aAs specified in §60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 468 of 479

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block average 

specified in this table for demonstrating compliance. You 

maintain records of 1-hour averages.

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin1

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin0.01

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.3
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 469 of 479

Dioxin/furan isomer

Toxic equivalency 

factor

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.01

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of 

progress report

No later than 10 

business days 

after the 

compliance date 

for the 

increment

1.Final control 

plan including 

air pollution 

control device 

descriptions, 

process 

changes, type 

of waste to be 

burned, and the 

maximum design 

sewage sludge 

burning 

capacity

2.Notification of 

any failure to 

meet an 

§60.5235(a)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 470 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

increment of 

progress

3. Notification of 

any closure

Initial 

compliance 

report

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report

3.Date of report

4.Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test

5.Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation

6.The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

7.Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter

8.Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

§60.5235(b)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 471 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs

9.The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

required under 

§60.5200

10. The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

required under 

§60.5200

Annual 

compliance 

report

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official

3.Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report

4.If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

§60.5235(c)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 472 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

applicable

5.For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable

6.If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

7.If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms

8.If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations

9.If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.5205(a)(3) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 473 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

10. Documentatio

n of periods 

when all 

qualified SSI 

unit operators 

were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks

11. Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs

12. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 474 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions

13. If there 

were no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control

14. If there 

were no 

operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations

15. Information 

on monitoring 

plan revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.5235(e)(1))

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

If using a CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3.The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

§60.5235(d) 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 475 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year

operating 

limits

4.The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

5.Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

6.Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents

7.A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels

8.For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.5235(d)(3)(

viii)

If not using a 

CMS:

1. Company name 

and address

2.Statement by a 

responsible 

official

3.The total 

operating time 

of each 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 476 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

affected SSI

4.The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits

5.The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates

6.Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation

7.A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards

8.A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

Within 10 days 

of deviation

1. Statement of 

cause of 

deviation

2.Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

§60.5235(e)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 477 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more)

a qualified 

operator will 

be available

3.The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation

1. Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible

2.The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible

3.Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation

§60.5235(e)

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.5155(b)(2)(i

)

Within five days 

of obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation

1. Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation

§60.5235(e)

Notification of 

a force majeure

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

1. Description of 

the force 

majeure event

2.Rationale for 

§60.5235(f)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 478 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure

3.Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

4.Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test

Notification of 

intent to start 

1 month before 

starting or 

1. Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60. 5235(g)
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review*** 

Page 479 of 479

Report Due date Contents Reference

or stop use of a 

CMS

stopping use of 

a CMS 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

1. Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 
Attachment F. 
Small Entity Screen 

As in the proposal annual average per capita revenue was developed from the U.S. 

Census. 2005. Finances of Municipal and Township Governments: 2002. Table 13, 

accessed June 8, 2010 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc024x4.pdf. The 

new costs were divided by a revenue estimate based on the per capita revenue times 

the population for each entity. All cost to revenue percentages were below 1%. 
Attachment G. 
Missing Comment Response for OMB- - Around Page 112

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

 Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly 

claims that its authority to prescribe unique standards for SSM 

periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated that EPA has failed 

to account adequately for emissions that occur during SSM 

periods. One commenter contended that the Sierra Club decision 

interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA section 129 (which 

incorporates, by reference, CAA section 111), and pointed out 

that this interpretation is not merely a technical distinction. 

The commenter pointed out that since 1977, EPA has exempted 

emissions during SSM events from compliance with NSPS under CAA 

section 111 (referenced 40 CFR §60.8(c)). The commenter argued 

that Congress enacted the continuous basis language in section 

302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 111 

exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that there is nothing in 

the legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the CAA that 

suggests congress intended to overturn that practice. 

 Response: As explained above, EPA believes the reasoning in 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA applies 

equally to section 129. Additionally, EPA explains above the 

reasons it is not establishing different emissions standards for 

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 
Attachment H. 
1

MEMORANDUM 

To: Sewage Sludge Incinerator Docket 

From: Amy Hambrick, US EPA 

Date: June 2010 

Subject: Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental justice (EJ). Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations in the United States. 

EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote 

meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure 

that interested communities have access to this proposed rule, are aware of its content, and have 

an opportunity to comment during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA will 

publicize the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, Tribal newsletters, EJ listservs, and the internet, 

including the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation’s (OPEI) Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will also provide general rulemaking fact 

sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community) for EJ community groups and conduct 

conference calls with interested communities. In addition, state and federal permitting 

requirements will provide state and local governments and members of affected communities the 

opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions associated with permitting the sources 

affected by this rulemaking. 

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS 

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this 
2

proposed rule to determine if there was existing disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations that could be mitigated by this 

rulemaking. An analysis of demographic data, as shown in Table 2.1, shows that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be effected by the sources, 

were similar in demographic composition to national averages. 

Table 2.1 Summary of Demographic Data Analysis 

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected 

sources, EPA used census data at the block group level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures 

to current emissions from these sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the distributions of 

different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission reductions from this 

rule. The review identified those census block groups within a circular distance of a half, 3, and 5 

miles of affected sources and determined the demographic and socio-economic composition (race, 

income, age) of these census block groups. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) 

has been used in other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential sources.1,2,3,4

EPA’s demographic analysis has shown that these areas in aggregate have similar proportions of 

American Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and “Other and Multi-racial” 

populations, and similar proportions of families with incomes below the poverty level as the 

national average. 

REFERENCES 

1. U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living Near 

Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995. 

2. Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental 

Justice Research”. Demography. 2006; 43(2): 383–399. 

3. Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical 

Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis”. Social Science 

Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297. 

4. Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987-

2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007. 

Categories 

Miles 

Radius 

Total 

Population 

Minority 

Population 

% 

Minority 

Population 

Living Below 

Poverty Level 

% 

Population 

Below 

Poverty 

Level 

Population 

<18 Years Old 

% Children 

< 17 Years 

Old 

National - All 

categories 285,193,760 90,671,626 32 35,716,283 13 73,221,413 26 

SSI 0.5 668,923 179,447 27 75,567 11 157,592 24 

SSI 3 8,680,480 2,749,288 32 1,186,354 14 2,134,398 25 

SSI 5 18,285,051 5,882,098 32 2,382,580 13 4,503,383 25 
3
Attachment I. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 1 of 431

E.O. 12866 SSI NSPS and EG 2060-AP90 20110118 

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559; FRL-____-_] 

RIN 2060-AP90 

NSPS/Emission Guidelines (EG) for Sewage Sludge 

Incinerators

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and 

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates EPA’s new source 

performance standards and emission guidelines for sewage 

sludge incineration units located at wastewater treatment 

facilities designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. This 

final rule sets limits for nine pollutants: cadmium, carbon 

monoxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen 

oxides, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulfur 

dioxide. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on [INSERT THE DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

Comment [A1]: Change made to track 

with what is in ROCIS/Unified 

Agenda. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 2 of 431

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This docket 

includes previous actions including the standards proposed 

on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260) and a supplemental notice 

issued on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68296). All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov

website. Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., confidential business

information (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 http://www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 

for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, 

Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 3 of 431

Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541-0964; fax number: (919) 541-

3470; e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

7-PAH 7-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

As Arsenic 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CASS Continuous Automated Sampling System 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd Cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems 

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

The Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit 

CPMS Continuous Parametric Monitoring System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

Cr Chromium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EG Emission Guidelines 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic Precipitators 

FF Fabric Filter 

FB Fluidized Bed 

FGR Flue Gas Recirculation 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen Chloride 

Hg Mercury 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 4 of 431

HMIWI Hospital, Medical and Infectious Waste 

Incineration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISTDMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Dioxin Monitoring System 

ISTMMS Integrated Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring 

System 

LML Lowest Measured Level 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Mg/dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

MH Multiple Hearth 

Mn Manganese 

MWC Municipal Waste Combustion 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 

Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter 

Ni Nickel 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTAA National Tribal Air Association 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OP Office of Policy 

OSWI Other Solid Waste Incineration 

OTM Other Test Method 

OW Office of Water 

Pb Lead 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCDD/PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans 

PM Particulate Matter 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PPM Parts per Million 

PPMV Parts per Million by Volume 

PPMVD Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS Performance Specifications 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer 

SBA Small Business Administration 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 5 of 431

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SSI Sewage Sludge Incineration 

SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

TEF Toxic Equivalency Factor 

TEQ Toxic Equivalency 

THC Total Hydrocarbons 

TMB Total Mass Basis 

TPD Tons per Day 

TPY Tons per Year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UL Upper Limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Organization of This Document. The following outline 

is provided to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

C. Judicial Review

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule? 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what 

are the emissions? 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge? 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

A. What units are affected by the final standards? 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources? 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources? 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements? 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units? 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 6 of 431

G. What are the SSM provisions? 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements? 

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards? 

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

A. Applicability 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimation 

E. Compliance Requirements 

F. Definitions 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI’s Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129 

B. Subcategories 

C. MACT Floor Analysis 

D. Baseline Emissions 

E. Beyond the Floor Analysis 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

H. Compliance Requirements 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units 

VII. Relationship of the Final Action to CAA Sections 

112(c)(3), 112(k)(3)(B)(ii), and 112(c)(6) 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 7 of 431

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by the

final action are those that operate sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSI). Although there is no specific NAICS 

code for SSI, these units may be operated by wastewater 

treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge. The following NAICS codes could apply: 

Category NAICS 

Code 

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities 

Solid waste 

combustors and 

incinerators 

562213 Municipalities with SSI units 

Sewage 

treatment 

facilities 

221320 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a general guide for identifying entities 

likely to be affected by the final action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected by the final 

action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.4770 of subpart LLLL and proposed 40 CFR 60.5005 of 

subpart MMMM. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the final action to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 8 of 431

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (www) through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final 

action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

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

information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the Court by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

of the CAA further provides that “only an objection to this 

final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment can be raised during 

judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism 

for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f 

the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that 

it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 

period for public comment] or if the grounds for such 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 9 of 431

objection arose after the period for public comment (but 

within the time specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this 

rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to 

EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to both of the 

contacts listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel 

(Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory background for this final rule?

Section 129 of the CAA, entitled, “Solid Waste 

Combustion,” requires EPA to develop and adopt standards 

for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 

111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 10 of 431

to establish performance standards, including emission 

limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 

129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration unit” as 

“a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts 

any solid waste material from commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general public” (section 129(g)(1)). 

Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid waste” 

shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its 

authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sections 

111(b) and 129(a) of the CAA address emissions from new 

units (i.e., NSPS), and CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b) 

address emissions from existing units (i.e., EG). The NSPS 

are directly enforceable federal regulations, and under CAA 

section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after 

promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not themselves 

directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implemented and 

enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a 

promulgated federal plan. States are required to submit a 

plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for approval 

not later than one year after EPA promulgates the EG (CAA 

section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at least as 

protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance with all 

applicable requirements not later than three years after 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 11 of 431

the state plan is approved by EPA, or five years after 

promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is sooner. 

EPA’s procedures for submitting and approving state plans 

are set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. When a state 

plan is approved by EPA, the plan requirements become 

federally enforceable, but the state has primary 

responsibility for implementing and enforcing the plan. 

However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce 

a federal plan for solid waste incineration units located 

in any state which has not submitted an approvable state 

plan within two years after the date of promulgation of the 

relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal plan must 

assure that each solid waste incineration unit subject to 

the federal plan is in compliance with all provisions of 

the EG not later than five years after the date the

relevant guidelines are promulgated. EPA views the federal 

plan as a “place-holder” that remains in effect only until 

such time as a state without an approved plan submits and 

receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an 

applicable state plan has been approved, the requirements 

of the federal plan no longer apply to solid waste 

incineration units covered by that state plan. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 12 of 431

The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulating 

emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute 

also provides EPA with substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of incineration 

units within a category while setting standards. In the 

first stage of setting standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) 

requires EPA to establish technology-based emission

standards that reflect levels of control EPA determines are 

achievable for new and existing units, after considering 

costs, nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements associated with the implementation of 

the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then directs 

EPA to review those standards and revise them as necessary 

every five years. In the second stage, CAA section

129(h)(3) requires EPA to determine whether further

revisions of the standards are necessary in order to 

provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

In setting forth the methodology EPA must use to 

establish the first-stage technology-based standards for 

the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that 

standards “applicable to solid waste incineration units 

promulgated under section 111 and this section shall 

reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 13 of 431

[certain listed air pollutants] that the Administrator, 

taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines 

is achievable for new and existing units in each category.” 

This level of control is referred to as a MACT standard. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first 

calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and

existing solid waste incineration units in a category, 

generally based on levels of emissions control achieved or 

required to be achieved by the subject units. The minimum 

level of stringency is called the MACT “floor,” and CAA 

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

stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on 

whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources, or 

existing sources. For new and reconstructed sources, CAA 

section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of reduction in 

emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for existing 

units may be less stringent than standards for new units, 

but “shall not be less stringent than the average emissions 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 14 of 431

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in the category.” 

MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emissions 

from the best performing unit or units in a source 

category. The assessment can be based on actual emissions 

data, knowledge of the air pollution control in place in 

combination with actual emissions data, or on state

regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to estimate the 

actual performance of the regulated units. For each source 

category, the assessment involves a review of actual 

emissions data with an appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be 

used, if the methods can be shown to provide reasonable 

estimates of the actual emissions performance of a source 

or sources. Where there is more than one method or

technology to control emissions, the analysis may result in 

a series of potential regulations (called regulatory 

options), one of which is selected as MACT. 

Each regulatory option EPA considers must be at least 

as stringent as the CAA’s minimum stringency “floor” 

requirements. EPA must examine, but is not required to 

adopt, the more stringent “beyond-the-floor” regulatory 

options to determine MACT. Unlike the floor minimum 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 15 of 431

stringency requirements, EPA must consider various impacts 

of the more stringent regulatory options in determining 

whether MACT standards are to reflect “beyond-the-floor” 

requirements. If EPA concludes that the more stringent 

regulatory options have unreasonable impacts, EPA selects 

the “floor-based” regulatory option as MACT. However, if 

EPA concludes that impacts associated with “beyond-thefloor” levels of control are reasonable in light of

additional emissions reductions achieved, EPA selects those 

levels as MACT. 

The CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no less 

stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice 

by the best-controlled similar unit. Under CAA section 

129(a)(2), EPA determines the best control currently in use 

for a given pollutant and establishes one potential

regulatory option at the emission level achieved by that 

control with an appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. More stringent potential beyond-the-floor 

regulatory options might reflect controls used on other 

sources that could be applied to the source category in 

question. 

For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no 

less stringent than the average emissions limitation 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 16 of 431

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in a 

source category. EPA must determine some measure of the 

average emissions limitation achieved by the best 

performing 12 percent of units to form the floor regulatory 

option. More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options 

reflect other or additional controls capable of achieving 

better performance. 

Clean Air Act section 129(a)(1) identifies five 

categories of solid waste incineration units: 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity 

greater than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust municipal waste at a capacity equal 

to or less than 250 tpd. 

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectious 

waste. 

• Units that combust commercial or industrial waste. 

• Units that combust waste and which are not 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) 

through (D) are referred to in section 129(a)(1)(E) as 

“other categories” of solid waste incineration units. 

A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 17 of 431

volume of the sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. 

Sewage sludge incinerators, by virtue of having not been 

specifically identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) through 

(D), have been interpreted to be part of the broader 

category of “other categories” of solid waste. EPA has 

issued emission standards for large and small MWC, HMIWI, 

CISWI, and OSWI units; however, as explained further below, 

none of those emission standards apply to SSI units. 

EPA issued emission standards for OSWI units on 

December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74870). In line with EPA’s 

interpretation of the CAA at that time, tThe OSWI standards 

did not include emission standards for SSI units. EPA 

received a petition for reconsideration of the OSWI

standards on February 14, 2006, regarding the exclusion of 

certain categories, including SSI1. While EPA granted the 

petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final 

review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded 

that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005 OSWI 

rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being 

held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the 

emission standards for OSWI units in the future, and that 

rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI units. 

 

1Sierra Club v. EPA; D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 18 of 431

In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA 

stated that it had decided not to regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regulate SSI 

units under CAA section 112 because we interpreted CAA 

section 129(h)(2) as giving EPA the discretion to choose 

the section of the CAA (i.e., section 112 or section 129) 

under which to regulate these sources`. We reiterated that 

decision to regulate SSI units under 112 in the response to 

the petition for reconsideration on this issue, and laid 

out five points in support of our decision. In addition, 

in the final action, on January 22, 2007, EPA’s first point

stated that the four specific statutory exemptions from the 

definition of “solid waste incineration unit” in CAA 

section 129(g)(1) were not exclusive, and that section 

129(a)(1)(E) does not require EPA to establish emission 

standards for all other types of incineration units in 

addition to those identified in section 129(a)(1)(A) 

through (D)(72 FR 2620). In June 2007, in a separate 

decision related to EPA’s December 1, 2000, emission 

standards for CISWI units, the Court2, held that any unit 

combusting any solid waste must be regulated under section 

 

2NRDC v. EPA; 489 F. 3d. at 1257-8.

Comment [A2]: Please check this. 

The rationale given in “Section 7. 

Sewage Sludge Incinerators” (70 FR 

74880)of the rule was “The Agency 

believes that sewage sludge 

generated by publicly-owned 

treatment works (POTWs) and 

combusted in SSIs is ‘solid waste.’ 

However, this sludge is from a 

municipal source, and not from 

‘commercial or industrial 

establishments or the general 

public.’ Therefore, SSI that 

combust this sludge are not “solid 

waste incineration units” and 

section 129 does not apply to them. 

Virtually all of the SSIs that 

would be candidates for regulation 

combust sludge from POTWs, and thus 

are not covered under Section 129.” 

As well as the explanation that 

they had been listed under 12©(30 

and 112(k)(3)B(ii0 and that source 

categories regulated by CAA section 

112 may not also be subject to a 

CAA section 129 regulation. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 19 of 431

129 of the CAA. The impact of this decision on EPA’s 

regulation of SSI’s is explained in detail in the NPRM. 

EPA considers SSI units to be “other solid waste 

incineration units,” since that category is intended to 

encompass all solid waste incineration units that are not 

included in the first four categories identified in CAA 

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

emission standards for the remaining OSWI units. EPA is 

taking final action on emission standards for SSI units at 

this time in advance of its re-issuance of emission 

standards for the remaining OSWI units because these 

emission standards are needed as part of EPA's fulfillment 

of its obligations under CAA sections 112(c)(3) and

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

112(k)(3)(B)(ii) calls for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP 

which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose 

the greatest threat to public health in the largest number 

of urban areas. EPA must then ensure that sources 

representing 90 percent of the aggregate area source 

emissions of each of the 30 identified HAP are subject to 

standards pursuant to section 112(d)3. Sewage sludge 

incineration units are one of the source categories

 

3 CAA section 112(c)(3) and section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 20 of 431

identified for regulation to meet the 90 percent 

requirement for Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni and PCB. EPA is 

ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation under CAA 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 20114. 

Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify 

categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to 

assure that sources counting for not less than 90 percent 

of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are 

subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or

112(d)(4). Sewage Sludge Incineration units are one of the 

recently identified source categories for regulation to 

meet the 90 percent requirement for Hg. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prior 

to taking action on the remaining source categories that 

will be regulated under CAA section 129(a)(1)(E) as OSWI 

units. 

B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are 

the emissions?

Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by

municipalities or other entities. Incineration continues 

to be used to dispose of sewage sludge. Combustion of 

solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the 

 

4Sierra Club v. Jackson; D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01537.

Comment [A3]: Suggest removing 

“recently” since they were added to 

the list in 2002. 

Comment [A4]: Please add the cite to 

the FR notice at the end of the 

sentence along with the date. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 21 of 431

release of a wide array of air pollutants, some of which 

exist in the waste feed material and are released unchanged 

during combustion, and some of which are generated as a 

result of the combustion process itself. The pollutants 

for which numerical limits must be established, as 

specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO, HCl, 

Hg, NOx, PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO2; and, where 

appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be 

established. These emissions come from the SSI unit’s 

stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by the 

associated visible emissions, also occur from ash handling. 

C. What is the relationship of the final standards to 

other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewage 

sludge and associated air emissions?

Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CWA, 

as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulgated 

regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 503 

designed to protect public health and the environment from 

any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain 

pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The part 

503 regulations establish requirements for the final use 

and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge is 

applied to the land for a beneficial use (e.g., for use in 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 22 of 431

home gardens); 2) the sludge is disposed on land by placing 

it on surface disposal sites; and 3) the sewage sludge is 

incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that generate or 

treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any person who 

uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatment 

works. 

The part 503 requirements for firing sewage sludge in 

a SSI are in subpart E of the regulations. Subpart E 

includes general requirements; pollutant limits; 

operational standards; management practices; and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet the 

National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in

subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. The 

regulations also require that the allowable concentration 

of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated using 

equations in the regulation. The inorganic pollutants 

included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the 

equations must be determined on a case-by-case basis, 

except for the risk-specific concentration for the 

inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when 

these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific variables 

for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion factor, 

Comment [A5]: Since a source 

regulated under 129 cannot also be 

subject to 112 (CAA 112(h)(2)), if 

these sources are covered by other 

112 standards, what is the Agency 

doing to remove overlapping 

regulations? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 23 of 431

control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) must be 

used to calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, 

Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator.

Also included in subpart E of part 503 is an 

operational standard for THC. The value for THC in the 

final part 503 regulation cannot be exceeded in the exit 

gas from the SSI stack. Management practices and frequency 

of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 

are also included in this subpart. 

Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing 

limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covered by the 

current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and the 

following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NOx, SO2, PM, 

and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covered here, 

there are other differences between the part 503 

regulations and these final standards. The emission limits 

for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-based 

numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 503 does 

not distinguish between new and existing units or between 

incinerator types (i.e., MH or FB incinerator) for setting 

emission limits since emission limits are based on risks to 

a highly exposed individual. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 24 of 431

Because both part 503 and these final standards cover 

the same universe of facilities, there are certain issues 

that arise in terms of potential impacts to current SSI 

facilities. First, we expect that the regulation of sewage 

sludge under CAA section 129 would result in stricter 

emission standards than under the current CWA rule. 

Additional pollution controls will increase costs for 

facilities that continue to use the incineration disposal 

method. If the additional costs are high enough, many 

entities may choose to adopt alternative disposal methods 

(e.g., surface disposal in landfills or other beneficial 

land applications). Consequently, a potential impact of 

this rule is that some of the estimated 110 facilities that 

operate SSI as the primary means of disposal could 

discontinue this practice and would instead landfill or 

land apply their sewage sludge. Second, one must consider 

the available capacity of surface disposal sites to receive 

additional sewage sludge and the potential for added costs 

if the use of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI would be 

subject to two different sets of requirements (numeric 

standards, operational standards, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting) under the two different 

statutes, creating an additional burden to these facilities 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 25 of 431

unless alternative regulatory approaches are implemented. 

EPA plans to evaluate the requirements under both statutes 

to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the 

part 503 regulations. 

III. Summary of the Final Standards 

This preamble discusses the final standards as they

apply to the owner or operator of a new or existing SSI 

unit. This preamble also describes the major requirements 

of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the 

final requirements and compliance times, see the SSI 

standards in subparts LLLL and MMMM. 

A. What units are affected by the final standards?

The final standards and guidelines apply to owners or 

operators of SSI units (as defined in 40 CFR 60.4780 and 40 

CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facilities 

designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI unit is an 

enclosed device or devices using controlled flame 

combustion that burns sewage sludge for the purpose of 

reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. The affected facility is each 

individual SSI unit. The SSI standards in subparts LLLL 

and MMMM apply to new and existing SSI units that burn 

sewage sludge as defined in the subparts. The final 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 26 of 431

standards define two subcategories for new and existing SSI 

units: MH incinerators and FB incinerators. 

Sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI unit 

located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to 

treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 

129 standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of 

this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR 

part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. What are the emission limits in the emission 

guidelines for existing sources?

The final emission limits for existing sources in the 

MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory 

are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existing 

sources may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB 

emission limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 1. Emission Limits for Existing SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900 58 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.51 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 27 of 431

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators 

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.28 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 220 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 15 

C. What are the emission limits in the new source 

performance standards for new sources?

The final emission limits for new sources in the MH

incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subcategory are 

presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing sources 

may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emission 

limits. 

These standards apply at all times. 

Table 2. Emission Limits for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0024 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 52 18 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.2 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.15 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0035 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.045 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 28 of 431

Pollutant Units 

Emission 

Limit For MH 

Incinerators

Emission 

Limit For FB 

Incinerators 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 60 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 5.3 

D. What are the testing and monitoring requirements?

These final standards require all new and existing SSI 

units to demonstrate initial and annual compliance with the 

emission limits using EPA-approved emission test methods. 

The final standards also provide an option for less

frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their 

emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresholds of 

the emission limits. 

For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, continuous 

parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air

pollution control devices, if they that may beare used to 

meet the emission limits. Additionally, existing units are 

required to conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-7) visible emissions test of the ash handling operations 

during each compliance test. 

For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and 

annual emissions performance tests (or continuous emissions 

Comment [A6]: What is meant by this? 

Please clarify. Suggested edit to 

clarify what we think you meant to 

say. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 29 of 431

monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative), bag 

leak detection systems for FF controlled units, as well as 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. The final rule requires all new SSI units 

to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are also 

required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions testing of 

the ash handling operations during each compliance test. 

For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NOx, PM, 

Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling 

with periodic sample analysis) are approved alternatives to 

parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing. For 

new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl, 

NOx, PM, Pb or SO2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous 

sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approved 

alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance 

testing. 

E. What are the other requirements for new and existing 

SSI units?

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to meet operator training and qualification 

requirements, which include: ensuring that at least one 

operator or supervisor per facility complete the operator 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 30 of 431

training course, that qualified operator(s) or 

supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refresher course 

specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding training. 

Owners or operators of new SSI units are required to 

conduct a siting analysis, which includes submitting a 

report that evaluates site-specific air pollution control 

alternatives that minimize potential risks to public health 

or the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors related to 

the practicability of the alternatives. 

Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units are 

required to submit a monitoring plan for any continuous 

monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to 

comply with the rule. They must also submit a monitoring 

plan for their ash handling system that specifies the 

operating procedures they will follow to ensure that they 

meet the fugitive emission limit. 

F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS 

tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data,

continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspections of 

the air pollution control devices, the siting analysis (for 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 31 of 431

new units only), monitoring plan and operator training and 

qualification must be maintained for five years. The 

results of the stack tests and PS tests and values for 

operating parameters are required to be included in initial 

and subsequent compliance reports. 

G. What are the SSM provisions?

The Court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 

2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

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

“General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated under 

section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) 

emission standard during periods of SSM. 

While the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA

directly affects only the subset of CAA section 112(d) 

rules that incorporate 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) by 

reference and that contain no other regulatory text

exempting or excusing compliance during SSM events, the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 32 of 431

legality of source category-specific SSM provisions is 

questionable. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is requiring 

that emission limitations in these final standards apply at 

all times the unit is operating. In establishing these 

standards, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown 

periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

established different standards for those periods. 

We are not promulgating a separate emission standard 

for the source category that applies during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Based on the information available 

at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to 

meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units 

we have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or 

distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the 

unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emissions from 

burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil 

are expected to generally be lower than from burning solid 

wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also 

generally lower than emissions during normal operations 

because the materials in the incinerator would be almost 

fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the 

approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 33 of 431

individual SSI units based on actual performance for each 

pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting 

of emissions variability. Because we accounted for

emissions variability, we believe we have adequately 

addressed any minor variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown

are predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined 

as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 

129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. 

Nothing in CAA section 129 or in case law requires that EPA 

anticipate and account for the innumerable types of

potential malfunction events in setting emission standards.5 

 

5 See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (“ In the nature of things, no general limit,

individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 34 of 431

Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA section 129 

as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting 

emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 

129 uses the concept of “best controlled” or “best 

performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of 

stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying 

the concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a 

source that is malfunctioning presents significant 

difficulties. The goal of best controlled or best 

performing sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of their units. 

Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a 

distinct operating mode, we believe it would be 

impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting 

CAA section 129 standards for SSI. As noted above, by 

definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events, 

and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into 

account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category. Moreover, 

 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, 

sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety 

of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement

discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation.”).
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 35 of 431

malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, 

further complicating standard setting. 

For the SSI standards, malfunctions are required to be 

reported in deviation reports. We will then review the 

deviation reports to determine if the deviation is a 

violation of the standards. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the

applicable CAA section 129 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 

malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and 

rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether 

the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 129 

standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation.”6 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is

properly designed and maintained can fail and that such 

failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

 

6 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 36 of 431

emission standard.7 EPA is therefore adding to the final 

rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions.8 We also added other regulatory provisions to 

specify the elements that are necessary to establish this 

affirmative defense; the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.4860 and in 40 CFR 60.5180. 

The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is

available only where the event that causes an exceedance of 

the emission limit meets the narrow definition of 

malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not

reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance 

and or careless operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions “[w]ere 

 

7 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions 

(Feb. 15, 1983).

8 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR

§60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense 

put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). 

Comment [A7]: This section needs to 

be revised. EPA proposed an 

affirmative defense on Oct 14, 2010 

in the proposed rule and further 

clarified the affirmative defense 

applicability on Nov 5, 2010. How 

has the agency responded to the 

comments received on the 

affirmative defense provision? 

Is this in the response to comments 

documents? 

If the Agency has not 

addressed/considered these 

comments, will this provision be a 

part of the reconsideration notice? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 37 of 431

caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or 

usual manner....” The criteria also are designed to ensure 

that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to

minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs 

were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable 

emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 

excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health....” In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion 

of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 

part 22.77). 

H. What are the Title V permit requirements?

All new and existing SSI units regulated by the final 

SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Title V 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 38 of 431

permit. These Title V operating permits assure compliance 

with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, 

including all applicable CAA section 129 requirements9. 

The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 

source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on 

when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title 

V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit 

and is not subject to an earlier permit application

deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be 

submitted on or before the relevant date below. 

• For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR

part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a 

complete Title V permit application no later than 12 

months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL; or 

• For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new 

source after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title 

V permit application no later than 12 months after the 

 

9 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 39 of 431

date the SSI unit commences operation as a new 

source10. 

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject 

to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source 

must submit a complete Title V permit application by the 

earlier of the following dates: 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan

(i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that 

implements the SSI EG); or 

• Twelve months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan; or 

• Thirty-six months after promulgation of 40 CFR part

60, subpart MMMM. 

For any existing SSI unit not subject to an earlier

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any applicable 

federal plan is effective, or whether or when any 

applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is 

 

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

71.5(a)(1)(i).
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 40 of 431

approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA sections 

129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) 

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

If the SSI unit is subject to Title V as a result of 

some triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned 

above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major source (or 

part of a major source), then you may be required to apply 

for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specified 

above. If more than one requirement triggers a source’s 

obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-month time 

frame for filing a Title V permit application is triggered 

by the requirement which first causes the source to be 

subject to Title V11. 

For additional background information on the interface 

between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s 

interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating 

existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing 

Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 

(68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses” document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0156). 

 

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

70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 41 of 431

I. What are the applicability dates of the standards?

New SSI units that commence construction after October 

14, 2010, or that are modified six months or more after the 

date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission limits of 

40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within six months after the 

promulgation date of the standards or upon startup,

whichever is later. 

Under the final EG, and consistent with CAA section

129 (b)(2) and 40 CFR 60, subpart B, states are required to 

submit state plans containing the existing source emission 

limits of subpart MMMM of this part, and other requirements 

to implement and enforce the EG within one year after 

promulgation of the EG. States must submit state plans to 

EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (including 

SSI that are modified prior to and including the date six 

months after promulgation) and must be at least as 

protective as the EG. 

The final EG requires existing SSI to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards as expeditiously as 

practicable after approval of a state plan, but no later 

than three years from the date of approval of a state plan 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 42 of 431

or five years after promulgation of the EG, whichever is 

earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expects 

states to require compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable. However, because we believe that many SSI 

units will find it necessary to retrofit existing emissions 

control equipment and/or install additional emissions 

control equipment in order to meet the final limits, EPA 

anticipates that states may choose to provide the 3-year 

compliance period allowed by CAA section 129(f)(2). If EPA 

does not approve a state plan or issue a federal plan, then 

the compliance date is five years from the date of the 

final rule. 

EPA intends to develop a federal plan that will apply 

to existing SSI units in any state that has not submitted 

an approved state plan within two years after promulgation 

of the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject 

to the federal plan up to five years after promulgation of 

the EG to demonstrate compliance with the standards, as 

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

J. What are the requirements for submission of emissions 

test results to EPA?

Electronic data collection is commonly employed to 

collect and analyze data for a variety of applications, 

Comment [A8]: Does EPA have a sense 

of how many states this will apply 

to? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 43 of 431

such as the CAA Acid Rain Program. Both industry and the 

public benefit from electronic data collection in that it 

increases the ease of submitting the data, as well as 

increasing the accessibility and transparency of these 

data. 

EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor development, and annual 

emission rate determinations. In conducting these required 

reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, 

not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators to locate, collect, and submit 

emissions test data because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. One improvement 

that has occurred in recent years is the availability of 

stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement 

for cumbersome paper copies. 

In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve

data accessibility and increase the ease and efficiency of 

reporting for sources. Owners and operators of SSI

facilities are required to submit to EPA’s ERT database the 

electronic copies of reports of certain performance tests 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 44 of 431

required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Facilities must enter 

data through an electronic emissions test report structure 

called the ERT whenever conducting performance tests. EPA 

developed the ERT with input from industry, stack testing 

companies who generally collect and compile performance 

test data electronically and offices within state and local 

agencies that perform field test assessments. The ERT is 

currently available and access to direct data submittal to 

EPA’s electronic emissions database (WebFIRE) will become 

available by December 31, 2011. 

The requirement to submit source test data 

electronically to EPA would not require any additional 

performance testing and would apply to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. 

The website listed below contains a listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT. In 

addition, when a facility submits performance test data to 

WebFIRE, there will be no additional requirements for 

emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we believe 

industry will benefit from development of improved emission 

factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and better 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 45 of 431

regulation development as discussed below. The information 

to be reported is already required for the existing test 

methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the 

test method. 

One major advantage of submitting source test data 

through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and 

store much of the documentation required to be reported by 

this rule that also clearly states what testing information 

would be required. Another important benefit of submitting 

these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted 

is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved 

in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has 

source category performance test data in hand, there will 

likely be fewer or less substantial data collection

requests in conjunction with prospective required residual 

risk assessments or technology reviews. This should result 

in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms 

of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) 

and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the results). 

State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit from the 

reduced burden associated with receipt of electronic 

information opposed to having to process paper forms. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 46 of 431

Finally, another benefit of submitting these data to 

WebFIRE electronically is that these data will greatly 

improve the overall quality of the existing and new

emission factors by supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data upon which the emission factor is based and by 

ensuring that data are more representative of current 

industry operational procedures. A common complaint heard 

from industry and regulators is that emissions factors are 

outdated or not representative of a particular source 

category. Receiving and incorporating data for most 

performance tests will ensure that emissions factors, when 

updated, represent accurately the most current operational 

practices. In summary, receiving test data already

collected for other purposes and using them in the 

emissions factors development program will save industry, 

state/local/tribal agencies and EPA, time and money and 

work to improve the quality of emission inventories and 

related regulatory decisions. 

As mentioned earlier, the electronic database that 

will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a website 

accessible through EPA’s TTN Web. The WebFIRE website was 

constructed to store emissions test data for use in

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 47 of 431

database can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report 

through EPA’s CDX network for storage in the WebFIRE 

database. Although ERT is not the only electronic 

interface that can be used to submit source test data to 

the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data 

very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT 

can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal 

EPA received over 90 public comments on the proposed 

rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public hearing 

to allow the public to comment on the proposed rulemaking. 

In response to these comments, EPA is making several 

changes to the standards. Following are the major changes 

to the standards since the proposal. The rationale for 

these and any other significant changes can be found in 

section V of this preamble or in the “Sewage Sludge

Incineration (SSI) Rule: Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

A. Applicability
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 48 of 431

 The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of sewage 

sludge is burned in an incinerator at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage 

sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI standards in 

subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning sewage 

sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge 

that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater 

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the 

CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of 

this part), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Hazardous 

Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). 

B. Subcategories

 The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new sources. 

In the final NSPS, SSI units at new sources are 

subcategorized into two subcategories: MH and FB. 

C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emission 

Limits

At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation to 

determine variability. For the final rule, for existing FB 

units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calculation 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 49 of 431

to account for the biasing of emissions data from one 

facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH units. 

In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, 

skewness and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the 

data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or lognormally distributed. If both the reported values and the 

natural-log transformed reported values had skewness and 

kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were normally 

distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis 

of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the 

skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the 

reported values and the natural log-transformed reported 

values, the analysis done on the reported data values was 

chosen to be conservative. We have modified our 

assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests 

do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal 

distribution better represents the data, or when there are 

not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtosis 

tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the lognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond the 

floor emission standards for Hg emissions from existing MH 

units. In the final rule, we are establishing the MACT 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 50 of 431

floor emission limits but are not setting beyond the floor 

standards. Also, we are not finalizing the proposed 

opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limits for 

both PCD/PCDF TMB and PCD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units 

to meet both limits. In the final standards, we are 

allowing affected sources to comply with either the

PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits. 

The final emission limits resulting from the revised 

MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 through 6 

of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emission 

limits. 

Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

FB SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0019 0.0016 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 56 58 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.49 0.51 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0033 0.037 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 63 150 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0098 0.0074 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.056 0.10 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.61 1.2 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 12 18 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 22 15 

Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Existing 

MH SSI Units 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 51 of 431

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.095 0.095 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 3,900 3,900 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 1.0 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.02 0.28 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 210 220 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.30 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.32 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 5.0 5.0 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 80 80 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 26 

Table 5. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New FB SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0011 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 18 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 0.24 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.0010 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 30 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.00062 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.013 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0044 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 9.6 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 5.3 

Table 6. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for New MH SSI 

Units 

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00051 0.0024 

CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 7.4 52 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 52 of 431

Pollutant Units 

Proposed 

Emission 

Limit 

Final 

Emission 

Limit 

HCl ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.12 1.2 

Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0010 0.15 

NOx ppmvd @ 7% 02 26 210 

Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.00053 0.0035 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TEQ 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.024 0.045 

PCDD/PCDF, 

TMB 

ng/dscm @ 7% 02 0.0022 0.0022 

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 4.1 60 

SO2 ppmvd @ 7% 02 2.0 26 

D. Baseline Emissions, Costs and Impacts Estimation

 For the final rule, we have revised the baseline 

emissions, costs, and impacts to incorporate information 

provided by commenters. A discussion of the changes is 

presented in section V of this preamble. The results of 

these analyses are summarized in section VI of this

preamble. 

E. Compliance Requirements

For both the standards, the following changes have been 

made: 

• SSI units must submit (at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test date) a monitoring plan to 

establish that their ash handling system will meet the 

visible emissions limit on a continuous basis. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 53 of 431

• The alternative to test less frequently (every third 

year) is being revised to be the following: 

o If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a 

specified threshold during the initial 

performance test, they may test every third year. 

Any year that the emission threshold is not met, 

the SSI must test annually until the threshold is 

met. The alternative in the standards no longer 

requires that SSI units establish that they meet 

the lower thresholds for three consecutive years. 

o For all pollutants (except Cd and Pb), less 

frequent testing is allowed if emissions are no 

greater than an emissions threshold of 50 percent 

of the emission limit. 

o The alternative to test less frequently for Cd 

and Pb now includes a provision that allows less 

frequent testing for these pollutants if an SSI 

is meeting the lower threshold of 50 percent for 

both Cd and Pb. 

o For fugitive emissions from ash handling, less 

frequent testing is allowed as long as visible 

emissions of combustion ash occur less than or 

equal to two percent of each hourly observation 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 54 of 431

period (the standard is five percent of each of 

three hourly observation periods). 

• The final rule removes the requirements in the 

standards to maintain sludge feed rate and moisture

content within specified parameters. However, sludge 

feed rate and sludge moisture content are still 

required to be monitored during performance test runs, 

and daily records of sludge feed rate and sludge 

moisture content are required to be kept. 

• At proposal, operating limits were calculated based on 

a specified percentage of the average parameter value 

recorded during pollutant performance tests. In the 

final standards, operating parameter limits are 

determined on a site-specific basis as the minimum or 

maximum operating parameter value for the parameter, 

as applicable, recorded during pollutant performance 

tests. 

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annual 

performance tests was each 10-12 months. This has 

been changed to specify that performance tests must be 

conducted on a calendar year basis (no less than nine 

calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months

following the previous performance test); and you must 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 55 of 431

complete five performance tests for each such 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. 

• The averaging time for demonstrating compliance with 

the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed from 

a 4-hour rolling averaging period to a 24-hr block 

averaging period. 

• During each compliance test run, SSI units must be 

operated at a minimum of 85 percent of their maximum 

permitted capacity. 

F. Definitions

The following definition has been revised: 

• Process change means a significant permit revision,

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific 

emission units for which the proposed permit revision 

is applicable, including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the 

affected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary 

treatment at the facility, which changes the 

method used for disposing of process solids and 

processing of the sludge prior to incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 56 of 431

affected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent 

used for activated carbon injection). 

V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Changes 

to the Proposed Rule 

This section contains a brief summary of major 

comments and responses. EPA received many comments on this 

subpart covering numerous topics. EPA’s responses to all 

comments, including those below, can be found in the 

comment response document for SSI units in the docket. 

A. Legal and Applicability Issues Regulating SSI’s Under 

Section 112 vs. Section 129

 Comment: Many commenters contended that SSI’s are 

within the CWA definition of POTW; therefore, according to 

CAA section 112(e)(5), EPA must regulate SSI units under 

CAA section 112(d), and not CAA section 129. The 

commenters emphasized that SSI units are located within 

each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the 

solids handling and treatment processes at each POTW. 

 Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be 

regulated under CAA section 129 because they are combusting 

material that is generated by the POTW, which is neither a 

commercial or industrial establishment nor the general 

public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 57 of 431

commenters added that, based on the proposed definition of 

solid waste, even if they had a new point of generation 

within the POTW where they were generating solid waste, the 

POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and does not 

pass the broad applicability for solid waste incineration 

under CAA section 129. Another commenter added that CAA 

section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set standards 

for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal 

waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipal waste, 

the unit must first be a solid waste incineration unit. 

The commenters concluded that this would not include SSI 

units. 

 Several commenters stated that EPAs determination to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradicts 

previous decisions where EPA has stated that regulations 

were being developed for SSI under CAA section 112. 

Another commenter stated that EPA’s revision to the list of 

source categories under CAA section 112 to delete SSI units 

was because there were no major sources in the source 

category. One commenter added that EPA’s decision to 

regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 is based on an 

overly broad reading of the NRDC case. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 58 of 431

Response: As explained in the NPRM, EPA issued 

emissions standards for POTW in 1999 pursuant to section 

112(d), and those emissions standards did not include 

standards for SSI units. In the proposed POTW emissions 

standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge incineration 

will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA[.]” See 63 

FR 66084, 66087 (December 1, 19991998). Therefore, EPA 

disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that regulation of 

SSI units under section 129 is inconsistent with past EPA 

statements. EPA also explained in the NPRM that the EPA’s 

statements regarding SSI units during its promulgation of 

emissions standards for OSWI units are squarely in conflict 

with the Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 

(D.C. Cir. 2007). The commenter’s do not appear to

disagree with that conclusion, but instead simply argue 

that EPA cannot regulate SSI units under section 129 

because it previously stated that it would regulate them 

under section 112. However, the NRDC decision precludes 

EPA from doing so. 

Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to

issue emissions standards for SSI units under section 

112(d). Rather, it governs the schedule for the issuance 

section 112(d) emissions standards for POTW. Section 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 59 of 431

112(e), titled “Schedule for Standards and Review,”

generally requires EPA to establish emissions standards for 

initially listed source categories as expeditiously as 

practicable, with certain specific deadlines in section 

112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EPA shall 

prioritize source categories for regulation, and requires 

EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissions 

standards for section 112 listed source categories. 

Finally, Congress specified a different schedule for POTW 

in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standards 

shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. Thus, 

section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI 

units under section 112(d), but rather simply identifies 

the date by which EPA must issue emissions standards for 

POTW. 

Additionally, the commenter’s interpretation of 

section 112(e)(5) would conflict with section 129(g) and 

with the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of section 129(g) as 

explained in NRDC v. EPA. Section 129(g) defines “solid 

waste incineration unit” to include any unit combusting any 

solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s 

position that it could choose to regulate certain units, 

combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead of under 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 60 of 431

section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid waste, EPA 

does not have the discretion under section 129 to create an 

exemption for SSI units from the statutory definition of 

solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) itself 

specifies certain units that combust solid waste but are 

exempt from the definition, and noted that where Congress 

created such enumerated exemptions, the EPA lacks 

discretion to create additional ones. 

EPA further disagrees that regulation of SSI units 

under section 129 is unnecessary because SSI units are 

already regulated under section 405 of the CWA and will 

provide no public health or environmental benefit. As 

explained in section VI of this preamble, today’s action 

will achieve reductions of the section 129 pollutants from 

SSI units. EPA further notes that section 405 of the CWA 

expressly provides that nothing in that section is intended 

to waive more stringent requirements of any other law. 

Therefore, Congress clearly did not intend for regulation 

of SSI units under the CWA to preclude any other 

regulations. 

Overlap with Other Standards

 Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that 

other types of solid waste incineration units could be 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 61 of 431

considered SSI units and subject to the SSI standards if 

they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some commenters 

added that the definition of an SSI does not have a de 

minimus level of sewage sludge burned. Other commenters 

requested clarification on whether SSI units burning nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SSI and 

CISWI. Some commenters suggested that SSI units be

consistent with the MWC standards and provide an exemption 

for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less by weight 

of sewage sludge. 

Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide

exclusions for all solid waste incineration units that meet 

the applicability requirements of other CAA section 129 

standards, including MWCs regulated under Subparts Ea, Eb, 

Cb, AAAA, and BBBB. The commenters noted that the CISWI 

standards specifically exempted MWC units and other units 

subject to CAA section 129 standards. 

Several commenters contended that EPA should exempt

incineration units subject to hazardous waste combustor 

regulations and/or hazardous waste management permits under 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The commenters added that 

CAA section 129(g)(1) states that a solid waste 

incineration unit does not include incinerators or other 

Formatted: Font: Italic
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 62 of 431

units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the 

SWDA. Other commenters requested EPA include an exemption 

for hazardous waste combustion units that are affected 

sources under 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEE. 

 Response: Section 129 defines solid waste incineration 

unit to include any unit combusting any solid waste. 

Therefore, EPA is not setting de minimus levels for solid 

waste burned in incinerators. Any amount of sewage sludge 

combusted in an incinerator located at a wastewater

treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge 

is subject to the final SSI standards. We have clarified 

that the final standards and guidelines do not apply to 

sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a 

wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic 

sewage sludge. Sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI 

located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to 

treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 

129 standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards 

(40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of 

this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR 

part 63 subpart EEE). 

Formatted: Font: Italic
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 63 of 431

Hazardous waste combustion units that are required to 

have a permit under CAA section 3005 or the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standards per 

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

exemption is needed for this rule. 

 Comment: Several commenters objected to EPA issuing 

the proposed SSI standards prior to making determinations 

regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid waste. 

Response: The EPA is not making determination in this 

rule about the definition of non-hazardous solid waste but 

are using the defintions promulagted in a RCRA rule. The 

EPA is issuing a e final rule defining solid waste for nonhazardous secondary materials under RCRA in a separate 

notice in is in today’s Federal Register in a separate 

notice. 

Comment: Several commenters contended that sewage 

sludge is not a solid waste, as the CAA defines solid waste 

by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. 

The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage sludge in 

what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage

exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states that 

solid waste does not include solid or dissolved material in 

domestic sewage. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 64 of 431

Response: This comment is not relevant to EPA’s 

establishment of emissions standards for SSI units. 

Rather, it is relevant to EPA’s proposed Identification of 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste 

rule, and is addressed in the EPA’s final action on that 

proposed rule. 

B. Subcategories

 Comment: Many commenters agreed with the development 

of separate EG for existing MH and FB units. The 

commenters also requested adding the same subcategories for 

the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappropriate 

to consider the best performing FB SSI as the best 

performing similar source for the MH SSI new source

category. They also stated that, as proposed, the NSPS 

standards would severely restrict a POTW ability to modify 

existing MH units, including modifications to improve 

combustion efficiency or boost steam output for electricity 

generation. Some commenters stated that, by using the best 

performing FB unit as the basis for the NSPS for MH units, 

EPA was setting a beyond the floor MACT limit for SSI units 

without considering any criteria that the statute requires. 

Other commenters agreed with the decision to use the best-
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 65 of 431

performing FB unit as the best similar source for the MH 

SSI source category. 

 Other commenters requested further subcategorization 

based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludge 

incinerated, limited use units, and distance over which the 

SSI would need to transport its sludge for disposal. 

Response: We have considered the commenters concerns 

and are setting separate standards for FB and MH units at 

new sources in the final rule. As discussed in the NPRM, 

there are two types of incinerators currently used to 

combust sewage sludge: MH and FB incinerators. The 

differences between the two combustor designs result in 

significant differences in emissions, size of the flue gas 

stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control 

of temperature and other process variables, auxiliary fuel 

use and other characteristics. To reflect the differences 

in their combustion mechanisms, two subcategories, FB and 

MH, were developed in the NPRM for new and existing SSI 

sources. 

At proposal for the MH new source subcategory, we 

considered the best-performing FB incinerator to be the 

best-performing similar source because we were not aware of 

any new MH sources that have been constructed in the last 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 66 of 431

20 years, and information provided by the industry 

indicates that future units that will be constructed are 

likely to be FB incinerators. 

We have re-evaluated our decision. Although few MH

units have been constructed over the last 20 years, there 

is no technical reason that would preclude a source from 

constructing a MH unit. Therefore, we are setting separate 

standards for MH units at new sources in order to not limit 

potential options POTW can use to dispose of waste. We 

still believe that new SSI units constructed will be FB 

units because of the many advantageous of FB units over MH 

units. However, many MH units have a long equipment life 

and may undergo modification, including energy efficiency 

improvements that may subject them to new source standards. 

These units would not be able to meet the new source 

standards based on FB units. 

We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any other 

basis because we do not have data that would differentiate 

emissions based on the size of the unit or whether it was a 

limited use unit. We also do not have data on the 

different types of sludge incinerated or distances for 

transporting to landfills. 

C. MACT Floor Analysis
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 67 of 431

Pollutant-by-Pollutant Approach

Comment: Many commenters objected to setting the MACT 

floors using a pollutant by pollutant approach because none 

of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneously meet 

all the proposed standards. One commenter stated that 

EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review 

of actual emissions data with an appropriate accounting for 

emissions variability". However, the commenter contended 

that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practical 

manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units and that 

this results is unrealistically stringent limits that are 

not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters noted that 

this was especially true for the new source standards. 

Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis violates the statute and its own views of the

statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot 

demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneously meet 

all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 

129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards because 

the "floor standards would force industry-wide 

technological upgrades without consideration of the factors 

(cost and energy in particular) which Congress mandated for 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 68 of 431

consideration when establishing beyond-the-floor 

standards." 

Many commenters specifically mentioned that EPA's 

pollutant-by-pollutant, lowest emission methodology for 

setting the CO and NOx standards is flawed because EPA did 

not take into account the inherent conflict in complying 

with two standards. The commenters noted that CO and NOx

emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters 

explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NOx and vice 

versa. The commenters added that high temperature 

combustion with long residence times and high oxygen 

concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that 

those same operating conditions favor high NOx emissions. 

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize 

CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel 

and produce more CO2 emissions. 

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most

advanced control technologies, and those EPA indicated were 

costed in the impacts analysis, would not meet the emission 

limits for all of the pollutants all of the time. The 

commenter provided an example showing that of 11 of 30 test 

data points from the SSI unit in EPA’s database would not 

comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points would not 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 69 of 431

comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not comply with 

the HCl standard, six of six data points would not comply 

with the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ, 86 of 105 would not comply 

with the CO standard, and eight of 15 would not comply with 

the NOx standard. The commenter concluded that data 

variability has not been appropriately accounted for and 

that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor based on 

the best performing unit for each pollutant is not 

reasonable. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters who object 

to setting MACT floors on a pollutant-by pollutant basis. 

EPA previously has explained that although CAA section 129 

does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors must be 

established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, applying the 

requirement to set MACT floors based on what has been 

achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the 

pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonable 

interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provision (62 

FR 48363-64). 

 EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a)(2) 

to support establishing emissions standards based on the 

actual emissions of “the best controlled similar unit” or 

“best-performing 12 percent of units in the category” for 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 70 of 431

each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclude that 

the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonable under 

the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ 

interpretation is certainly not compelled by the statute. 

We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable under the 

statute and appropriate given the problems associated with 

implementing the commenters’ approach. 

 The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “establish 

performance standards and other requirements pursuant to 

section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each 

category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursuant to 

CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants 

listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). 

Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance standards 

promulgated under section [111] of this title and this 

section [129] and applicable to solid waste incineration 

units shall specify numerical emissions limitations for the 

following substances or mixtures: PM (total and fine), 

opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen 

chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, Cd, 

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.” Thus, the statute 

requires EPA to set individual numeric performance 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 71 of 431

standards based on the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions actually achieved for each of nine listed

pollutants. Based on this, EPA believes – and has long 

believed – the statute supports, if not requires, that MACT 

floors be derived for each pollutant based on the emission 

levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, although the 

provisions do not state whether there is to be a separate 

floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress singled 

out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of devices 

that only control some of these pollutants well. 

 Looking at the statute as a whole, EPA declared in the 

1997 rulemaking for medical waste incinerators “The EPA 

does not agree that the MACT floors are to be based upon 

one overall unit” (62 FR 48364). Pointing for instance to 

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

This provision certainly appears to direct 

maximum reduction of each specified pollutant. 

Moreover, although the provisions do not state 

whether there is to be a separate floor for each 

pollutant, the fact that Congress singled out 

these pollutants suggests that the floor level of 

control need not be limited by the performance of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 72 of 431

devices that only control some of these 

pollutants well. 

Id.

 Since 1997, the courts have consistently repeated that 

EPA must set emission standards based on the bestperforming source for each pollutant. See, e.g., Cement 

Kiln, 255 F.3d 855, 858 (D.C. Cir.) (“[T]he Agency first 

sets emission floors for each pollutant and source 

category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-pollutant 

approach has, as outlined above, been in place since 1997 

for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier for other 

types of incinerators regulated under section 129. See, 

e.g., 59 FR 48198 (September 20, 1994) (municipal waste

combustors). In addition, such an approach has been upheld 

in other contexts. See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 

870 F.2d 177, 239 (5th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing 

CWA best available technology standards on a pollutant-bypollutant basis was a rational interpretation of EPA’s 

obligations under that similar statute). We note that the 

CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA program. S. 

Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 73 of 431

 Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would likely 

result in EPA setting the standards at levels that could, 

for some pollutants, actually be based on emissions

limitations achieved by the worst-performing unit, rather 

than the best-performing unit, as required by the statute. 

See 61 FR 173687 (April 19, 1996); 62 FR 48363-64 

(September 15, 1997). For example, if the best performing 

12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF 

as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, the floor 

for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflecting best 

performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach would 

require EPA to make value judgments as to which pollutant 

reductions are most critical in working to identify the 

single unit that reduces emissions of the nine pollutants 

on an overall best-performing basis. Such value judgments 

are antithetical to the command of the statute at the MACT 

floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to 

prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relative risk 

to human health of each pollutant, a criterion that has no 

place in the establishment of MACT floors. Sierra Club v. 

EPA (Copper Smelters), 353 F.3d 976, 979-80 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 74 of 431

The fact that the statute does not contain the phrase 

“for each pollutant” does not compel any inference that 

Congress was sub silentio mandating a different result when 

it left the provision ambiguous on this issue. The

argument that MACT floors set pollutant-by-pollutant are 

based on the performance of a hypothetical facility, so 

that the limitations are not based on those achieved in 

practice, just re-begs the question of whether CAA section 

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

pollutants. All of the emission limitations in this rule 

reflect actual performance and are achieved in practice. 

An interpretation that the floor level of control must 

be limited by the performance of devices that only control 

some of these pollutants effectively “guts the standards” 

by including worse performers in the averaging process, 

whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident 

Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the 

average performance of best performing sources. Since 

Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, 

and EPA’s interpretation effectuates statutory goals and 

policies in a reasonable manner, its interpretation must be 

upheld. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 75 of 431

Commenters made much of the fact that no single 

facility is presently achieving all of the nine pollutant 

limits proposed. For the final standards, based on the 

data we have, our estimate of baseline emissions, and the 

revised emission limits, we are estimating that 155 of 204 

existing SSI units can meet standards for all nine 

pollutants. We cannot make this assessment for new

sources, because none have been constructed. However, we 

are not aware of any technical reason that new units could 

not install the most advanced pollution control techniques 

or reduce the pollutant concentrations in the sludge to 

meet the new source standards. 

We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approach 

for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in this 

case, increase the overall cost of the regulation compared 

to what would result under a unit-based methodology. We 

interpret CAA section 129 to require that the MACT floor be 

determined in this manner, and we believe that Congress 

did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regulations 

developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limits that 

are achieved by the best controlled unit for each 

pollutant, as long as the control systems are compatible 

with each other. To our knowledge, there is no technical 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 76 of 431

reason why these air pollution control systems cannot be 

combined. 

Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and NOx

with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the 

SSI facility to determine whether combustion conditions can 

be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, install NOx

controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, 

FGR, or low NOx burners). In the proposed rule, we 

conjectured reasons why SCR and SNCR were not used or may 

not be able to be used at SSI units. While we are not 

aware of any SSI unit that currently uses SNCR or SCR, we 

also do not know of technical reason why they could not be 

used. Given the limited data available on SSI units with 

FGR, we could not definitely determine how effective the 

technology was on SSI units. However, we also do not know 

of a technical reason why they could not be used, if 

necessary, to meet NOx limits. 

Dataset for the MACT Floor Analysis

Comment: Many commenters urged EPA to collect more 

information to set the standards. Many commenters 

contended that EPA does not have sufficient actual emission 

data from enough SSI units to properly set the MACT floor. 

Some commenters contended that the floor-setting provision 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 77 of 431

in section 129 requires them to set the existing floor 

standards "based on the best performing 12 percent of 

sources in the category" and not just based on the sources 

for which they have information. The commenters contended 

that EPA did not have emissions data from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources or even from 12 percent of 

sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is 

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collected data 

are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EPA is 

using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a 

subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determine how 

the top 12 percent perform. 

Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit its 

ICR to just nine entities because collecting information 

from ten or more entities would have triggered the PRA 

obligations and a more rigorous OMB review. The commenters 

concluded that EPA’s plan to circumvent the PRA and OMB 

review resulted in an inadequate dataset for this 

rulemaking that leaves EPA unable to reliably take the 

first necessary step in a section 129 rulemaking: to 

determine which of the SSI units are the best performing 

sources. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 78 of 431

Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted its 

ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest emissions 

based on the type of unit and the installed air pollution 

controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targeted 

approach to collecting data from expected top performers 

undermines its ability to presume the data is a random 

sample representative of the entire source category or 

subcategory. The commenters stated that if the data 

gathered are not representative at the outset, then the 

data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equation to 

predict the emissions data across the source category or 

subcategory. 

Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has used 

permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed 

rate control, and other information to establish MACT 

standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenters stated 

that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method 

in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actual 

emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at 

least 12% of the units. 

Another commenter stated that EPA used emission data 

from state databases for an additional nine MHs. The 

commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Court to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 79 of 431

collect data from the best-performing 12% of existing 

sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emissions data 

from the state databases for the additional nine MHs were 

the 12% best performing MHs. 

Response: EPA began data collection efforts in 2009 

for the SSI rulemaking. EPA planned to follow the data 

collection procedures used for the Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional Boilers MACT standards and the CISWI 

standards. For those rulemakings, EPA sent an ICR to 

affected sources. The ICR had two components. The first 

component of the ICR solicited information from all

potentially affected units in the form of a survey to 

collect available emission test reports, operating 

information, and other data necessary to characterize 

affected sources. EPA then evaluated the information 

received in response to the survey and identified data gaps 

in the emissions information. The second component of the 

ICR consisted of emissions testing at sufficient sources to 

collect enough data, in combination with the test reports 

submitted with the ICR, to determine the best performing 12 

percent of sources. This data collection effort lasted 

over 24 months. Additionally, because the ICR for those 

rulemakings was sent to more than nine entities, the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 80 of 431

requirements of the PRA applied, and required EPA to seek 

public input on a draft ICR as well as obtain approval from 

OMB to collect the information. 

EPA needed to collect information on the bestperforming sources to establish MACT floor standards for 

SSI. Therefore, EPA sent ICRs to nine entities that own 

and operate SSI units. EPA identified SSI units that were 

expected to be the best-controlled sources and the best 

performers for further emissions testing. The Agency 

acknowledges that this selection methodology targets 

identifying the best-performing sources rather than

selecting a representative sample of sources. However, 

given the court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue the final 

SSI rule, it was not possible to undertake the timeconsuming process of sending an ICR to all the affected SSI 

units consistent with the requirements of the PRA. 

To select the surveyed owners, EPA reviewed the 

inventory of SSI units for the control devices being 

operated, and identified a subset of units expected to have 

the lowest emissions based on the type of unit and the 

installed air pollution controls. These controls generally 

achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA section 

129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify for each 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 81 of 431

pollutant the units with the lowest emissions. For

example, units were selected that operated more than one of 

the following technologies: activated carbon injection to 

reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to 

reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine particulate; 

high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubbers and 

impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, 

particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO2; and 

units with multiple control devices that could reduce PM, 

Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, such as venturi scrubber in

combination with impingement scrubbers and wet ESPs or with 

another particulate control device. The 9 owners or 

operators selected were from different states in different 

regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum of 

sources for wastewater being treated. 

Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, 

resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the nine 

operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some 

owners of multiple units at a facility provided information 

for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit 

instead of 2, because not all units were in operation 

during the test period. Of those 20 units from the nine 

surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 17 units 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 82 of 431

that were in operation (11 MH units and 6 FB units). While 

testing was being undertaken, the EPA also collected 

emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collected from 

state environmental agencies public databases. For some 

pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental test 

reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sources. 

The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use all the 

emissions information from these test reports in the MACT 

floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test reports 

that were older than 15 years. The older reports were 

determined to not be appropriate for this rulemaking due to 

their age and because they were prior to sources coming 

into compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In total, 

emissions information were collected from 6 FB units and 20 

MH units from facilities responding to the ICR and 

additional test reports provided by state environmental 

agencies. 

As discussed in the NPRM and background documentation, 

the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the 

minimum number of observations needed to accurately

characterize the distribution of the best-performing 12 

percent of units in each subcategory. The results showed 

that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the number 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 83 of 431

of observations necessary to provide an accurate 

representation of that data distributed from the bestperforming 12 percent of the source population. The EPA 

maintains that the emissions information that we have 

collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor for the 

best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ recommendation to use other types of data, such 

as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate controls 

with the emissions information to calculate the MACT floor. 

The other types of data mentioned do not represent the 

actual emissions or operation of the unit but are potential 

values in their permits or limits. Most units are 

typically operating at lower than permitted levels or 

emission limits. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to incorporate 

such data into the EPA’s UPL calculation because the UPL 

calculation is based on emission test runs of actual data, 

rather than limits based on permits. The permit or

emission limits would be on a different basis and 

potentially skew the MACT floor UPL calculation. 

The EPA has also updated the inventory of sources 

based on additional data provided in the comment letters. 

The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB units and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 84 of 431

144 MH units. Given this change in population, 12 percent 

of each subcategory are equal to 8 FB units and 18 MH 

units. Although we do not have any more emissions 

information than at proposal, the change in inventory 

results in more than 12 percent of MH units with data for 

PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT 

floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of emissions 

data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). The EPA 

solicited additional emission test reports in the NPRM. 

Although many commenters summarized the results of their 

most recent emission tests when comparing their sitespecific emissions to EPA’s baseline emissions, none of the 

commenters actually provided the emissions test reports. 

The emission test reports are necessary for the EPA to 

review the test methods and procedures to ensure 

consistency with other emissions data, and to verify the 

tests represent a valid test result that can be used in the 

MACT floor analysis. Additionally, the test reports 

provide information necessary to correct the emissions 

measured into the units used for the MACT floor analysis. 

Therefore, these additional test result summaries, without 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 85 of 431

background documentation, could not be used in the MACT 

floor UPL calculation. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, to fill the data 

gap caused by the lack of actual emissions data from the 

required number of units in each subcategory, EPA applied 

statistical analysis to single test run results. Several 

commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data 

available for MACT development, EPA counted each test run 

as a separate data point. 

Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on 

test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The commenters 

noted that CAA section 129 states that MACT standards for 

existing sources must be as stringent as the "emissions 

limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of 

units in, the category." The commenters added that, 

assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limitation" 

with the concept of emission level (as often stated by 

EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emission 

levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floors. The 

commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes 

a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid emissions 

level test. The commenter stated that a test run is not an 

accurate measure of the performance of the unit and should 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 86 of 431

not be used as if it were. Commenters added that EPA 

should use the results of the test for each unit (comprised 

of at least three test runs) to represent what is being 

achieved by a unit. 

Several commenters contended that EPA must go back and 

reset the process based on 12% of MH and 12% of FBI sources 

(not individual incinerators). The commenters added that 

it is important that individual sources, not units, be 

utilized because the composition of the sludge varies 

greatly from source to source and utilizing multiple units 

at one source skews the data development process and 

ultimately provides the basis for a flawed MACT standard at 

best. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 

percent UPL values were calculated for each pollutant and 

for each subcategory using the test run data for those 

units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consistent with 

EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as HMIWI, 

CISWI, and boilers, the MACT floor emission limits were 

calculated on a run basis since compliance is based on the 

average of a 3-run test. The 99 percent UPL represents the 

value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run

performance tests form the best-performing 12 percent of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 87 of 431

sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based 

upon the results of the independent sample observations 

from the same best-performing sources. 

Variability Calculation

For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are 

incorporating variability in the MACT floor calculation for 

this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also 

following the same procedures for establishing limits and 

incorporating non-detect values as discussed in the NPRM. 

We have made two revisions to the variability calculation 

for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT floor 

variability calculation to incorporate weighted UPL’s for 

existing FB units. Second, we selected log-normal results 

when it is not clear that data are normally distributed. 

These revisions are discussed in the following comments and 

documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor Analysis 

for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” in the 

SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 7 of this

preamble shows the revised results of the MACT floor 

analysis for existing sources, and Table 8 of this preamble 

shows the results for new sources. 

Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existing SSI 

Units 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 88 of 431

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0016 0.095 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

58 3,900 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.51b 1.2 

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.037 0.28 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

150 220 

Pb 

mg/dscm

@7% O2 

0.0074 0.30 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.1 0.32 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

1.2 5.0 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

18 80 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

15 26 

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level. 

Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units 

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

Cd 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.0011 0.0024 

CO 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

18 52 

HCl 

ppmvd 

@7% O2

0.24 1.2 c

Hg 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

0.001 0.15 b

NOx

ppmvd 

@7% O2

30 210 

Pb mg/dscm 0.00062 0.0035 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 89 of 431

Pollutant Units 

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

FB Incineratorsa

MACT Floor 

Emission Limit for 

MH Incineratorsa

@7% O2 

CDD/CDF 

TEQ 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.0044 0.0022 

CDD/CDF 

TMB 

ng/dscm

@7% O2

0.013 0.045 

PM 

mg/dscm

@7% O2

9.6 60 

SO2

ppmvd 

@7% O2

5.3 26 c

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. 

b Limits represent three times the detection level.

c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less 

stringent than EG. 

Comment: One commenter contended that because the CAA 

section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floors 

reflecting the “average” emission level achieved by the 

best sources, setting floors that instead reflect a UPL for 

those sources is unlawful. The commenter, added that by 

claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top 

twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider 

variability under the CAA and relevant case law. The 

commenter explained that, although EPA may consider

variability in estimating an individual source’s actual 

performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case law 

even suggests that EPA may account for differences in 

performance between sources except as section 129 provides, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 90 of 431

by averaging the emission levels achieved by the sources in 

the top twelve percent. 

 Response: In assessing sources’ performance, EPA 

may consider variability both in identifying which 

performers are “best” and in assessing their level of 

performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT), 479 F. 3d 

875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241–42 

(D.C. Cir 2004) (EPA must exercise its judgment, based on 

an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, 

to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources considering these 

sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision 

indicated that floors for existing sources must reflect the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision 

also reiterated that EPA may account for variability in 

setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA erred in 

assessing variability because it relied on data from the 

worst performers to estimate best performers’ variability. 

The Court held that “EPA may not use emission levels of the 

worst performers to estimate variability of the best 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 91 of 431

performers without a demonstrated relationship between the 

two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. 

In determining the MACT floor limits, we first 

determine the floor, which, for existing sources, is the 

emissions limitation achieved in practice by the average of 

the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the level 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest

emissions limitation as the measure of best performance. 

We then assess variability of the best performers by using 

a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT floor 

level that can be met by the average of the best performing 

sources based on the expected distribution of future 

compliance tests. Variability can be accounted for using 

different statistical methods. For example, recent

standards have used the UL or the UPL to determine the MACT 

floor emission limits. A UL is based on the distribution 

of the available emission observations (e.g., test runs), 

and does not embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A 

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

is an interval that will, with a specified degree of 

confidence, contain the next (or some other pre-specified) 

randomly selected observation from a population. In other 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 92 of 431

words, the prediction interval estimates what future values 

will be, based on present or past background samples taken. 

Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the 

mean of three future test run observations (three-run 

average) can be expected to fall below, based on the 

results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same 

population. Therefore, should a future test condition be 

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

of three runs), we can be 99 percent confident that the 

reported level will fall below a MACT floor emission limit 

calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an appropriate 

statistical tool to use in determining variability in the 

SSI data. For this source category, where there is a 

limited sampling of the source category and we do not have 

test data from all of the SSI units in the best performing 

12% for each subcategory, the predictive aspect of the UPL 

calculation is especially important. 

Because the UPL represents the value which we can 

expect the mean (i.e., average) of three future 

observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon the 

results of the independent sample size from the same 

population, the UPL adequately gets at the notion of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 93 of 431

average emissions. The UPL is consistent with other recent 

rulemakings, such as the boiler and CISWI standards. 

Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting 

MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized 

data from all available test runs for the best performing 

units without regard to the number of data points available 

for each unit. The commenters added that, for all 

pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to 

unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases 

the statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by 

over-weighting the performance of the units that have more 

data. The commenter suggested that EPA should employ an 

alternate methodology which determines the emissions 

limitation achieved for each best performing unit first, 

and then averages these limitations to determine the least 

stringent standard, or MACT floor. 

Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed 

units contains data from six units at four facilities. The 

entities surveyed were requested to provide recent (within 

the previous 5 years) emissions test reports. Most survey 

recipients provided only the most recent report. One 

facility, with three units, provided results of emissions 

test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 94 of 431

period. This facility also uses the most advanced 

pollution controls on their fluidized bed units in the 

subcategory. This facility constitutes 70 percent of the 

Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and 75 

percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the 

existing source MACT floors calculated using the UPL 

methodology, and all the test run data from the one

facility, effectively results in calculating more stringent 

limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an

existing source MACT floor. In order to adequately

incorporate the emissions from all the SSI units in the 

fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was used for 

calculating the existing source MACT floors for the final 

rule. The weighted UPL is calculated from a weighted mean 

and weighted variance as described below. 

There are many different types of weighting 

procedures. We have chosen the most straightforward 

methodology, to base it on the number of data points (i.e., 

test runs) from each SSI unit.12 This weighting scheme 

ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool 

is over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. 

 

12 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIST Handbook 148: 

DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June 2003. [Available at 

www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html] 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 95 of 431

The first step in weighting procedure is to assign a 

weighting factor to each test run by multiplying each 

observation for source i and run j with a weight term, wij, 

as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble: 













×















=

M N

w

i

ij

1 1

 (Eq. 1)

 

Where: 

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

N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool. 

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance 

for the weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 

2 and 3 of this preamble: 

Weighted Mean: 

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

=

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

ij ij

weighted

i

i

w

w x

x

1 1

1 1

 Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

( )

( )

K

K w

w x x

N

i

M

j

ij

N

i

M

j

weighted

ij ij U

weighted

i

i

∑∑

∑∑

= =

= =

−

−

=

1 1

1 1

2

1

ν

Equation 3

Where: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 96 of 431

∑=

=

N

i

K Mi

1

is the total number of observations in the MACT best 

performers pool. 

When the weights are equal to one, the above equations 

reduce to those for un-weighted data, as expected. As 

shown in Equation 4 of this preamble, the weighted mean and 

weighted variance are then used in the UPL calculation 

(discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e., unweighted) mean and variance. 

( ) ( ) 















= + − × × +

i i

weighted

i

weighted

n m

UPL x t n

1 1

99.0 , 1 ν Equation 4 

For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions

data from a larger number of facilities/units. For

example, we have data on Cd and Pb from 11 facilities with 

14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT 

floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units or 

facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing 

multiple hearth units does not need to be calculated using 

a weighted UPL. 

The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are 

discussed in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 97 of 431

Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category” 

in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should 

determine the MACT floor emission limits to be consistent 

with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Manual, 

which holds that it is more likely that environmental data 

are distributed log-normally. The commenter considered it 

reasonable to believe that environmental emission 

distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots

typically show many readings approaching zero and fewer 

large readings forming an elongated tail to the right. The 

commenter concluded that normal distributions may exist for 

certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many

standard deviations away from zero, and values are 

controlled by an air pollution control process with set 

points and feedback and control loops. 

Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and 

agree with the commenter that the referenced document shows 

that environmental data are more likely to be log-normally 

distributed than normally distributed. In the proposed 

rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were 

examined to determine if the data used to calculate the 

MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed. If 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 98 of 431

both the reported values and the natural-log transformed 

reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that 

indicated neither were normally distributed, the reported 

dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to be 

conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis 

hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the 

natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done 

on the reported data values was chosen to be conservative. 

Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: 

Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/084, July 

2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the 

skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whether a 

normal or log-normal distribution better represents the 

data, or when there are not enough data to complete the 

skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have 

chosen to use the log-normal results for the final MACT 

floor calculation. 

 Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA 

incorrectly presumes that stack test results account for 

the full variability of an SSI’s performance. Several 

commenters stated that emissions from SSI units are

affected not just by control technology but also by other 

factors including the contents of the sludge that a unit is 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 99 of 431

burning. Many commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT 

floor limits by incorporating the variability of the sludge 

contents. The commenters added that the methodology in 

developing the proposed standards does not take into 

account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions are a 

function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and 

sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits 

were based on test results obtained with sludge containing 

very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and sulfur. 

The commenter explained that if the sludge burned during an 

emissions test was not at or near the maximum constituent 

concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a 

new source emission limit based on these data could not be 

achieved over the full range of expected normal operating 

conditions confronted by the best performing source. 

The commenters contended that EPA must consider all

available data (including Part 503 data) for the best 

performing source and use that to establish a variability 

factor applied to the stack test data. The commenters 

added that EPA’s request for metals data during the stack 

test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source 

variability. The commenters added that variability for the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 100 of 431

compounds not regulated by Part 503 must also be accounted 

for as well before setting the new source limit. 

The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI 

units, are statutorily obligated to manage all of the 

sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, 

resulting in highly variable and often unpredictable spikes 

in concentrations. The commenters continued that POTW inlet 

concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of 

dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat 

wastewater from residential, commercial and industrial 

dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment 

opportunities also vary because POTW authority to control 

discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way 

that authority is exercised varies. The commenters also 

noted that the nature of sewage entering the POTW changes 

over time as the character of a community changes, the age 

of the population changes, and commercial and industrial 

dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without 

the use of long-term data to support the level of emission 

standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based 

limits impractical and infeasible. The commenters also 

explained that POTW also face significant regional and 

seasonal variability that is not captured by EPA’s dataset. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 101 of 431

The commenters stated that initial high flow periods in the 

spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier material 

that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow 

periods, which often results in a spike in metals 

concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage sludge. The 

commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in January and 

February that were used for the EPA database would not have 

captured these events. The commenter also noted that 

northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways

experience significant increases in chlorides during the 

winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known 

to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at existing wet 

scrubbers. 

Response: The variability analysis is based on 

emissions information gathered from nine different 

facilities located in nine different states. The 

facilities we collected emissions information from are 

located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and 

western states. Each facility has its own unique sludge 

characteristics from different residential and commercial 

populations. We agree that the emissions data represents a 

“point in time”. However, combined together, they 

represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 102 of 431

populations that adequately incorporates variability in 

wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We have also 

incorporated variability using the UPL. We maintain that 

the variability analysis based on the emissions data 

collected adequately characterizes the potential 

differences in sludge contents and regional differences. 

Because we have a mixture of southern and northern states 

in the emissions database, we believe that it also 

adequately considers differences between cold and warm 

weather climates. 

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s 

identification of the relevant best performing units for 

both existing and new unit standards is both unlawful and 

arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control technology 

as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pollution 

control technology is the only factor determining emission 

levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated that, in 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. 

Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Club's 

challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely on 

the performance of one method: add-on technology. The 

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule because 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 103 of 431

EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities control 

emissions. The commenters stated that this requirement is 

consistent with doing a more complete study as required by 

section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based 

solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this 

fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of 

control. The commenters concluded that EPA's performance 

data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did 

not check for all methods that sources use to reduce 

pollution. 

Response: Part 503 establishes daily average 

concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage 

sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also 

requires that SSI meet the National Emission Standards for 

Beryllium and Hg in subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 

CFR part 61. In order to meet the 40 CFR part 503 

standards, facilities are already incorporating management 

practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the 

concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI 

units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated 

wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-treatment 

standards for non-domestic users discharging wastewater to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 104 of 431

POTW. Thus, non-technology measures to reduce emissions 

are already being taken. 

Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs 

the statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it 

should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated 

that the 99.9 percent UPL represents a 0.1 percent 

probability of a failure for individual tests, or a one 

percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual 

performance test program. The commenter concluded that 

this value better encompasses unit emissions variability 

and represents a manageable risk to the responsible

facility operator. 

Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the 

final standards, we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is 

appropriate and sufficiently addresses variability in the 

emissions information. 

Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit 

of zero percent because opacity is a subjective measurement 

and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. 

Another commenter suggested that control and monitoring of 

PM is sufficient. 

Response: The final rule does not set opacity limits. 

We believe that, with continuous parametric monitoring and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 105 of 431

stack testing, facilities will be able to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. 

Format of the Standards

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

develop emission limits for some pollutants in different 

units or to provide a control efficiency alternative. The 

commenters expressed concern that the use of concentration 

limits would not reflect the variability of the unique 

sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly 

penalize units with very low or very high feed 

concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or 

Pb. Some commenters suggested establishing limits similar 

to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided emission limits 

based on control efficiencies coupled with feed 

concentration limits. 

 Response: We did not have sufficient data to set 

alternative control efficiency standards or standards in 

other units at proposal. We requested additional 

information in the proposal. However, sufficient data were 

not provided in response to our request for alternative 

formats to be developed. 

D. Baseline Emissions
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 106 of 431

 Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated 

baseline emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate 

parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge 

feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters provided 

stack test data, emission estimates, and corrections to the 

EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters noted that 

EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate 

factors in combination with pollutant concentrations 

corrected to seven percent oxygen. 

 Response: We have incorporated corrections to the 

inventory and calculation inputs provided by the commenters 

where applicable. In some cases, commenters did not 

provide information sufficient for us to revise the

inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter’s

facility. 

 We have also revised the calculation of baseline 

emissions by revising the defaults assigned to SSI units 

where information was not available. Defaults were

necessary to be assigned because, even after new data were 

received in comments, a significant number of units did not 

have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A 

detailed discussion of the methodology used to estimate 

baseline emissions for the final standards is presented in 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 107 of 431

the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emissions 

from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other 

corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions 

shown in Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range 

of emissions for each pollutant. The lower bound 

represents an estimation of actual emissions based on the 

actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their 

units were running. The upper bound represents an 

estimation of potential emissions if the sludge feed rate 

was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We estimated 

the potential emissions because the amount of wastewater 

treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantly based 

on changes in population or sources of wastewater. 

Facilities have the potential to burn up to their units 

permitted capacity although they may not be doing so 

currently. 

Table 9. Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI 

Units 

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

FB MH

Cd 0.0022-0.0015 0.91-1.2 0.91-1.2 

CO 73-100 8,400-11,500 8,500-11,600 

HCl 1.6-2.2 26-41 28-43 

Hg 0.040-0.058 0.85-1.15 0.9-1.2 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 108 of 431

Pollutant 

Range of Baseline Emissions By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(TPY) 

FB MH

NOx 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 

Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQa

0.00012-

0.00016 

0.00076-0.0010 

0.0009-0.0012 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMBa

0.0014-0.0020 

0.011-0.015 

0.013-0.017 

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 

SO2 43-57 660-1,020 700-1,100 

a Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF. 

E. Beyond the Floor Analysis

 Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA 

reconsider the beyond the floor Hg limit for MH units 

because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and costs for 

Hg control were understated. Many of the commenters 

contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology 

for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility 

with FB units. The commenters added that the facility is 

undergoing significant issues with the technology. 

Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon 

injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, 

such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. 

The commenters added that the high moisture content in the 

form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will plug FFs, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 109 of 431

and additional equipment may be necessary to keep the 

temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner. 

Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor 

analysis to incorporate changes made to the baseline 

emissions, new facility specific data and inputs provided 

by commenters, and revised control options. We have 

analyzed three control options for the final rule. Option 

1 remains the MACT floor level of control. Option 2 is an 

afterburner for control of CO at MH units. We have

reviewed the commenters concerns regarding Hg control 

technologies and agree that applying carbon injection to 

existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be 

effective at removing Hg. We note that EPA is researching 

the use of oxidizing agents in combination with wet

scrubbers for Hg control. This control scheme has been 

demonstrated in other countries, but not in the U.S., and 

not for SSI units. 

For other combustion sources, carbon injection in 

combination with a FF has proven to be highly effective in 

removing Hg. However, we also agree that for high moisture 

flue gas streams, such as emitted from SSI units, the use 

of FFs is problematic due to plugging/fouling. In order to 

use carbon injection with a FF with high moisture streams, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 110 of 431

a waste heat boiler, RTO, or afterburner is necessary to 

maintain a high enough temperature to keep the stream above 

the dew point prior to sending the stream to the FF. 

Option 3 is an RTO, carbon injection, and FF for additional 

control of Hg at MH units. Additional equipment may also 

be necessary to reduce the temperature of the flue gas to 

prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. Sufficient 

information was not collected to estimate this cost. Table 

10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existing SSI 

units to comply with the MACT control options. 

Table 10. Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units to Comply 

with MACT Control Options (2008$) 

Option 

Total Capital 

Costs 

(million $) 

Total Annualized 

Costs (million 

($/Yr)a

1 - MACT Floor 55 18

2 - Option 1 + 

Afterburner 

155 46

3 – Option 2 + 

Activated carbon 

injection and FF 

490 138

a Calculated using a seven percent discount factor. 

Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions of each pollutant for the MACT control options. 

Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units 

to Comply with the MACT Control Options Sources 

Pollutant 

Emission Reductions for Each MACT Option (TPY)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 

Cd 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 0.87-1.1 

CO 0 6,900-9,300 6,900-9,300 

HCl 19-30 19-30 19-30 

Hg 0.0022-0.0025 0.0022-0.0025 0.67-0.89 

NOx 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 111 of 431

Pollutant

Emission Reductions for Each MACT Option (TPY)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Pb 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 2.3-2.9

PCDD/PCDF TEQ 0 0 0.0000003-

0.0000004 

PCDD/PCDF TMB 0 0 0.000005-0.000007 

PM 58-70 58-70 300-400 

SO2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this 

preamble were calculated using data gathered for each 

source, as well as default emissions, sludge capacity, and 

vent gas flow rate information for sources where data were 

unavailable. We estimate, that to apply MACT control 

option 2, which would require either the use of an 

afterburner or thermal oxidizer, could require as much as 

1,700 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to be 

burned, resulting in NOx and CO emissions of 84 and 70 TPY, 

respectively. We estimate that applying activated carbon 

injection with a FF and an afterburner or RTO to all MH 

units to control Hg and PCDD/PCDF would result in total 

annualized costs of $138 million dollars (using a discount 

rate of seven percent) and would achieve Hg reductions of 

0.67-0.89 TPY. The incremental cost-effectiveness of 

adding afterburners/RTO, activated carbon injection, and 

FFs to all MH units is estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 

per pound of Hg removed. Costs would increase if equipment 

necessary to cool the flue gas is also necessary. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 112 of 431

Therefore, given these factors, we are not going beyondthe-floor with options 2 or 3. 

We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require 

packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, 

a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR 

for additional NOx reduction. We determined that it was 

not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater 

reduction of HCl, SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOx considering the 

cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor 

analyses for the final standards are documented in the 

memorandum “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for 

Existing SSI Units” (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

F. Cost and Economic Impacts

 Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

underestimated the cost of the proposed rule for the beyond 

the floor option of Hg control as well as for the MACT 

floor for other pollutants because it only has information 

for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The commenters 

added that EPA used information from these limited sources 

and applied it to remaining sources for which they did not 

have. The commenters contended that this results 

inaccurate determinations of which units could meet the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 113 of 431

proposed emission limits and which could not. The 

commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of 

sources that could meet the proposed standards resulting in 

a significant underestimation of controls. 

 Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of 

controls to cost for compliance with the proposed standards 

were inappropriate for SSI units. Many commenters stated 

that the high moisture content of flue gas streams in some 

applications may mean that FFs would not be an appropriate 

control for PM, Cd, or Pb. 

 Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control 

technology or method. A source is required to meet the 

final emissions limits in these standards, and has the 

flexibility to use the control method or technology that is 

best suited for their individual facility. EPA’s costs are 

estimated based on technologies we believe may be 

appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions limits. 

At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated 

costs and emissions reductions based on the best available 

information to us. We acknowledge that the inventory 

database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI 

units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flue gas 

flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 114 of 431

inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses 

using data provided by the commenters. However, for a 

number of inputs, we are still assigning default values 

where data were not available for each SSI. For the final 

rule, we have correlated some of the defaults to 

populations served by the facilities in order to better 

estimate costs and emission reductions more specifically to 

each facility. Sources will have the best idea of the 

costs of controls for their site specific conditions. For 

some sources, the costs and emission reductions estimated 

by EPA may be higher than what the source estimates, and 

for others they will be less. EPA’s estimates are 

estimates based on the best information available to us. 

We also note that the MACT floor costs and emission

reductions, and determination of the number of sources 

estimated to require control, estimated for the final rule 

are also based on the revised MACT floor limits. 

 For the final standards we have also revised the types 

of controls costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For 

SSI’s that we estimate will need further control of PM, Cd, 

or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as 

a more appropriate PM control for high moisture streams. 

We have also costed out SNCR for SSI’s that we estimate 

Comment [A9]: Can EPA be more 

specific about what was changed as 

a result of the comments, e.g. a 

list of the major changes? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 115 of 431

will need further control of NOx to meet the MACT floor 

limits. As at proposal, we have costed out packed 

scrubbers for SSI’s that we estimate will need further 

control of HCl or SO2. At the MACT floor level, we do not 

estimate that any SSI’s will need to add control for Hg, 

PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A detailed discussion of the costs and 

emissions reductions estimates for the final standards is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had 

incorrectly calculated the costs of the landfilling

alternative because it used dry tons of sewage sludge 

instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is 

the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the 

dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent 

moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimates for 

landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The 

commenters added that because of the error, EPA has

significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting 

sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not 

evaluated the negative social impact of hauling sludge to a 

landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not consider 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 116 of 431

the additional costs for specific state landfilling

regulations. 

 Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly 

estimated the on-site sludge storage requirements because 

calculations were not done on a wet basis. Commenters 

added that the cost of the storage units would be 

significant and would need to include odor control as well 

as a settling basin. 

 Other commenters expressed concern regarding the 

availability of landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. 

The commenters contended there was insufficient landfill 

capacity to handle the influx of sewage sludge. 

Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the 

landfill alternative based on comments received on the 

proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of 

this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of 

this alternative if small entities choose to landfill 

rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed 

discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is 

provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in the SSI 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 117 of 431

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

The selection of a management option for sewage sludge is 

often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs,

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources,

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

 Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA’s 

proposed language requiring facilities to meet the proposed 

SSI standards “at all times” because it would be difficult 

to comply with certain proposed emission limits during 

startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters were 

specifically concerned about not being able to meet the 

proposed CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI 

because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold 

vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combustion is 

completed creating a small flow of CO. One commenter 

contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard 

without any evidence that it can be achieved during

startup, shutdown, or malfunction. This commenter provided 

Comment [A10]: Again, EPA received 

comments on the affirmative defense 

provision that was proposed from at 

least NACWA, Earthjustice, and the 

SSM coalition. How are those 

comments being addressed? Those 

comments and EPA’s response should 

be included in this preamble. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 118 of 431

an example of CO data from one hazardous waste combustor 

that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal operations but

averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during

shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters 

stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to increase 

during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combustion 

that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and noted that 

the influence of unstable combustion may be more pronounced 

during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining 

sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters 

recommended that EPA account for situations where higher 

emissions occur during the time it takes to bring control 

equipment from startup to steady-state operations. 

 Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a 

separate emission standard for the source category that 

applies during periods of startup and shutdown. We do not 

have data that would allow us to set a separate standard 

during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested 

information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. 

Based on the information available at this time, we believe 

that SSI units will be able to meet the emission limits 

during periods of startup. Units we have information on 

use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to start 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 119 of 431

the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill 

gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be 

lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions during 

periods of shutdown are also generally lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the materials in the 

incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown 

occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT 

floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on 

actual performance for each pollutant and subcategory, with 

an appropriate accounting of emissions variability. 

Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe 

we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may 

potentially occur during startup or shutdown. 

 Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown 

are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s 

operations. However, by contrast, EPA has determined that 

malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating 

mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times 

were not needed to be factored into development of CAA 

section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at 

all times. We note that continuous compliance is 

demonstrated using continuous parametric monitoring, except 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 120 of 431

for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are required for new 

source using a 24-hour block average. 

 Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly 

claims that its authority to prescribe unique standards for 

SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated that EPA 

has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur 

during SSM periods. One commenter contended that the 

Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA 

section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 

111), and pointed out that this interpretation is not 

merely a technical distinction. The commenter pointed out 

that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions during SSM 

events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111 

(referenced 40 CFR §60.8(c)). The commenter argued that 

Congress enacted the continuous basis language in section 

302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 

111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that there is 

nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amendments 

to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that 

practice. 

 Response: As explained above, EPA believes the 

reasoning in the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 121 of 431

EPA applies equally to section 129. Additionally, EPA 

explains above the reasons it is not establishing different 

emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the 

proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pressure 

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow 

rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion 

temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) would not 

be achievable. They explained that these ranges are too 

narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the 

operating standards already required by 40 CFR 60 subpart 

O, 40 CFR 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed 

with the proposed operating parameter ranges. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by 

the commenters and determined that proposed procedure for 

establishing the operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the 

average of three test runs and as 90 percent of the minimum 

value recorded during the applicable performance tests) may 

be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of 

energy or other operating needs. We determined that the 

operating limits should be more appropriately based on 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 122 of 431

values recorded during the performance test runs. The 

final rule requires that operating limits be established on 

a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, as 

appropriate) operating parameter value measured during the 

performance test. This approach has been incorporated into 

the final rule for all operating parameters and will result 

in achievable operating ranges that will ensure that the 

control devices used for compliance will be operated to 

achieve continuous compliance with the emissions limits. 

Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed 

operating range for sludge feed rate would not be 

achievable, that it results in the EPA changing the current 

state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and that it could 

force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum 

rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach 

fails to take into account the normal feed condition and 

rate variation that occur on a daily and seasonal basis. A 

few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent 

to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a steadier 

state of control and more efficient combustion of the 

sludge. 

Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating 

range for sludge moisture content would not be achievable 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 123 of 431

and that EPA does not need sludge moisture content to 

determine whether SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. They explained that sludge moisture is 

very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, 

seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by an 

SSI, temperature changes, the biological systems that treat 

the sewage, and to operational changes, and that these 

changes cannot always be anticipated and are not always 

immediately correctable. 

Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to 

require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and 

sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge within 

specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit 

for temperature of the combustion chamber (or afterburner 

temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion 

practice, and that moisture content is not needed to 

establish that SSI units are in compliance with their 

emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture content, 

the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with their 

operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber. 

We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge 

moisture content within specified ranges. We are also no 

longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 124 of 431

within specified ranges due to the seasonal variability at 

wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate information 

is necessary during performance test runs to establish that 

SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that 

they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We 

are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of 

sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI units 

should already be keeping records of these parameters, and 

this information will be useful in establishing 

representative operating limitations for a SSI unit. 

EPA added a requirement that performance tests be 

conducted at 85 percent of the permitted maximum capacity. 

This level has been selected based on the performance test 

operating information provided by the commenters and 

previous EPA standards. 

Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour 

rolling averaging period selected in the proposed rule for 

determining compliance with the operating parameters and CO 

limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They 

explained that the recordkeeping and compliance burden is 

less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both 

based on a 24-hour block average. They also explained that 

the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 125 of 431

would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to 

achieve with FB incinerators. 

Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block 

averaging period for compliance with the CO CEMS 

requirement for new sources will provide a sufficient 

indication of compliance and will allow more flexibility 

for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission 

guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI 

units has changed in the final guidelines to 18 ppm, and 

this change is discussed in Section IV of this preamble. 

All other operating parameter limits remain on a 4-hour 

rolling average basis because this averaging period is 

necessary to determine continuous compliance. 

In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the 

alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 129 

requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regulated 

pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be used in 

place of the regulated pollutants. 

Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the 

requirement in the proposed rule for annual testing, and 

argued that annual testing of each SSI is not needed to 

demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsistent with 

current Title V permits. They also argued that Method 22 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 126 of 431

compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not 

feasible or difficult to conduct due to space constraints, 

and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash removal 

systems that do not require annual testing. They explained 

that the cost for emissions testing may be significantly 

higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They 

further explained that Title V permits require facilities 

to test each of its SSI units once per five years. They 

pointed out that current management practices and strict 

health-based sludge content limits under the CWA section 

405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help ensure 

that SSI units are in compliance with their emission 

limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed 

compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will 

essentially shorten the testing year by one month each 

year. 

Response: The proposed standards included provisions 

for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has 

revised these provisions, making it easier for facilities 

to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less

frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that 

facilities that do less frequent testing are well below 

their emission limits. In the final standards, owners or 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 127 of 431

operators are required to establish that emissions of a 

given pollutant are under a specified threshold for only 

one year, rather than three years as proposed, to qualify 

for less frequent testing for that pollutant. For less 

frequent testing of Cd and Pb, they must establish that 

both pollutants are under their respective thresholds to 

qualify for less frequent testing. We have also extended 

the option to do less frequent testing to PCDD/PCDF and 

fugitive ash emissions testing. The threshold is 50 

percent of the emission limit for each of the nine 

regulated pollutants. In order to allow a decrease in 

testing frequency, EPA must have assurance that SSI units 

can meet a more stringent threshold than the limits. This 

is particularly necessary because of the variability in 

sludge that may occur at wastewater treatment facilities. 

We have determined that units that meet a threshold of 50 

percent of the emission limit have a high degree of

assurance that the emission level will be continuously met 

using the continuous parametric monitoring requirements in 

the rule. Additionally, in the final standards we are also 

providing assurance that the SSI unit is being operated 

properly and emission limits are being met continuously by 

requiring stringent parametric monitoring requirements. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 128 of 431

Specifically, exceedances of the minimum or maximum values 

established during the performance tests are considered 

deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash handling, 

owners or operators must demonstrate that visible emissions 

occur no more than two percent of the time during each 

Method 22 1-hour observation period. This allowance for 

fugitive ash emissions has been included in the final 

standards with a new requirement that all facilities must 

submit a monitoring plan at least 60 days before their 

initial compliance test to establish that their ash

handling system will continuously meet the visible 

emissions limit. 

Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility 

regarding their test dates, to ensure that facilities are 

not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months, and to 

ensure that facilities are testing once per year, we have 

revised the testing schedule provisions. In the final 

standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that 

qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a 

calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar months and 

no more than 15 calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and facilities must complete five 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 129 of 431

performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. 

Comment: Many commenters requested that the 

definition of “process change” be revised to exclude the 

provision that a process change include an increase in the 

allowable wastewater received from an industrial source. 

They pointed out that any such increase would trigger a 

performance test, as required by the proposed standards, 

and that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They 

explained that industrial discharges often constitute only 

a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3.5 

percent, four to eight percent), that such discharges are 

sometimes from sources that do not discharge the pollutants 

regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food 

processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities 

regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from other 

regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it 

is difficult for impossible to anticipate some industrial 

load changes ahead of time. Several commenters argued that 

this proposed requirement would be redundant to the

National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, which are 

incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require them to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 130 of 431

establish local limits on industrial discharges to prevent 

interference with sludge processes, use, and disposal. The 

commenters anticipate that they would establish similar 

limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission 

limits. A few commenters suggested that the proposed 

provision for industrial discharges is vague and open to 

interpretation. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process 

change” and agrees with the commenters that there are some 

situations where an increase in the allowable wastewater 

received from an industrial source should not trigger a 

performance test. We have revised the definition of 

“process change” to more specifically and clearly identify 

the type of process change that will trigger a performance 

test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” 

as pollutant-specific and as including only situations 

where the SSI has undergone a significant permit revision. 

This revision will ensure that facilities retest whenever 

they have a significant change in the process that could 

trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant. 

VI. Impacts of the Final Action 

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units

1. What are the primary air impacts?

Comment [A11]: Please add a couple 

of paragraphs in this section that 

explains why the emissions 

reductions and costs are different 

than at proposal. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 131 of 431

We have estimated the potential emission reductions

that may be realized through implementation of the final 

emission limits. As discussed in section V of this

preamble, we have revised the estimation of baseline 

emissions and emission reductions to present a range to 

show the variability in the emission calculations between 

estimated actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. 

Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The 

analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis 

of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI 

Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits 

Pollutant 

Range of Reductions Achieved 

Through Meeting MACT By 

Subcategory (TPY) 

Range of 

Total 

Reductions 

FB MH (TPY) 

Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 

CO 0 0 0 

HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 

Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 

NOx 6.8-16 0 6.8-16 

Pb 0 1.2-1.5 1.2-1.5 

PCDD/PCDF 

TEQ 

0 0 0 

PCDD/PCDF 

TMB 0 0 0 

PM 0 58-70 58-70 

SO2 17-21 420-680 430-700 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 132 of 431

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources will need to apply 

additional controls to meet the proposed emission limits. 

These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, 

which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual 

requirement of 234 million gallons per year of additional 

wastewater will be generated as a result of operating 

additional controls or increased sorbents. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source 

Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the 

proposed emission limits consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption; sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. We 

anticipate that an additional 5,420 megawatt-hours per year 

will be required for the additional and improved control 

devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 133 of 431

Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQOAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The combustion of fuel needed to generate

additional electricity will yield slight increases in 

emissions, including NOx, CO, PM and SO2 and an increase in 

CO2 emissions. Since NOx and SO2 are covered by capped 

emissions trading programs, and methodological limitations 

prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do 

not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts for this 

rule from additional electricity demand. 

5. What are the cost and economic impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for all existing

units to add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, 

inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to 

comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standards). 

Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total 

capital investment of $55 million with an associated total 

annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and using 

a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of 

this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 134 of 431

need to install one or more air pollution control devices 

for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission 

limits. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in 

the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 13. Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities 

Comply With Proposed Emission Limits (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 10.1 3.1 

MH 45.0 14.7 

Total 55.0 17.8 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At 

proposal, we evaluated landfilling as an alternative 

disposal method. We have revised our costs and impacts of 

this alternative based on comments received on the proposal 

and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14 of this 

preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this 

alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather 

than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of 

the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the 

memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT 

Floor Level of Control” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0559). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 135 of 431

Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many 

sources will find landfilling an appropriate alternative. 

However, the selection of a management option for sewage 

sludge is often a local decision that is based on 

environmental protection concerns, community needs,

geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a 

full evaluation of these factors, for some sources,

landfilling or land treatment may be a better management 

option than incineration. 

Table 14. Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that 

Landfill in Lieu of Incineration (Millions of 2008$) 

Subcategory 

Capital Cost 

($million) 

Annualized Cost 

($million/yr)a

FB 278 38 

MH 313 42.7 

Total 591 80.7 

a Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent. 

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units

As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI 

units constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB 

incinerators, and information provided by the industry on 

likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI units 

constructed are likely to be FB incinerators. 

1. What are the primary air impacts?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions

that may be realized through implementation of the final 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 136 of 431

emission limits on two new FB incinerators potentially 

being constructed in the next five years. Table 15 of this 

preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT 

compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. 

The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised 

Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 

Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Table 15. Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., 

Fluidized Bed Incinerators) Constructed 

Pollutant Emission Reduction (TPY)

Cd 0 

CDD/CDF, TEQ 0.0000000033 

CDD/CDF, TMB 0.000000051 

CO 0.26 

HCl 0 

Hg 0.0026 

NOx 14 

Pb 0.00053 

PM 0 

PM2.5 0 

SO2 0 

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

We anticipate affected sources would need to apply 

controls in addition to what they would have planned to 

include in the absence of this rule to meet the final 

emission limits. These controls may utilize water, such as 

wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate 

an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 137 of 431

additional wastewater will be generated as a result of 

operating additional controls or increased sorbents for the 

two new units expected to come on-line in the next five 

years. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

Likewise, the application of PM controls results in

particulate collected that would require disposal. 

Furthermore, activated carbon injection may be used by some 

sources, which would result in solid waste needing 

disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will 

require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY 

from activated carbon injection for the two units. 

3. What are the energy impacts?

The energy impacts associated with meeting the final 

emission limits would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution 

control devices. For example, increased scrubber pump 

horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity 

consumption. Sorbent injection controls would likewise 

require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our 

estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 megawatt-
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 138 of 431

hours per year will be required for the additional and 

improved control devices for the two new units modeled to 

come on-line in the next five years. The analysis is 

documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of Secondary 

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category 

Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Source Category” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). 

4. What are the secondary air impacts?

For SSI units adding controls to meet the final 

emission limits, we anticipate very minor secondary air 

impacts. The analysis is documented in the memorandum 

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 

5. What are the cost impacts?

We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units 

coming on-line in the next five years. This analysis is 

based on a model plant, the assumption that two new units 

will come on-line and will add the necessary controls, 

monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI

standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate an 

overall total capital investment of $8 million (2008$) with 

an associated total annualized cost of $2 million (2008$ 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 139 of 431

and using a seven percent discount rate). This analysis 

assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB 

incinerators. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 12563: Regulatory Planning 

and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993) and EO 12563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this 

action is a "significant regulatory action” because it was 

likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more based on the proposed standards. However, 

the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed 

standards we are simply updating the RIA rather than 

revising it. 

A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the 

proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Field Code Changed
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 140 of 431

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on the 

lower costs associated with the selected alternative in 

this final action we are providing an update of the RIA 

rather than completely revising the RIA. Within this 

update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the 

options and have provided a comparison of the selected 

option with the alternatives. While the characteristics of 

the options have changed, we have also provided a 

comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed option 

with the selected alternative in this final action. A 

summary of the differences are presented below. 

• Costs for the selected option for promulgation are 80% 

lower and benefits are 81% lower than they were for the 

selected option for proposal. 

• Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a 

government provided service that does not involve a

market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts were 

estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impact 

analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to 

total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% 

lower for the selected option for promulgation compared 

to the proposed option, the control costs are expected 

to be a smaller portion of government revenues for the 

selected option than they were for the proposed option. 

• Because of insufficient information, employment changes 

due to the requirements for operating and maintaining 

control equipment were not estimated. Also, we did not 

have the information needed to estimate any labor 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 141 of 431

changes related to governmental decisions to switch from 

incineration to landfilling. 

• Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the 

selected option by $3 million to $34 million at three 

percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven percent. 

The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct 

exposure to NOx and SO2, ecosystem effects, and 

visibility impairment have not been monetized, including 

reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of 

Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd. 

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and 

EG (millions of $2008) 

Option 1 : MACT Floor (Selected) 3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

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

Costs $18 to $18 $18 to $18 

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

Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

NSPS and EG 

Total Monetized Benefits for 

Final Options (millions of 2008$) 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

Option 1: MACT Floor (Selected) $21 to $52 $19 to $47 

Option 2: Beyond the Floor $20 to $50 $18 to $45 

Option 3: Beyond the Floor $55 to $140 $50 to $130 

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

MACT Floor (millions of 2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

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

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

% Change -81% -81% 

Monetized Benefits Changes for 

Selected Options (millions of 

2008$) 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) $110 to $270 $100 to $250 

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

% Change -81% -81% 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 142 of 431

Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG 

Total Costs for Final Options 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Option 1: MACT Floor (Selected) $18 

Option 2: Beyond the Floor $46 

Option 3: Beyond the Floor $138 

Costs Changes for MACT Floor 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (MACT Floor, all comply) $63 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -71% 

Cost Changes for Selected Options 

(millions of 2008$) 

3% or 7% Discount 

Rate 

Proposal (BTF Option 2, all 

comply) $92 

Final (MACT Floor) $18 

% Change -80% 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule 

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

information collection requirements are not enforceable 

until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA 

have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, 

and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. 

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 

rule are based on the information collection requirements 

in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provisions (40 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 143 of 431

CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory 

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

information other than emissions data submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The requirements in this action result in industry 

recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review 

of the amendments for all SSI and initial and annual 

compliance with the emission limits using EPA approved 

emissions test methods. The burden also includes 

continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of 

air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the 

emission limits. Operators are required to obtain 

qualification and complete annual training. New units are 

also required to submit a report prior to construction, 

including a siting analysis. 

The annual average burden associated with the emission 

guidelines over the first 3 years following promulgation is 

estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours 

at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and total 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 144 of 431

annualized capital/startup and operation and maintenance 

costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the

monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and 

photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. 

The annual inspection costs are included under the 

recordkeeping and reporting labor costs 

The annual average burden associated with the NSPS 

over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated 

to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost of 

$40,000. The total annualized capital/startup costs are 

estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumulative 

annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it currently displays a valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 

part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 

number for the approved information collection requirements 

contained in this final. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 145 of 431

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless 

the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action 

on small entities, a small entity is defined as follows: 

1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; or 

3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently-owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

In the proposal, we certified that there would not be 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The economic analysis conducted at

proposal identified 18 small entities none of which had 

cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost 

analysis for the final standards showed a significant 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 146 of 431

decrease (35 to 98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 

small entities and the same decrease in annualized costs 

for the remaining small entities while their estimated 

capital costs stayed at the same level as those estimated 

at proposal. Therefore, given the decrease in costs from 

the proposed rule, we consider the final rule to have no 

significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. 

After considering the economic impacts of this final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. None of the 18 small entities has costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, this is not 

considered to be a significant impact. 

Although the final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule 

on small entities by allowing optional CEMS instead of 

requiring them, allowing information from tests conducted 

in recent years to show compliance rather than require all 

new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued 

compliance. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 147 of 431

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, this final rule is 

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the 

UMRA a written statement that is summarized in section 

VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, October 14, 

2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found 

in the docket. 

At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the 

estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA 

prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of costs and 

benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. Based on 

estimated compliance costs associated with the final rule 

and the predicted change in prices and production in the 

affected industries, the estimated social costs of the 

final rule are $55 million ($). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 148 of 431

At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities 

expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consistent 

with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 

section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are discussed 

in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260). 

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Because this final rule’s requirements 

apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by

governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private 

entities, there would be no requirements that uniquely 

apply to such government or impose any disproportionate 

impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 

will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 

the relationship between the national government and the 

states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an 

action that has federalism implications, that imposes 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 149 of 431

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 

incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults 

with state and local officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed action. 

EPA’s proposed action estimated expenditures of 

greater than $100 million to state and local governments 

and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA 

consulted with elected state and local government 

officials, or their representative national organizations, 

when developing regulations and policies that impose 

substantial compliance costs on state and local 

governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conducted a 

briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organizations 

representing elected state and local government officials, 

as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 

FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on 

the action. The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the 

proposed standards and EG for SSI units. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have 

federalism implications, as defined by Agency guidance for 

implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’s 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 150 of 431

direct compliance costs on state or local governments 

resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 

state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments

During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or 

operated by an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, 

Executive Order 13175 did not appear to have implications. 

However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outreach and 

discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts. 

EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and 

specifically solicited additional comment on the proposed 

action from tribal contacts in the proposal period via the 

NTAA conference calls. 

EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; 

those comments can be reviewed in the public docket, 

document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559-0130.1. Commenters 

expressed that SSI units located in proximity to Indian 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 151 of 431

country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger 

tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from 

the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA 

failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the 

standards and have failed to fully assess the potential 

impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly, 

commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that 

accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can 

acquire a better understanding on how they might be

affected by such sites and these standards in general. 

EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to 

discuss the rule development process, first to provide 

general information on the development of the SSI standards 

and second providing more specific background information 

on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locations of 

units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying 

questions and requested information if any NTAA members 

were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge 

in Indian Country. EPA will provide a map overlay for the 

SSI docket so that tribes can acquire a better 

understanding on how they might be affected by SSI sites 

and the standards in general. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 152 of 431

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions 

that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. This final action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 

solely on technology performance. We note however, that 

reductions in air emissions by these facilities will 

improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under Executive Orders 12866

and 13563. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law No. 

104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 153 of 431

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

EPA conducted searches for the “Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Service 

Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted 

VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has 

decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses," for its manual methods of measuring the 

oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. These 

parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to 

EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the 

ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. 

Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, "Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 154 of 431

Method)" is an acceptable alternative to Method 29 and 30B. 

EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 

10, l0A, l0B, 22, 23, 26A, 29 and 30B. No VCS were found 

for EPA Method 9 and 22. 

During the search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's reference 

method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it 

as a potential equivalent method. All potential standards 

were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires significant method

validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 

301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA 

reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

The search identified other VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, EPA determined 

that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 

(2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC¬38-1980 (1985), ASTM 

D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 155 of 431

19.10-1981, IS0 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM 

D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 

(1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 

(2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/CSA 

Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 

1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA 

Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. 

Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, 

a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the final rule and any 

amendments. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 156 of 431

the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs, policies and 

activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection 

for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on any population, including any 

minority or low-income populations. Additionally, the 

Agency has reviewed this final rule to determine if there 

was existing disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 

populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An 

analysis of demographic data showed that the average of 

populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus 

most likely to be effected by the sources, were similar in 

demographic composition to national averages. The results 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 157 of 431

of the demographic analysis are presented in “Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy of which 

is available in the docket.

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, EPA used census data at 

the block group level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near affected sources, 

such that they have notable exposures to current emissions 

from these sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the 

distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the 

locations of the expected emission reductions from this 

rule. The review identified those census block groups 

within a circular distance of a half, three, and five miles 

of affected sources and determined the demographic and 

socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income, education, 

etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of three 

miles (or approximately five kilometers) has been used in 

other demographic analyses focused on areas around 

potential sources.13,14,15,16 EPA’s demographic analysis 

 

13 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 

Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities.

Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995.

14 Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research.” 

Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399.
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 158 of 431

has shown that these areas in aggregate have similar 

proportions of American Indians, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, Whites, and “Other and Multi-racial” 

populations, and similar proportions of families with 

incomes below the poverty level as the national average.17

This final action establishes national emission 

standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA 

estimates that there are approximately 204 such units 

covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions 

of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This 

includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. Adverse health 

effects from these pollutants include cancer, irritation of 

the lungs, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central 

nervous system and damage to the kidneys and acute health 

disorders. The rule will also result in substantial 

reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NOx, PM and 

PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur dioxide and NOx are precursors for 

 

15 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to 

Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and 

Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis.” Social Science 

Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297.

16 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic 

Waste and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of 

Christ. March, 2007. 

17 The results of the demographic analysis are presented 

in “Review of Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a 

copy of which is available in the docket. 

Comment [A12]: Suggest providing a 

reference to EPA’s analysis. If 

this is not sufficient, then the 

interagency group will need to 

discuss with EPA the specifics of 

this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 159 of 431

the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions 

will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health 

effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and 

acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. For additional information, 

please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To promote 

meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communication 

and outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities 

have access to this final rule, are aware of its content 

and have an opportunity to comment during the comment 

period. During the comment period, EPA publicized the 

rulemaking via environmental newsletters, tribal 

newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and the 

Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will 

also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is 

this important for my community) for environmental justice 

community groups and conduct conference calls with 

Comment [A13]: Where is this 

definition? Please provide a 

citation. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 160 of 431

interested communities. In addition, state and federal 

permitting requirements will provide state and local 

governments and members of affected communities the

opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions 

associated with permitting the sources affected by this 

rulemaking. 

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule 

report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 

states. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 161 of 431 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

This rule will be effective [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

_______________________ 

Dated: 

______________________ 

Lisa Jackson, Administrator. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 162 of 431 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, 

chapter I, part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to

read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

2. Section 60.17 is amended as follows. 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(93). 

b. Revising paragraph (h)(4). 

c. Adding paragraph (o). 

§60.17 Incorporations by reference.

* * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), IBR approved for 

§§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 to subpart 

CCCC, tables 2, 6, 7, and 9 to subpart DDDD, 

60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 163 of 431

* * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas

Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved 

for §60.56c(b)(4), §60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), §60.106(e)(2), 

§§60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), 

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), §60.105a(d)(4), 

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

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

(a)(3)(v), and §60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), 

(c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, 

tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§§60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii), 

60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and 

(ii), 60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 

60.2730(q)(3), 60.4900(b)(4)(vii), 60.4900(b)(4)(viii), 

60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii), 60.5220(b)(4)(viii), 

60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and 

tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM. 

* * * 

(o) The following material is available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 272-0167, 

http://www.epa.gov. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 164 of 431

(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997, IBR approved for 

§60.2145(r)(2), §60.2710(r)(2), §60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), 

§60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B). 

(2) [Reserved] 

3. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and 

MMMM to read as follows: 

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units

Sec. 

Introduction 

60.4760 What does this subpart do? 

60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit? 

60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit? 

60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart? 

60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 

60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured? 

60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source

performance standards apply at the same time? 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis? 

60.4805 What is a siting analysis? 

Operator Training and Qualification 

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.4815 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 165 of 431

60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of

60.4835(a)? 

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits? 

60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 

60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 166 of 431

60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.4910 What records must I keep? 

60.4915 What reports must I submit? 

Title V Operating Permits 

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 

60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit? 

Definitions 

60.4930 What definitions must I know? 

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.4760 What does this subpart do?

This subpart establishes new source performance 

standards for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 167 of 431

the extent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent 

with the requirements of subpart A of this part, the 

requirements of this subpart will apply. 

§60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Some of the requirements in this subpart apply to planning 

an SSI unit and must be completed even before construction 

is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e., the preconstruction 

requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). Other requirements 

such as the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins operation. 

Applicability and Delegation of Authority 

§60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge 

incineration unit?

Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets 

all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section. 

(a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for which 

construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or for which 

modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as defined in 

§60.4930. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 168 of 431

(c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under §60.4780. 

§60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?

(a) A new SSI unit is an SSI unit that meets either 

of the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010.

(2) Commenced modification after [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER]. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI 

unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM 

of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not qualify 

as a modification under this subpart. 

§60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt 

from this subpart?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

§60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 169 of 431

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by 

the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delegated 

authority such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If 

the Administrator has delegated authority to your state, 

local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the 

Administrator) has the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office 

to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, 

local, or tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement 

authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tribal 

agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the Administrator and are not 

transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies are specified in 

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

(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and

operating limits established under §60.4850. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 170 of 431

(5) The requirements in §60.4855. 

(6) The requirements in §60.4835(b)(2). 

(7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

(8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 and 

§60.4805. 

§60.4790 How are these new source performance standards 

structured?

These new source performance standards contain the 

nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) 

of this section. 

(a) Preconstruction siting analysis. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

§60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source 

performance standards apply at the same time?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 171 of 431

No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis 

requirements before you commence construction of the SSI 

unit. The operator training and qualification, emission 

limits, emission standards, operating limits, performance 

testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit 

begins operation. 

Preconstruction Siting Analysis 

§60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?

(a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to 

commence construction of an SSI unit after October 14, 

2010. 

(b) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are 

required to submit an initial application for a 

construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, or 40 

CFR part 52, as applicable, for the modification of your 

SSI unit. 

§60.4805 What is a siting analysis?

(a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution 

control alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific 

basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks 

to public health or the environment, including impacts of 

the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visibility, 

soils, and vegetation. In considering such alternatives, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 172 of 431

the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair 

environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the 

practicability of the alternatives. 

(b) Analyses of your SSI unit’s impacts that are 

prepared to comply with state, local, or other federal 

regulatory requirements may be used to satisfy the 

requirements of this section, provided they include the 

consideration of air pollution control alternatives

specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) You must complete and submit the siting 

requirements of this section as required under 

§60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing construction. 

Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4835. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 173 of 431

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 174 of 431

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.4815 When must the operator training course be

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section. 

(a) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(b) The date before an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 175 of 431

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.4810(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2). 

§60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the two 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 176 of 431

methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section. 

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.4825. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.4820(a). 

§60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 

review of the information specified in §60.4840 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.4915(d). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 177 of 431

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 178 of 431

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage sludge 

incineration unit operators and other plant personnel who 

may operate the unit according to the provisions of

§60.4835(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the

information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.4835(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee’s 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 179 of 431

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits 

and Requirements 

§60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first. The emission limits and standards 

apply at all times the unit is operating, and during 

periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards 

apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent while sewage 

sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time). 

§60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I 

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 180 of 431

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 3 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, reestablished in §60.4890. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.4890(a)(2)(i). 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

an emission limit, you must meet the site-specific 

operating limits that you establish in §60.4870 for each 

operating parameter associated with each air pollution 

control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag 

leak detection system such that the alarm does not sound 

more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 181 of 431

period. You must calculate the alarm time as specified in 

§60.4870. 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.4880(d) to ensure that your ash

handling system will meet the emission standard for

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section 60 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed 

rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its 

initial startup, whichever comes first. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 182 of 431

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.4910(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and

requirements, reestablished according to §60.4890(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you 

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.4855. 

§60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection, or if I limit 

emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission 

limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions in some 

other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply with the 

emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 183 of 431

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.4870. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 184 of 431

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters,

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed to the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 185 of 431

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.4861 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.4845, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 186 of 431

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices. 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that

could have been foreseen and avoided, or taken into

account. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible

when the applicable emission limitations were being

exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs. 

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions. 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe personal 

injury, or severe property damage. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 187 of 431

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health. 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible. 

(7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous

operating logs. 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(9) You have prepared a written root cause analysis 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 

the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 

specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering 

judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(b) If your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if you 

wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to civil 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 188 of 431

penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to assert an 

affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report 

to the Administrator within 30 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in §60.4845 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that you have met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission

limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and

fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option 

to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 189 of 431

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, as 

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

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). Except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 60 days 

after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will 

operate, or within 180 days after its initial startup, 

whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that your SSI 

unit meets the emission limits and standards specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis 

or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, 

sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from 

ash handling using the performance test. The initial 

performance test must be conducted using the test methods, 

averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or 

durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and 

according to the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §60.4900(a). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 190 of 431

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon 

monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuous 

emissions monitoring system specified in §60.4900(b). 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may 

substitute the use of a continuous monitoring system in 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 191 of 431

lieu of conducting the initial performance test required in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, 

you must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 192 of 431

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 193 of 431

automated sampling systems according to the provisions of 

§60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be conducted 

using the procedures and acceptance criteria specified in 

§60.4880(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, you must determine dioxins/furans 

toxic equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit an initial compliance report, as 

specified in §60.4915(c). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a 

performance test as specified in paragraph (a) of this 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 194 of 431

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this 

section or established in §60.4855, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.4865. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.4890(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or reestablish new operating limits using 

the most recent performance tests required in §60.4885. 

You must follow the data measurement and recording 

frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 3 

to this subpart or as established in §60.4855, and you must 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 195 of 431

follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §§60.4900 and 60.4905 or 

established in §60.4855. You are not required to establish 

operating limits for the operating parameters listed in 

Table 3 to this subpart for a control device if you use a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for the 

applicable pollutants, as follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and

scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for hydrogen chloride or 

sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and

scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, or lead. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 196 of 431

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates,

secondary amperage of the collection plates, and effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, or lead. 

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor mercury sorbent 

injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas 

pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow 

rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the 

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 197 of 431

limit for dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic

equivalency basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest hourly average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber recorded during three performance test run 

periods. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest hourly 

average liquid flow rate recorded during three performance 

test run periods. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest hourly average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the three performance test run periods at the inlet 

to each applicable wet scrubber. 

(e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature 

(or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest 

hourly average combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature) recorded during three performance 

test run periods. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 198 of 431

(f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest hourly 

average power input recorded during three performance test 

run periods. Power input must be calculated as the product 

of the secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator, both recorded during three 

performance test run periods. 

(g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest hourly 

average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator recorded during three 

performance test run periods. 

(h) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest hourly average mercury sorbent injection rate 

recorded during three performance test run periods.

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest hourly average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate recorded during three performance test run 

periods. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 199 of 431

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(i) You must confirm your operating limits or 

reestablish new operating limits according to §60.4890(d). 

§60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of 

installing an air pollution control device or within 180 

days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollution 

control device, whichever comes first. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 200 of 431

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 201 of 431

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria. 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria will

include, but not be limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 202 of 431

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but not be limited to, the associated performance 

specifications and quality assurance procedures. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13.

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous emissions monitoring system is out 

of control if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or 

(a)(7)(i)(B) of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 203 of 431

(B) The continuous emissions 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 emissions monitoring system 

is out of control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of 

this section, you must take the necessary corrective action 

and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems in accordance with your site-specific monitoring 

plan. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 204 of 431

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system.

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. 

(3) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(4) How the bag leak detection system will be 

maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and 

spare parts inventory list. 

(5) How the bag leak detection system output will be 

recorded and stored. 

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan, according to §60.13(c). For the 

purposes of this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also 

apply to the bag leak detection system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

operating procedures for your ash handling system that you 

will follow to ensure that that your meet the fugitive 

emissions limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 205 of 431

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 206 of 431

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 207 of 431

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a

case-by-case basis that additional or alternative operating 

limits, or alternative approaches to establishing operating 

limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 208 of 431

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.4930. 

Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow 

the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have 

the option to demonstrate continuous compliance using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section for 

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You 

must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section, according to the performance testing, 

monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 209 of 431

(b). You may also petition the Administrator for 

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 1 or 2 

to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed, you 

must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on 

a calendar year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and 

no more than 15 calendar months following the previous 

performance test); and you must complete 5 performance 

tests for each such pollutant in each 5-year calendar 

period. The performance test must be conducted using the 

test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.4900(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60

days of a process change, as defined in §60.4930. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 210 of 431

(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test 

for any pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart except 

carbon monoxide demonstrates that the emission level for 

the pollutant is no greater than the emission level

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

section, as applicable, and you are not required to conduct 

a performance test for the pollutant in response to a 

request by the Administrator in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section or a process change in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, you may elect to skip conducting a performance 

test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You must 

conduct a performance test for the pollutant during the 

third year and no more than 36 months following the

previous performance test for the pollutant. For cadmium 

and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted at emission 

levels no greater than their respective emission levels 

specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for you to 

qualify for less frequent testing under this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, the emission level equal to 50 percent of the 

applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 211 of 431

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of

combustion ash from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent 

of the time during each of the 3 1-hour observation

periods. 

(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant

indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emission 

level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of 

this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual 

performance tests for the pollutant according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until 

you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollutant as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 212 of 431

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

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

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

carbon monoxide emission limit, you must use the carbon 

monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system specified 

in §60.4900(b). 

(2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the annual 

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 213 of 431

(3) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

emission limit in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring 

system and follow the requirements specified in 

§60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to 

§60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must 

demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour block 

average of these 1-hour arithmetic average emission

concentrations, calculated using Equation 19-19 in section 

12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 

(4) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 214 of 431

dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis) in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring system and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 215 of 431

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23. 

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph 

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

by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d). You must submit the deviation 

report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance that you 

did not meet each emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 216 of 431

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.4880 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.4880(e). 

§60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits?

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

requirements in §60.4905. You must confirm and reestablish 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 217 of 431

your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 or 

established in §60.4855. Four-hour rolling average values 

are used to determine compliance (except for alarm time of 

the baghouse leak detection system) unless a different 

averaging period is established under §60.4855. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.4855 and 

60.4870 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 218 of 431

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.4850(c). 

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.4915(e) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 219 of 431

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.4850(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test conducted to 

comply with this subpart or any performance evaluation 

required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.4900(c), within 10 to 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 220 of 431

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 221 of 431

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging methods specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 must be 

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 222 of 431

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the

Administrator’s satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 223 of 431

abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 224 of 431

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator’s 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 225 of 431

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before starting use of the continuous monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator one month 

before stopping use of the continuous monitoring system, in 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 226 of 431

which case you must also conduct a performance test prior 

to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems,

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 227 of 431

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 228 of 431

(iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction or 

out-of-control period, you must complete repairs of the 

monitoring system and resume operation of your monitoring 

system as expeditiously as possible. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of this 

section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 

60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions monitors 

and the test methods specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

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

testing must be at representative operating conditions 

while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 229 of 431

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784–

02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), shall be 

used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative American 

National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17) must be used. For sources that have 

actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million dry 

volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur 

dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system should be no 

greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the method 

test data in terms of the units of the emission standard, 

or 5 parts per million dry volume absolute value of the 

mean difference between the method and the continuous 

emissions monitoring system, whichever is greater. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 230 of 431

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 231 of 431

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must operate the continuous monitoring system 

and collect data with the continuous monitoring system as 

follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions defined in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect 

data using the continuous monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 232 of 431

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

(b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of this section in assessing the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 233 of 431

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation, if applicable. 

(2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, 

sorbent feed systems, and any other monitoring equipment. 

(3) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(4) Ensure that the air pollution control device 

meets manufacturer recommendations. 

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any 

time that sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 234 of 431

an emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed 

in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. The use of the bypass 

stack during a performance test invalidates the performance 

test. 

§60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

measuring flow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section: 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions defined in 

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities (including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 235 of 431

data using the continuous monitoring system constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities conducted during monitoring 

system malfunctions must not be included in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such 

periods must be reported in your annual deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control, or required monitoring 

system quality assurance or control activities conducted 

during out-of-control periods must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring 

system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constitute a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be 

reported in a deviation report. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 236 of 431

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all 

recorded readings, except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(vii) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

(2) Meet the following requirements for each type of 

measurement device: 

(i) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of 2 percent of the flow rate. 

(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. 

(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semi-annually. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 237 of 431

(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 

(ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure. 

(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(D) Ensure continuous acceptable operation (e.g., 

check pressure tap for pluggage). 

(E) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor

exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. 

(G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 238 of 431

conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 

(iii) If you have an operating limit that requires

the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(C) Check the pH meter’s calibration daily. 

(iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 239 of 431

(D) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

calibration check at least every 3 months. 

(b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak detection 

system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of 

this section. 

(1) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use secondary voltage and secondary amperage 

monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator. 

(2) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent 

injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the following 

requirements: 

(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer’s procedures and specifications. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 240 of 431

(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s procedures and 

specifications. 

(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

requirements of this subpart, you must: 

(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your

bag leak detection system as follows: 

(A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.

(B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer’s written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance

provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, 

see §60.17). 

(C) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less. 

(D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 241 of 431

(E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor. 

(F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where 

it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. 

(G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

(ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 242 of 431

(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process producing the PM 

emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.4910 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section for a period 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 243 of 431

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Siting. All documentation produced as a result 

of the siting requirements of §§60.4800 and 60.4805. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 244 of 431

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the

provisions of §60.4835(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.4840(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.4810, met the criteria for qualification under 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 245 of 431

§60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.4835(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.4835(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.4875 and 60.4900(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports. 

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 246 of 431

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs, as specified in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that

the performance test was conducted under conditions

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 247 of 431

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid 

flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with the 

emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and liquid flow rate 

and pH as introduced to each wet scrubber used to comply 

with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for 

sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, voltage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates or amperage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates, and effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrostatic 

precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas 

flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 248 of 431

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.4850(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.4890. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.4855, you must

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.4900(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 249 of 431

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.4915(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibrations, and validations checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.4900 and 60.4905. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.4880, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to 

document that your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent 

testing under §60.4885(a)(3). 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.4905(d). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 250 of 431

§60.4915 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs

(a) through (j) of this section. See Table 5 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Notification of construction. You must submit a 

notification prior to commencing construction that includes 

the four items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 

of this section: 

(1) A statement of intent to construct. 

(2) The anticipated date of commencement of 

construction. 

(3) All documentation produced as a result of the 

siting requirements of §60.4805. 

(4) Anticipated date of initial startup. 

(b) Notification of initial startup. You must submit 

the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: 

(1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity. 

(2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry sludge 

feed rate. 

(3) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits specified in §60.4855. 

(4) The anticipated date of initial startup. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 251 of 431

(5) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash

handling system required under §60.4880, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 252 of 431

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.4875, including a

description of repairs. 

(d) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(15) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.4920.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 253 of 431

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

recorded 3-hour average and the lowest recorded 3-hour 

average during the reporting period, as applicable.

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 254 of 431

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.4910(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

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

did not conduct a performance test during the reporting 

period, you must include the dates of the last three 

performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you 

achieved in the last three performance tests to the 50 

percent emission limit threshold specified in 

§60.4885(a)(3)(i), and a statement as to whether there have 

been any process changes and whether the process change 

resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified SSI 

unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but 

less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 255 of 431

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring system was out of control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(e) Deviation reports. 

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average parameter 

level is above the maximum operating limit or below the 

minimum operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 256 of 431

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated

from any emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items

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

this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 257 of 431

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring

data during each deviation and any test report that

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 258 of 431

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 259 of 431

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items: 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected SSI 

during the reporting period. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 260 of 431

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standard, and operating 

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standard. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(f) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

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

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 261 of 431

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

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

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within 5 days of meeting 

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

(g) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence should have known that the event may 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 262 of 431

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(h) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit.

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 263 of 431

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

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

previously made in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(i) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance evaluation or 

performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with 

this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test 

audit data and performance test data to EPA by successfully 

submitting the data electronically into EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/). 

(j) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semi-annual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 

Title V Operating Permits 

§60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my unit? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 264 of 431

Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are 

required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit 

unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption 

specified in §60.4780. 

§60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my new SSI unit?

(a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a 

complete title V permit application must be submitted on or 

before one of the dates specified in paragraph (a)(1) or 

(a)(2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean 

Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i)). 

(1) For an SSI unit that commenced operation as a new 

SSI unit as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title V permit 

application must be submitted not later than [INSERT THE 

DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operation 

as a new SSI unit until after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then a complete title 

V permit application must be submitted not later than 12 

months after the date the unit commences operation as a new 

source. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 265 of 431

(b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart is 

subject to title V as a result of some triggering 

requirement(s) other than this subpart (for example, a unit 

subject to this subpart may be a major source or part of a 

major source), then your unit may be required to apply for 

a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one 

requirement triggers a source’s obligation to apply for a 

title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V 

permit application is triggered by the requirement that 

first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See 

section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and 

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

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

(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Definitions 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 266 of 431

§60.4930 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 267 of 431

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 268 of 431

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 269 of 431

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control or 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner (e.g., to provide valid 

data for monitoring systems). Failures that are caused, in 

part, by poor maintenance or careless operation are not 

malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the operator 

shall operate within established emissions and operating 

limits and shall continue monitoring of all applicable 

operating parameters until sewage sludge is no longer in 

the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed 

to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not 

less than the sewage sludge incineration residence time) or 

until the malfunction ceases, whichever comes first. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 270 of 431

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that meets one of 

two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means 

an existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as 

defined in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 271 of 431

New sewage sludge incineration unit means an SSI unit 

the construction of which is commenced after October 14, 

2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a modified 

solid waste incineration unit. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 272 of 431

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 273 of 431

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 274 of 431

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 4 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an SSI unit that 

meets the criteria in §60.4770. 

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

9.6 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 275 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.24 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Carbon 

monoxide 

18 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system. 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.013 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0044 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 276 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.0010 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

30 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 

Sulfur dioxide 5.3 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus] 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17)). 

Cadmium 0.0011 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 277 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Lead 0.00062 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method) 

Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Emission Limits and 

Standards for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 278 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

60 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Carbon 

monoxide 

52 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

24-hour block 

average (using 1-

hour averages of 

data) 

Continuous 

emissions 

monitoring 

system. 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.045 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(total mass 

basis); or 

0.0022 

nanograms per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 279 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Mercury 0.15 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02c, 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

210 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus] 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17)). 

Cadmium 0.0024 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 280 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Lead 0.0035 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method) 

Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parameters for 

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

All sewage sludge incineration units 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 281 of 431

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Fugitive 

emissions 

from ash 

handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not applicable

Scrubber 

Pressure drop 

across each 

wet scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Scrubber 

liquid flow 

rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Scrubber 

liquid pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Fabric Filter 

Alarm time of 

the bag leak 

detection 

system alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection system

alarm (this operating limit is provided in §60.4850

and is not established on a site-specific basis)
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 282 of 431

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging time 

for compliance

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary 

voltage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 4-hour 

rolling.c

Secondary 

amperage of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent water 

flow rate at 

the outlet of 

the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 4-hour 

rolling.c

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection rate

Hourly Hourly 4-hour 

rolling.c

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection rate

Carrier gas 

flow rate or 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 283 of 431

aAs specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate 

compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.

cCalculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating 

hours. 

Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency 

Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 284 of 431

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Reporting 

Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Notification of 

construction 

Prior to 

commencing 

construction 

• Statement of 

intent to 

construct 

• Anticipated 

date of 

commencement of 

construction 

• Documentation 

for siting 

requirements 

• Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

§60.4915(a) 

Notification of 

initial startup 

Prior to initial 

startup 

• Maximum design 

dry sewage 

sludge burning 

capacity 

• Anticipated and 

permitted 

maximum feed 

rate 

• If applicable, 

the petition 

for sitespecific 

operating 

limits 

• Anticipated 

date of initial 

startup 

• Site-specific 

monitoring plan

• The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

§60.4915(b) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 285 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement by a 

responsible 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

• Date of report 

• Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

• Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

• The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods, as 

applicable, 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

• Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

• Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

§60.4915(c) 

Annual No later than 12 • Company name §§60.4915(d) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 286 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

compliance 

report 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

and address 

• Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

• Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

• If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

• For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

• If no 

deviations from 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 287 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

• If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms 

• If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations 

• If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.4885(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

• Documentation 

of periods when 

all qualified 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 288 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

SSI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

• Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs 

• If there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions 

• If there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control 

• If there were 

no operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 

there were no 

such deviations

• Information on 

monitoring plan 

revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 289 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(1)) 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year 

If using a CMS:

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

• The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits 

• The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

• Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

• Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents 

• A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels 

• For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.4915(e)(3)(

§60.4915(e) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 290 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

viii) 

If not using a 

CMS:

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

• The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI 

• The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits 

• The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

• Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

• A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards 

• A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 291 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

action taken 

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more) 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

• Statement of 

cause of 

deviation 

• Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available 

• The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

• Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible 

• The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

• Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

§60.4835(b)(2)(i

) 

Within 5 days of 

obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

• Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation 

§60.4915(f) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

date you first 

• Description of 

the force 

majeure event 

• Rationale for 

§60.4915(g) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 292 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure 

• Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

• Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test 

Notification of 

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

1 month before 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

• Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60.4915(h) 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

• Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

• Intent to 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 293 of 431

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system. 

Subpart MMMM--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Sec. 

Table of Contents 

Introduction 

60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart? 

60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart? 

60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states? 

60.5015 What must I include in my state plan? 

60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan? 

60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable? 

60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter? 

60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan? 

60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B? 

60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there other 

acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations? 

60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies? 

60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state? 

Applicability of State Plans 

60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan? 

60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan? 

Use of Model Rule 

60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 

60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan? 

60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule? 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 294 of 431

60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments of 

progress and achieving final compliance? 

60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress? 

60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress? 

60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 

60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

submittal of a control plan? 

60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress for 

achieving final compliance? 

60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it? 

60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it? 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements? 

60.5135 When must the operator training course be 

completed? 

60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 

60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 

60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible? 

60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)? 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and

Operating Limits and Requirements 

60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet and 

by when? 

60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I meet 

and by when? 

60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits? 

60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 295 of 431

60.5181 How do I establish affirmative defense for

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction? 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits? 

60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs? 

60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards? 

60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my 

operating limits? 

60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards? 

60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits? 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

60.5230 What records must I keep? 

60.5235 What reports must I submit? 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 

60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit? 

Model Rule—Definitions 

60.5250 What definitions must I know? 

TABLES 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 296 of 431

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic

Equivalency Factors 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Units 

Introduction 

§60.5000 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes emission guidelines and 

compliance schedules for the control of emissions from 

sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollutants 

addressed by these emission guidelines are listed in Tables 

2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are 

developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the extent 

any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent with the 

requirements of subpart A of this part, the requirements of 

this subpart will apply. 

§60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 297 of 431

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality

program in a state or United States protectorate with one 

or more SSI units that commenced construction on or before 

October 14, 2010, you must submit a state plan to U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in this subpart. 

(b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSERT 

THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

§60.5010 Is a state plan required for all states?

No. You are not required to submit a state plan if

there are no SSI units for which construction commenced on 

or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you submit a 

negative declaration letter in place of the state plan. 

§60.5015 What must I include in my state plan?

(a) You must include the nine items described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section in your 

state plan. 

(1) Inventory of affected SSI units, including those 

that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. 

(2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in 

your state. 

(3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI unit. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 298 of 431

(4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator 

training and qualification requirements, and operating 

limits for affected SSI units that are at least as 

protective as the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. 

(5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

(6) Certification that the hearing on the state plan 

was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational 

affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief 

written summary of each presentation or written submission. 

(7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. 

(8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms

that you selected for implementing the emission guidelines 

of this subpart. 

(9) Demonstration of your state’s legal authority to 

carry out the sections 111(d) and 129 state plan. 

(b) Your state plan may deviate from the format and 

content of the emission guidelines contained in this 

subpart. However, if your state plan does deviate in 

content, you must demonstrate that your state plan is at 

least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. Your state plan must address regulatory 

applicability, increments of progress for retrofit,
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 299 of 431

operator training and qualification, emission limits and 

standards, performance testing, operating limits, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting. 

(c) You must follow the requirements of subpart B of 

this part (Adoption and Submittal of state plans for 

Designated Facilities) in your state plan. 

§60.5020 Is there an approval process for my state plan?

Yes. The EPA will review your state plan according to 

§60.27. 

§60.5025 What if my state plan is not approvable?

If you do not submit an approvable state plan (or a

negative declaration letter) by [INSERT THE DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA 

will develop a federal plan according to §60.27 to 

implement the emission guidelines contained in this

subpart. Owners and operators of SSI units not covered by 

an approved state plan must comply with the federal plan. 

The federal plan is an interim action and will be 

automatically withdrawn when your state plan is approved. 

§60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negative 

declaration letter?

No. The EPA has no formal review process for negative 

declaration letters. Once your negative declaration letter 

has been received, EPA will place a copy in the public 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 300 of 431

docket and publish a notice in the Federal Register. If, 

at a later date, an SSI unit for which construction

commenced on or before October 14, 2010 is found in your 

state, the federal plan implementing the emission 

guidelines contained in this subpart would automatically 

apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is approved. 

§60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include in my 

state plan?

(a) For SSI units that commenced construction on or 

before October 14, 2010, your state plan must include 

compliance schedules that require SSI units to achieve 

final compliance as expeditiously as practicable after 

approval of the state plan but not later than the earlier 

of the two dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) Three years after the effective date of state 

plan approval. 

(b) For compliance schedules that extend more than 1 

year following the effective date of state plan approval, 

state plans must include dates for enforceable increments 

of progress as specified in §60.5090. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 301 of 431

§60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this 

subpart that apply instead of the requirements specified in 

subpart B?

Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements for 

developing and processing section 111(d) state plans. This 

subpart applies instead of the requirements in subpart B of 

this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section: 

(a) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

must be as protective as the emission guidelines contained 

in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to 

comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This applies 

instead of the option for case-by-case less stringent 

emission standards and longer compliance schedules in 

§60.24(f). 

(b) State plans developed to implement this subpart 

are required to include two increments of progress for the 

affected SSI units. These two minimum increments are the 

final control plan submittal date and final compliance date 

in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of the 

requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a state plan 

to include all five increments of progress for all SSI 

units. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 302 of 431

§60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are there 

other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its section 

111(d)/129 (b)(2) obligations?

Yes, a state may meet its Clean Air Act section 

111(d)/129 obligations by submitting an acceptable written 

request for delegation of the federal plan that meets the 

requirements of this section. This is the only other 

option for a state to meet its section 111(d)/129 

obligations. 

(a) An acceptable federal plan delegation request 

must include the following: 

(1) A demonstration of adequate resources and legal 

authority to administer and enforce the federal plan. 

(2) The items under §60.5015(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(a)(7). 

(3) Certification that the hearing on the state 

delegation request, similar to the hearing for a state plan 

submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their 

organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the 

hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation 

or written submission. 

(4) A commitment to enter into a Memorandum of 

Agreement with the Regional Administrator that sets forth 

the terms, conditions, and effective date of the delegation 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 303 of 431

and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer of 

authority. Additional guidance and information is given in 

EPA's Delegation Manual, Item 7-139, Implementation and 

Enforcement of 111(d)(2) and 111(d)/(2)/129 (b)(3) federal 

plans. 

(b) A state with an already approved SSI Clean Air

Act section 111(d)/129 state plan is not precluded from 

receiving EPA approval of a delegation request for the 

revised federal plan, provided the requirements of 

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

the delegation request, the state also requests withdrawal 

of EPA's previous state plan approval. 

(c) A state’s Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

obligations are separate from its obligations under title V 

of the Clean Air Act. 

§60.5050 What authorities will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies?

The authorities that will not be delegated to state, 

local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (g) of this section. 

(a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits 

and standards in Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and

operating limits established under §60.5175 or §60.5190. 

(b) Approval of major alternatives to test methods. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 304 of 431

(c) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring. 

(d) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping 

and reporting. 

(e) The requirements in §60.5175. 

(f) The requirements in §60.5155(b)(2). 

(g) Performance test and data reduction waivers under 

§60.8(b). 

§60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI unit owners 

and operators in my state?

(a) No. This subpart does not directly affect SSI

unit owners and operators in your state. However, SSI unit 

owners and operators must comply with the state plan you 

develop to implement the emission guidelines contained in 

this subpart. States may choose to incorporate the model 

rule text directly in their state plan. 

(b) If you do not submit an approvable plan to 

implement and enforce the guidelines contained in this 

subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA will implement 

and enforce a federal plan, as provided in §60.5025, to 

ensure that each unit within your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010 reaches 

compliance with all the provisions of this subpart by the 

dates specified in §60.5035. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 305 of 431

Applicability of State Plans 

§60.5060 What SSI units must I address in my state plan?

(a) Your state plan must address SSI units that meet 

all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) SSI units in your state that commenced 

construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

(2) SSI units that meet the definition of an SSI unit 

as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) SSI units not exempt under §60.5065. 

(b) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes 

changes that meet the definition of modification after 

[INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSI unit becomes subject to 

subpart LLLL of this part and the state plan no longer 

applies to that unit. 

(c) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes 

physical or operational changes to an SSI unit for which 

construction commenced on or before [INSERT THE DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER] primarily to comply with your state plan, subpart

LLLL of this part does not apply to that unit. Such 

changes do not qualify as modifications under subpart LLLL 

of this part. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 306 of 431

§60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state plan?

This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate 

sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment 

facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These 

units may be subject to another subpart of this part (e.g., 

subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or operator of such 

a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an 

exemption claim under this section. 

Use of Model Rule 

§60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart?

(a) The model rule is the portion of these emission 

guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that addresses the 

regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. The model 

rule provides these requirements in regulation format. You 

must develop a state plan that is at least as protective as 

the model rule. You may use the model rule language as 

part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used 

in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alternative 

language is at least as protective as the model rule 

contained in this subpart. 

(b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250, 

“you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specified in 

§60.5250. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 307 of 431

§60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the required 

elements of my state plan?

Use the model rule to satisfy the state plan 

requirements specified in §60.5015(a)(3) through (a)(5). 

§60.5080 What are the principal components of the model 

rule?

The model rule contains the nine major components 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. 

(a) Increments of progress toward compliance. 

(b) Operator training and qualification. 

(c) Emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits. 

(d) Initial compliance requirements. 

(e) Continuous compliance requirements. 

(f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements. 

(g) Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(h) Definitions. 

(i) Tables. 

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 

§60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting increments 

of progress and achieving final compliance?

If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year 

following the effective date of state plan approval, you 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 308 of 431

must meet the two increments of progress specified in 

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

(a) Submit a final control plan. 

(b) Achieve final compliance. 

§60.5090 When must I complete each increment of progress?

Table 1 to this subpart specifies compliance dates for 

each increment of progress. 

§60.5095 What must I include in the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Your notification of achievement of increments of 

progress must include the three items specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Notification that the increment of progress has 

been achieved. 

(b) Any items required to be submitted with each 

increment of progress. 

(c) Signature of the owner or operator of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5100 When must I submit the notifications of 

achievement of increments of progress?

Notifications for achieving increments of progress 

must be postmarked no later than 10 business days after the 

compliance date for the increment. 

§60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of progress?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 309 of 431

If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must 

submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment 

of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must inform 

the Administrator that you did not meet the increment, and 

you must continue to submit reports each subsequent

calendar month until the increment of progress is met. 

§60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for submittal of a control plan?

For your control plan increment of progress, you must 

satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(a) Submit the final control plan that includes the 

four items described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of 

this section. 

(1) A description of the devices for air pollution

control and process changes that you will use to comply 

with the emission limits and standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

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

than sewage sludge is burned in the unit. 

(3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning 

capacity. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 310 of 431

(4) If applicable, the petition for site-specific 

operating limits under §60.5175. 

(b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control 

plan. 

§60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of progress 

for achieving final compliance?

For the final compliance increment of progress, you

must complete all process changes and retrofit construction 

of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, 

so that, if the affected SSI unit is brought online, all 

necessary process changes and air pollution control devices 

would operate as designed. 

§60.5120 What must I do if I close my SSI unit and then 

restart it?

(a) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it

prior to the final compliance date in your state plan, you 

must meet the increments of progress specified in §60.5085. 

(b) If you close your SSI unit but will restart it

after your final compliance date, you must complete

emission control retrofits and meet the emission limits, 

emission standards, and operating limits on the date your 

unit restarts operation. 

§60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my 

SSI unit and not restart it?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 311 of 431

If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply 

with the state plan, submit a closure notification,

including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the 

date your final control plan is due. 

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 

§60.5130 What are the operator training and qualification 

requirements?

(a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully 

trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, 

either at the facility or can be at the facility within 1 

hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may 

operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supervisor 

of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. 

If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not 

accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5155. 

(b) Operator training and qualification must be 

obtained through a state-approved program or by completing 

the requirements included in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Training must be obtained by completing an 

incinerator operator training course that includes, at a 

minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 312 of 431

(i) Environmental concerns, including types of 

emissions. 

(ii) Basic combustion principles, including products 

of combustion. 

(iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator 

to be used by the operator, including proper startup, 

sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. 

(iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. 

(v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and 

factors affecting performance (if applicable). 

(vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator

and air pollution control devices. 

(vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent 

conditions that may lead to malfunctions. 

(viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and 

handling procedures. 

(ix) Applicable federal, state, and local 

regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration workplace standards. 

(x) Pollution prevention. 

(2) An examination designed and administered by the 

state-approved program. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 313 of 431

(3) Written material covering the training course 

topics that may serve as reference material following 

completion of the course. 

§60.5135 When must the operator training course be

completed?

The operator training course must be completed by the 

later of the three dates specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section. 

(a) The final compliance date (Increment 2). 

(b) Six months after your SSI unit startup. 

(c) Six months after an employee assumes 

responsibility for operating the SSI unit or assumes 

responsibility for supervising the operation of the SSI 

unit. 

§60.5140 How do I obtain my operator qualification?

(a) You must obtain operator qualification by 

completing a training course that satisfies the criteria 

under §60.5130(b). 

(b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the 

training course is completed and the operator successfully 

passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2). 

§60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualification?

To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual 

review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 314 of 431

topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) Update of regulations. 

(b) Incinerator operation, including startup and 

shutdown procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash

handling. 

(c) Inspection and maintenance. 

(d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may 

lead to malfunction. 

(e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by 

attendees. 

§60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before 

you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the two 

methods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section. 

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

complete a standard annual refresher course described in 

§60.5145. 

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

the initial qualification requirements in §60.5140(a). 

§60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are 

temporarily not accessible?
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 315 of 431

If a qualified operator is not at the facility and 

cannot be at the facility within 1 hour, you must meet the 

criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, depending on the length of time that a qualified 

operator is not accessible. 

(a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 

more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less 

than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are familiar with 

the operation of the SSI unit and who have completed a 

review of the information specified in §60.5160 within the 

past 12 months. However, you must record the period when a 

qualified operator was not accessible and include this 

deviation in the annual report as specified under 

§60.5235(d). 

(b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 

weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are 

described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in 

writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused 

this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a

qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate 

that a qualified operator will be accessible. 

(2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 

4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 316 of 431

qualified operator is accessible, stating when you 

anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible, 

and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue 

operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first 

status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of 

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

(i) If the Administrator notifies you that your 

request to continue operation of the SSI unit is 

disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation for 30 

days, and then must cease operation. 

(ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified 

operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a). You 

must notify the Administrator within 5 days of having 

resumed operations and of having a qualified operator 

accessible. 

§60.5160 What site-specific documentation is required and 

how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a)?

(a) You must maintain at the facility the 

documentation of the operator training procedures specified 

under §60.5230(c)(1) and make the documentation readily 

accessible to all SSI unit operators. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 317 of 431

(b) You must establish a program for reviewing the

information listed in §60.5230(c)(1) with each qualified 

incinerator operator and other plant personnel who may 

operate the unit according to the provisions of 

§60.5155(a), according to the following schedule: 

(1) The initial review of the information listed in 

§60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months after the 

effective date of this subpart or prior to an employee's 

assumption of responsibilities for operation of the SSI 

unit, whichever date is later. 

(2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information 

listed in §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted no later than 12 

months following the previous review. 

Model Rule—Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and

Operating Limits and Requirements 

§60.5165 What emission limits and standards must I meet 

and by when?

You must meet the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by the final 

compliance date under the approved state plan, federal 

plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission limits 

and standards apply at all times the unit is operating and 

during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and 

standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 318 of 431

while sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., 

until the sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut 

off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge 

incineration residence time. 

§60.5170 What operating limits and requirements must I 

meet and by when?

You must meet, as applicable, the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and 

(h) of this section, according to the schedule specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The operating parameters 

for which you will establish operating limits for a wet 

scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or 

activated carbon injection are listed in Table 4 to this 

subpart. You must comply with the operating requirements 

in paragraph (f) of this section and the requirements in 

paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new operating 

limits, reestablished in §60.5210. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

(a) You must meet a site-specific operating limit for 

minimum operating temperature of the combustion chamber (or 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 319 of 431

afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in 

§60.5190. 

(b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner to 

comply with an emission limit, you must meet the sitespecific operating limits that you establish in §60.5190 

for each operating parameter associated with each air 

pollution control device. 

(c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

emission limits, you must install the bag leak detection 

system specified in §60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate the bag 

leak detection system such that the alarm does not sound 

more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month 

period. You must calculate the alarm time as specified in 

§60.5210(a)(2)(i). 

(d) You must meet the operating requirements in your 

site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, submitted 

as specified in §60.5200(d) to ensure that your ash

handling system will meet the emission standard for

fugitive emissions from ash handling. 

(e) You must meet the operating limits and 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

this section by the final compliance date under the
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 320 of 431

approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, as 

applicable. 

(f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture 

content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge 

incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) 

of this section. 

(1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed rate 

and calculate a daily average for all hours of operation 

during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the daily 

average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(2) Take at least one grab sample per day of the 

sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. If you 

take more than one grab sample in a day, calculate the 

daily average for the grab samples. Keep a record of the 

daily average moisture content, as specified in 

§60.5230(f)(3)(ii). 

(g) For the operating limits and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of this 

section, you must meet any new operating limits and

requirements, reestablished according to §60.5210(d). 

(h) If you use an air pollution control device other 

than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, you 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 321 of 431

must meet any site-specific operating limits or 

requirements that you establish as required in §60.5175. 

§60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I do not 

use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic 

precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, 

or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to comply 

with the emission limits?

If you use an air pollution control device other than 

a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, 

activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limit 

emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to 

comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you must meet 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

(a) Meet the applicable operating limits and 

requirements in §60.4850, and establish applicable 

operating limits according to §60.5190. 

(b) Petition the Administrator for specific operating 

parameters, operating limits, and averaging periods to be 

established during the initial performance test and to be 

monitored continuously thereafter. 

(1) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

You must not conduct the initial performance test until 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 322 of 431

after the petition has been approved by the Administrator, 

and you must comply with the operating limits as written, 

pending approval by the Administrator. Neither submittal 

of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to 

approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the 

responsibility to comply with any provision of this

subpart. 

(2) Your petition must include the five items listed 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Identification of the specific parameters you 

propose to monitor. 

(ii) A discussion of the relationship between these 

parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, 

identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change 

with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these 

parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated 

pollutants. 

(iii) A discussion of how you will establish the 

upper and/or lower values for these parameters that will 

establish the operating limits on these parameters,

including a discussion of the averaging periods associated 

with those parameters for determining compliance. 

(iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will

use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 323 of 431

these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and 

precision of these methods and instruments. 

(v) A discussion identifying the frequency and 

methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for 

monitoring these parameters. 

§60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and 

operating limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction?

The emission limits and standards apply at all times 

and during periods of malfunction. The operating limits 

apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the combustion 

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

combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less 

than the sewage sludge incineration residence time). 

§60.5181 How do I establish an affirmative defense for 

exceedance of an emission limit or standard during 

malfunction?

In response to an action to enforce the numerical 

emission standards set forth in paragraph §60.5165, you may 

assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to meet your 

burden of proving all of the requirements in the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 324 of 431

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any 

action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, 

and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the 

conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section are met. 

(1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. 

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices. 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that

could have been foreseen and avoided, or taken into

account. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative 

of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible

when the applicable emission limitations were being
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 325 of 431

exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, to the 

extent practicable to make these repairs. 

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable during periods of such 

emissions. 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, severe personal 

injury, or severe property damage. 

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the 

impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health. 

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were 

kept in operation if at all possible. 

(7) Your actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous

operating logs. 

(8) At all times, the facility was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(9) You have prepared a written root cause analysis 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of 

the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 326 of 431

malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 

specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering 

judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(b) If your SSI unit experiences an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) transmission 

as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business days 

after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if you 

wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to assert an 

affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report 

to the Administrator within 30 days of the initial 

occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in §60.5165 to 

demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, 

that you have met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements 

§60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance 

with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission

limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, use 

the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. 

In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 327 of 431

of this section, you have the option to demonstrate initial 

compliance using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash 

handling. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section, according to the performance 

testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements in 

§60.5220(a) and (b). 

(a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the 

performance test required in §60.8. You must demonstrate 

that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and

fugitive emissions from ash handling using the performance 

test. The initial performance test must be conducted using 

the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling 

volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 328 of 431

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must demonstrate that your SSI unit meets the 

emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to 

this subpart). 

(2) You may use the results from a performance test 

conducted within the 2 previous years that was conducted 

under the same conditions and demonstrated compliance with 

the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, provided no process changes have been made since 

you conducted that performance test. However, you must 

continue to meet the operating limits established during 

the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 

2 or 3 to this subpart. The performance test must have 

used the test methods specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system or continuous automated

sampling system. The option to use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, 

cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final 

performance specification applicable to hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 329 of 431

Federal Register. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. Collect data as specified in §60.5220(b)(6) and 

use the following procedures: 

(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, 

dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency 

basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, 

and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous 

monitoring system in lieu of conducting the initial

performance test required in paragraph (a) of this section, 

as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

initial performance test for that pollutant in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 330 of 431

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must use 

the continuous emissions monitoring system and follow the 

requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must measure 

emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 331 of 431

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to 

develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous 

automated sampling systems, you must use Performance 

Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 

of appendix F of this part. 

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your initial performance

evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems by your final compliance date 

(see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance evaluation 

must be conducted using the procedures and acceptance 

criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the 

dioxins/furans toxic equivalency emission limit in Table 2 

or 3 to this subpart, you must determine dioxins/furans 

toxic equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 332 of 431

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit an initial compliance report, as 

specified in §60.5235(b). 

(e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a 

performance test as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the initial 

performance test as soon as practicable after the force 

majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine whether 

or not to grant the extension to the initial performance 

test deadline, and will notify you in writing of approval 

or disapproval of the request for an extension as soon as 

practicable. Until an extension of the performance test 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 333 of 431

deadline has been approved by the Administrator, you remain 

strictly subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits?

(a) You must establish the site-specific operating

limits specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this 

section or established in §60.5175, as applicable, during 

your initial performance tests required in §60.5185. You 

must meet the requirements in §60.5210(d) to confirm these 

operating limits or reestablish new operating limits using 

the most recent performance tests required in §60.5205. 

You must follow the data measurement and recording 

frequencies and data averaging times specified in Table 4 

to this subpart or as established in §60.5175, and you must 

follow the testing, monitoring, and calibration 

requirements specified in §§60.5220 and 60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. You are not required to establish 

operating limits for the operating parameters listed in 

Table 4 to this subpart for a control device if you use a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for the 

applicable pollutants, as follows: 

(1) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 334 of 431

across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and

scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for hydrogen chloride or 

sulfur dioxide. 

(2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions of 

particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required 

to establish an operating limit and monitor pressure drop 

across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and

scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

cadmium, or lead. 

(3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to 

control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, 

you are not required to establish an operating limit and 

monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates,

secondary amperage of the collection plates, and effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic 

precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, 

lead, or cadmium. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 335 of 431

(4) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of mercury, you are not required to 

establish an operating limit and monitor mercury sorbent 

injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrier gas 

pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system 

specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit for mercury. 

(5) For an activated carbon injection system designed 

to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not

required to establish an operating limit and monitor 

dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow 

rate (or carrier gas pressure drop) if you use the 

continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 

60.4885(b) to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limit for dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic

equivalency basis). 

(b) Minimum pressure drop across each wet scrubber

used to meet the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium 

emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest hourly average pressure drop across each such 

wet scrubber recorded during three performance test run 

periods. 

(c) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate (measured at

the inlet to each wet scrubber), equal to the lowest hourly 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 336 of 431

average liquid flow rate recorded during three performance 

test run periods. 

(d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubber 

used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride 

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to 

the lowest hourly average scrubber liquid pH measured 

during the three performance test run periods at the inlet 

to each applicable wet scrubber. 

(e) If you do not use an afterburner to comply with 

the requirements of this rule, minimum combustion chamber 

operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly average 

combustion chamber operating temperature recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(f) If you use an afterburner to comply with the 

requirement of this rule, minimum afterburner combustion 

chamber operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly 

afterburner combustion chamber temperature recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(g) Minimum power input to the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest hourly 

average power input recorded during three performance test 

run periods. Power input must be calculated as the product 

of the secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 337 of 431

electrostatic precipitator, both recorded during three 

performance test run periods. 

(h) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of 

the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest hourly 

average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the 

electrostatic precipitator recorded during three 

performance test run periods. 

(i) For activated carbon injection, establish the 

site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs 

(i)(1) through (i)(2) of this section. 

(1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to 

the lowest hourly average mercury sorbent injection rate 

recorded during three performance test run periods.

(2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, 

equal to the lowest hourly average dioxin/furan sorbent 

injection rate recorded during three performance test run 

periods. 

(3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carrier 

gas pressure drop, as follows: 

(i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the 

lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 338 of 431

(ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to the 

lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorded during 

three performance test run periods. 

(j) You must confirm your operating limits or 

reestablish new operating limits according to §60.5210(d). 

§60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial air 

pollution control device inspection and make any necessary 

repairs?

(a) You must conduct an air pollution control device 

inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final compliance 

date under the approved state plan, federal plan, or 

delegation, as applicable. For air pollution control 

devices installed after the final compliance date, you must 

conduct the air pollution control device inspection within 

60 days after installation of the control device. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following the air 

pollution control device inspection under paragraph (a) of 

this section, all necessary repairs must be completed 

unless you obtain written approval from the Administrator 

establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the 

SSI unit must be completed. 

§60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan 

for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak detection 

system, and ash handling system, and by what date must I 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 339 of 431

conduct an initial performance evaluation of my continuous 

monitoring systems and bag leak detection system?

You must develop and submit to the Administrator for 

approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each 

continuous monitoring system required under this subpart, 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) 

of this section. This requirement also applies to you if 

you petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of this 

section. If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total mass 

basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must 

develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58b(q), 

and you are not required to meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must also 

submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash

handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. You must submit and update your monitoring plans 

as specified in paragraphs (f) through (h) of this section. 

(a) For each continuous monitoring system, your 

monitoring plan must address the elements and requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this 

section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 340 of 431

(1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system 

sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit such that the 

measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 

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

device). 

(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the 

sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric 

signal analyzer and the data collection and reduction 

systems. 

(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance 

criteria. 

(i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, your 

performance evaluation and acceptance criteria will

include, but not be limited to, the following: 

(A) The applicable requirements for continuous 

emissions monitoring systems specified in §60.13. 

(B) The applicable performance specifications (e.g., 

relative accuracy tests) in appendix B of this part. 

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

accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) 

in appendix F of this part. 

(D) A discussion of how the occurrence and duration 

of out-of-control periods will affect the suitability of 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 341 of 431

CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning given in 

section (a)(7)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For continuous parameter monitoring systems, 

your performance evaluation and acceptance criteria must 

include, but not be limited to, the associated performance 

specifications and quality assurance procedures. 

(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.11(d). 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.13.

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in 

accordance with the general requirements of §60.7(b), (c), 

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

(7) Provisions for periods when the continuous 

monitoring system is out of control, as follows: 

(i) A continuous emissions monitoring system is out 

of control if the conditions of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(A) or 

(a)(7)(i)(B) of this section are met. 

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

or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the 

applicable calibration drift specification in the 

applicable performance specification or in the relevant 

standard. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 342 of 431

(B) The continuous emissions 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 emissions monitoring system 

is out of control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of 

this section, you must take the necessary corrective action 

and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 

system is out of control. You must take corrective action 

and conduct retesting until the performance requirements 

are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a performance 

check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an 

exceedance of the performance requirements established 

under this part. The end of the out-of-control period is 

the hour following the completion of corrective action and 

successful demonstration that the system is within the 

allowable limits. 

(8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic 

performance evaluations of your continuous monitoring 

systems in accordance with your site-specific monitoring 

plan. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 343 of 431

(b) If a bag leak detection system is used, your 

monitoring plan must include a description of the following 

items: 

(1) Installation of the bag leak detection system.

(2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak 

detection system, including how the alarm set-point will be 

established. 

(3) Operation of the bag leak detection system, 

including quality assurance procedures. 

(4) How the bag leak detection system will be 

maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and 

spare parts inventory list. 

(5) How the bag leak detection system output will be 

recorded and stored. 

(c) You must conduct an initial performance 

evaluation of each continuous monitoring system and bag 

leak detection system, as applicable, in accordance with 

your monitoring plan, according to §60.13(c). For the 

purpose of this subpart, the provisions of §60.13(c) also 

apply to the bag leak detection system. 

(d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying the 

operating procedures for your ash handling system that you 

will follow to ensure that that your meet the fugitive 

emissions limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 344 of 431

(e) You may submit an application to the 

Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring 

requirements to demonstrate compliance with the standards 

of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section. 

(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging 

periods other than those specified in this section, unless 

you document, using data or information, that the longer 

averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed 

levels achieved over the duration of three performance test 

runs. 

(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring 

requirement is approved, you must continue to use the 

original monitoring requirement until approval is received 

to use another monitoring requirement. 

(3) You must submit the application for approval of 

alternate monitoring requirements no later than the

notification of performance test. The application must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Data or information justifying the request, such 

as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the 

impracticality of using the required approach. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 345 of 431

(ii) A description of the proposed alternative 

monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter 

to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the 

averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be 

calculated. 

(iii) Data or information documenting that the 

alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. 

(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval 

or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after 

receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days 

of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever 

is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate 

monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent 

or better assurance of compliance with the relevant

emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate 

monitoring application, the Administrator will provide the 

following: 

(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which 

the intended disapproval is based. 

(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present 

additional supporting information before final action is 

taken on the application. This notice will specify how 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 346 of 431

much additional time is allowed for you to provide 

additional supporting information. 

(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting 

information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 

to consider the application prior to the performance test. 

Neither submittal of an application, nor the 

Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the 

application relieves you of the responsibility to comply 

with any provision of this subpart. 

(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a

case-by-case basis that additional or alternative operating 

limits, or alternative approaches to establishing operating 

limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standards of this subpart. 

(f) You must submit your monitoring plans required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at least 60 days 

before your initial performance evaluation of your 

continuous monitoring system(s). 

(g) You must submit your monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system, as required in paragraph (d) of this 

section, at least 60 days before your initial compliance 

test date. 

(h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring plan 

if there are any changes or potential changes in your 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 347 of 431

monitoring procedures or if there is a process change, as 

defined in §60.5250. 

Model Rule—Continuous Compliance Requirements 

§60.5205 How and when do I demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and standards?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 

limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In lieu of using the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, you have the option to 

demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures

specified in paragraph (b) of this section for particulate 

matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans 

(total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and

fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the 

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

applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, 

according to the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). You may 

also petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 348 of 431

and (e) of this section, following the date that the 

initial performance test for each pollutant in Table 2 or 3 

to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a 

performance test for each such pollutant on a calendar year 

basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 

calendar months following the previous performance test); 

and you must complete 5 performance tests for each such 

pollutant in each 5-year calendar period. The performance 

test must be conducted using the test methods, averaging 

methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart and according to 

the testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements 

specified in §60.5220(a). 

(1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. The Administrator may 

request a repeat performance test at any time. 

(2) You must repeat the performance test within 60

days of a process change, as defined in §60.5250. 

(3) If the initial or any subsequent performance test 

for any pollutant in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart 

demonstrates that the emission level for the pollutant is 

no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable, and 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 349 of 431

you are not required to conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant in response to a request by the Administrator in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process change in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you may elect to skip 

conducting a performance test for the pollutant for the 

next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test for the 

pollutant during the third year and no more than 36 months 

following the previous performance test for the pollutant. 

For cadmium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted 

at emission levels no greater than their respective

emission levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section for you to qualify for less frequent testing under 

this paragraph. 

(i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon 

monoxide, dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, the emission level equal to 50 

percent of the applicable emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to 

this subpart. 

(ii) For fugitive emissions, visible emissions (of

combustion ash from the ash conveying system) for 2 percent 

of the time during each of the 3 1-hour observation

periods. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 350 of 431

(4) If you are conducting less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant

indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emission 

level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of 

this section, as applicable, you must conduct annual 

performance tests for the pollutant according to the 

schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until 

you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollutant as 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous 

automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, 

dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a 

final performance specification applicable to hydrogen 

chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in 

the Federal Register. The option to use a continuous 

automated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect 

on the date a final performance specification for such a 

continuous automated sampling system is published in the 

Federal Register. Collect data as specified in 

§60.5220(b)(6) and use the following procedures: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 351 of 431

(1) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, 

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic 

equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a 

continuous monitoring system in lieu of conducting the 

annual performance test required in paragraph (a) of this 

section, as follows: 

(i) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

emissions monitoring system for any pollutant specified in 

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

annual performance test for that pollutant in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous 

automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/furans in 

lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/furan 

performance test in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) If you use a continuous emissions monitoring 

system to demonstrate compliance with an applicable

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

must use the continuous emissions monitoring system and 

follow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must 

measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour 

arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 352 of 431

carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance 

using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arithmetic 

average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation 

19-19 in section 12.4.1 of Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7. 

(3) If you use a continuous automated sampling system 

to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emission limit 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: 

(i) Use the continuous automated sampling system 

specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and calculate 

average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon 

dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitoring plan. 

(A) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 24-hour averages to determine compliance with the 

mercury emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to 

calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance with the 

dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) 

emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(ii) Update your monitoring plan as specified in 

§60.4880(e). For mercury continuous automated sampling 

systems, you must use Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B of part 75 and Procedure 5 of appendix F of this 

part. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 353 of 431

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, you must complete your periodic performance 

evaluations required in your monitoring plan for any 

continuous emissions monitoring systems and continuous 

automated sampling systems, according to the schedule 

specified in your monitoring plan. If you were previously 

determining compliance by conducting an annual performance 

test (or according to the less frequent testing for a 

pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section), 

you must complete the initial performance evaluation 

required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the 

continuous monitoring system prior to using the continuous 

emissions monitoring system to demonstrate compliance or 

continuous automated sampling system. Your performance 

evaluation must be conducted using the procedures and 

acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). 

(c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/furans 

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

this section, you must determine dioxins/furans toxic 

equivalency as follows: 

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan

tetra- through octachlorinated-isomer emitted using Method 

23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 354 of 431

(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through 

octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with

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

concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with

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

concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic 

equivalency. 

(d) You must submit an annual compliance report as

specified in §60.5235(c). You must submit a deviation 

report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instance that 

you did not meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you demonstrate continuous compliance using a 

performance test, as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. 

If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has 

occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force 

majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writing as 

specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the performance 

test as soon as practicable after the force majeure occurs. 

The Administrator will determine whether or not to grant 

the extension to the performance test deadline, and will 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 355 of 431

notify you in writing of approval or disapproval of the 

request for an extension as soon as practicable. Until an 

extension of the performance test deadline has been

approved by the Administrator, you remain strictly subject 

to the requirements of this subpart. 

(f) After any initial requests in §60.5200 for 

alternative monitoring requirements for initial compliance, 

you may subsequently petition the Administrator for

alternative monitoring parameters as specified in 

§§60.13(i) and 60.5200(e). 

§60.5210 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with 

my operating limits? 

You must continuously monitor your operating 

parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, according to the monitoring and calibration 

requirements in §60.5225. You must confirm and reestablish 

your operating limits as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(a) You must continuously monitor the operating 

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

this section using the continuous monitoring equipment and 

according to the procedures specified in §60.5225 or 

established in §60.5175. Four-hour rolling average values 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 356 of 431

are used to determine compliance (except for alarm time of 

the baghouse leak detection system) unless a different 

averaging period is established under §60.5175. 

(1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limits established according to §§60.5175 and 

60.5190 and paragraph (d) of this section for each 

applicable operating parameter. 

(2) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets the 

operating limit for bag leak detection systems as follows: 

(i) For a bag leak detection system, you must 

calculate the alarm time as follows: 

(A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates 

that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 

counted. 

(B) If corrective action is required, each alarm time 

shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. 

(C) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate 

corrective action, each alarm time (i.e., time that the 

alarm sounds) is counted as the actual amount of time taken 

by you to initiate corrective action. 

(ii) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of 

the operating time during a 6-month period, as specified in 

§60.5170(c). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 357 of 431

(b) Operation above the established maximum, below

the established minimum, or outside the allowable range of 

the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits 

established under this subpart, except during performance 

tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission 

and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. 

You must submit the deviation report specified in 

§60.5235(d) for each instance that you did not meet one of 

your operating limits established under this subpart. 

(c) You must submit the annual compliance report 

specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. 

(d) You must confirm your operating limits according 

to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish 

operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. Your operating limits must be established so as 

to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limits. 

These requirements also apply to your operating 

requirements in your fugitive emissions monitoring plan 

specified in §60.5170(d). 

(1) Your operating limits must be based on operating 

data recorded during any performance test conducted to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 358 of 431

comply with this subpart or any performance evaluation 

required under §60.5205(b)(4). 

(2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at any 

time to establish new values for the operating limits to 

apply from that point forward. 

§60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution 

control device inspections and make any necessary repairs? 

(a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air 

pollution control device used to comply with the emission 

limits, according to §60.5220(c), within 10 to 12 months 

following the previous annual air pollution control device 

inspection. 

(b) Within 10 operating days following an air 

pollution control device inspection, all necessary repairs 

must be completed unless you obtain written approval from 

the Administrator establishing a date whereby all necessary 

repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed.

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration 

Requirements 

§60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and 

calibration requirements for compliance with the emission 

limits and standards?

You must meet, as applicable, the performance testing 

requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 359 of 431

the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, the air pollution control device inspections 

requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(a) Performance testing requirements. 

(1) All performance tests must consist of a minimum 

of three test runs conducted under conditions 

representative of normal operations, as specified in 

§60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limits or 

standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction are considered deviations from the applicable 

emission limits or standards. 

(2) You must document that the dry sludge burned 

during the performance test is representative of the sludge 

burned under normal operating conditions by: 

(i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test by continuously 

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate that 

sewage sludge is fed to the incinerator. 

(ii) Maintaining a log of the moisture content of the 

sewage sludge burned during the performance test by taking 

grab samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator 

for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 360 of 431

(3) All performance tests must be conducted using the 

test methods, minimum sampling volume, observation period, 

and averaging method specified in Table 2 or 3 to this 

subpart. 

(4) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A must be

used to select the sampling location and number of traverse 

points. 

(5) Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

must be used for gas composition analysis, including 

measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneously with 

each method. 

(6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 

7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: 

 Cadj= Cmeas(20.9–7)/(20.9-%O2) (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

Cadj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry 

basis. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, 

percent. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 361 of 431

(7) Performance tests must be conducted and data 

reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures 

contained in this subpart unless the Administrator does one 

of the following. 

(i) Specifies or approves, in specific cases, the use 

of a method with minor changes in methodology. 

(ii) Approves the use of an equivalent method. 

(iii) Approves the use of an alternative method the 

results of which he has determined to be adequate for 

indicating whether a specific source is in compliance. 

(iv) Waives the requirement for performance tests 

because you have demonstrated by other means to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the affected SSI unit is 

in compliance with the standard. 

(v) Approves shorter sampling times and smaller 

sample volumes when necessitated by process variables or 

other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is construed to 

abrogate the Administrator's authority to require testing 

under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. 

(8) You must provide the Administrator at least 30

days prior notice of any performance test, except as 

specified under other subparts, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. If after 30 

days notice for an initially scheduled performance test, 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 362 of 431

there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 

conducting the scheduled performance test, you must notify 

the Administrator as soon as possible of any delay in the 

original test date, either by providing at least 7 days 

prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance 

test, or by arranging a rescheduled date with the 

Administrator by mutual agreement. 

(9) You must provide, or cause to be provided, 

performance testing facilities as follows: 

(i) Sampling ports adequate for the test methods 

applicable to the SSI unit, as follows: 

(A) Constructing the air pollution control system 

such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission 

rates can be accurately determined by applicable test 

methods and procedures. 

(B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow 

during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable 

test methods and procedures. 

(ii) Safe sampling platform(s). 

(iii) Safe access to sampling platform(s). 

(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.

(10) Unless otherwise specified in this subpart, each 

performance test must consist of three separate runs using 

the applicable test method. Each run must be conducted for 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 363 of 431

the time and under the conditions specified in the 

applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit 

must be determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of 

the three runs. In the event that a sample is accidentally 

lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs 

must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, failure of 

an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme 

meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond 

your control, compliance may, upon the Administrator's 

approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean of the 

results of the two other runs. 

(11) During each test run specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewage sludge 

incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maximum 

permitted capacity. 

(b) Continuous monitor requirements. You must meet 

the following requirements, as applicable, when using a 

continuous monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The 

option to use a continuous emissions monitoring system for 

hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes 

effect on the date a final performance specification 

applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, 

or lead is published in the Federal Register. If you elect 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 364 of 431

to use a continuous emissions monitoring system instead of 

conducting annual performance testing, you must meet the 

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

section. If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(7) 

of this section. The option to use a continuous automated 

sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date 

a final performance specification for such a continuous 

automated sampling system is published in the Federal 

Register. 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. 

(2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, 

in which case you must also conduct a performance test 

within prior to ceasing operation of the system. 

(3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and 

recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accordance 

with the following: 

(i) Section 60.13 of subpart A of this part. 

(ii) The following performance specifications of 

appendix B of this part, as applicable: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 365 of 431

(A) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 

11 of appendix B of this part. 

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specification 

15 of appendix B of this part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4B 

of appendix B of this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B of this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2 

of appendix B of this part. 

(iii) For continuous emissions monitoring systems,

the quality assurance procedures (e.g., quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) of 

appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this section. For 

each pollutant, the span value of the continuous emissions 

monitoring system is two times the applicable emission 

limit, expressed as a concentration. 

(A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendix F 

of this part. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 366 of 431

(B) For hydrogen chloride, Procedure 1 in appendix F 

of this part except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit 

requirements of Procedure 1 shall be replaced with the 

validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 

12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of appendix B of this 

part. 

(C) For carbon monoxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(D) [Reserved] 

(E) For mercury, Procedures 1 and 5 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(F) For nitrogen oxides, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(G) For sulfur dioxide, Procedure 1 in appendix F of 

this part. 

(4) During each relative accuracy test run of the 

continuous emissions monitoring system using the 

performance specifications in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section, emission data for each regulated pollutant and 

oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established in (b)(5) of this 

section) must be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 

60-minute period) by both the continuous emissions monitors 

and the test methods specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) 

through (b)(4)(viii) of this section. Relative accuracy 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 367 of 431

testing must be at representative operating conditions 

while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge. 

(i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-3 or Method 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8 shall be used. 

(ii) For hydrogen chloride, Method 26 or 26A at 40

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. 

(iii) For carbon monoxide, Method 10, 10A, or 10B at 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(iv) For dioxins/furans, Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7, shall be used. 

(v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A-8, or as an alternative ASTM D6784–

02 Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle 

Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from CoalFired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method)(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), shall be 

used. 

(vi) For nitrogen oxides, Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, shall be used. 

(vii) For sulfur dioxide, Method 6 or 6C at 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A-4, or as an alternative American 

National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 368 of 431

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17) must be used. For sources that have 

actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per million dry 

volume, the relative accuracy criterion for the inlet of 

the sulfur dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system 

should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of 

the method test data in terms of the units of the emission 

standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume absolute value 

of the mean difference between the method and the 

continuous emissions monitoring system, whichever is 

greater. 

(viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as established 

in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used. 

(5) You may request that compliance with the emission 

limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 

corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. If carbon 

dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections, the 

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels must 

be established during the initial performance test 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 369 of 431

according to the procedures and methods specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this section. 

This relationship may be re-established during subsequent 

performance compliance tests. 

(i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2 must be used to determine the

relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a

sampling location. Method 3A or 3B at 50 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, or as an alternative American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by 

reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as 

the carbon dioxide monitor. 

(ii) Samples must be taken for at least 30 minutes in 

each hour. 

(iii) Each sample must represent a 1-hour average.

(iv) A minimum of three runs must be performed. 

(6) You must collect data with the continuous 

monitoring system as follows: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 370 of 431

(b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). 

(ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in a deviation report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.4880(a)(7)(i) must not be included in calculations used 

to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods 

that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction 

as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 371 of 431

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 

(7) If you elect to use a continuous automated 

sampling system instead of conducting annual performance 

testing, you must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous automated sampling system according to the sitespecific monitoring plan developed in §60.58b(p)(1) through 

(p)(6), (p)(9), (p)(10), and (q). 

(ii) Collect data according to §60.58b(p)(5) and 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. 

(c) Air pollution control device inspections. You 

must conduct air pollution control device inspections that 

include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for 

proper operation, if applicable. 

(2) Ensure proper calibration of thermocouples, 

sorbent feed systems, and any other monitoring equipment. 

(3) Generally observe that the equipment is 

maintained in good operating condition. 

(4) Ensure that the air pollution control device 

meets manufacturer recommendations. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 372 of 431

(d) Bypass stack. Use of the bypass stack at any 

time that sewage sludge is being charged to the SSI unit is 

an emissions standards deviation for all pollutants listed 

in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. The use of the bypass 

stack during a performance test invalidates the performance 

test. 

§60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration 

requirements for compliance with my operating limits?

(a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

measuring flow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature 

according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section: 

(1) Meet the following general requirements for flow, 

pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement

devices: 

(i) You must collect data using the continuous 

monitoring system at all times the affected SSI unit is 

operating and at the intervals specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with 

monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality control activities 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 373 of 431

(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required 

zero and span adjustments). 

(ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitoring 

system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). 

(iii) Any data collected during monitoring system 

malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities must not be included in 

calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation 

report. 

(iv) Any data collected during periods when the 

monitoring system is out of control as specified in

§60.5200(a)(7)(i) must not be included in calculations used 

to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods 

that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfunction, 

as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation 

report. 

(v) You must use all the data collected during all

periods except those periods specified in paragraphs 

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

operation of the control device and associated control 

system. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 374 of 431

(vi) Determine the 4-hour rolling average of all 

recorded readings, except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(vii) Record the results of each inspection, 

calibration, and validation check. 

(2) Meet the following requirements for each type of 

measurement device: 

(i) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

flow. 

(B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 

of 2 percent of the flow rate. 

(C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity 

distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. 

(D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 

semi-annually. 

(E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activated 

carbon injection), during the performance test conducted 

pursuant to §60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system 

is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, according to 

the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 375 of 431

(ii) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that 

provides a representative measurement of the pressure. 

(B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, 

vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 

(C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 

centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum

tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(D) Ensure continuous acceptable operation (e.g., 

check for or provide high reverse gas pressure periodically 

to minimize pressure tap pluggage). 

(E) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer 

calibration monthly. 

(F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor

exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating 

pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. 

(G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for 

activated carbon injection), during the performance test 

conducted pursuant to §60.5205, you must demonstrate that 

the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 376 of 431

(iii) If you have an operating limit that requires

the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides 

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH. 

(B) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and 

representative of the fluid to be measured. 

(C) Check the pH meter's calibration daily. 

(iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of a temperature measurement device, you must meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necessary 

equipment in a position that provides a representative 

temperature. 

(B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a noncryogenic temperature range. 

(C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance 

of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger, for 

a cryogenic temperature range. 

(D) Conduct a temperature measurement device 

calibration check at least every 3 months. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 377 of 431

(b) You must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain the continuous parameter monitoring systems for 

voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak detection 

system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of 

this section. 

(1) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and secondary 

amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic precipitator, 

you must use secondary voltage and secondary amperage 

monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage and 

secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator. 

(2) If you have an operating limit that requires the 

use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorbent 

injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow 

measurement device), you must meet the following 

requirements: 

(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides 

a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection 

rate. 

(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance 

with manufacturer's procedures and specifications. 

(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in 

accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and 

specifications. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 378 of 431

(3) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the 

requirements of this subpart, you must: 

(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain your

bag leak detection system as follows: 

(A) You must install and operate a bag leak detection 

system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.

(B) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent 

with the manufacturer's written specifications and 

recommendations and in accordance with the guidance

provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–

454/R–98–015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, 

see §60.17). 

(C) The bag leak detection system must be certified 

by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 

actual cubic meter or less. 

(D) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide 

output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings. 

(E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with a device to continuously record the output signal from 

the sensor. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 379 of 431

(F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped

with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an 

increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where 

it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. 

(G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that 

do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a 

bag leak detection system must be installed in each

baghouse compartment or cell. 

(H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, 

the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(I) You must operate and maintain your bag leak 

detection system in continuous operation according to your 

monitoring plan required under §60.5200. 

(ii) You must initiate procedures to determine the

cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, and you 

must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of 

the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are 

necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn 

or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that 

may cause an increase in particulate matter emissions. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 380 of 431

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. 

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter media or 

otherwise repairing the control device. 

(D) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process producing the 

particulate matter emissions. 

(c) You must operate and maintain the continuous 

parameter monitoring systems specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section in continuous operation according 

to your monitoring plan required under §60.5200. 

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

install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specifications), 

maintain, and operate a device or method for measuring the 

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. 

Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting 

§60.5230 What records must I keep?

You must maintain the items (as applicable) specified 

in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section for a period 

of at least 5 years. All records must be available on site 

in either paper copy or computer-readable format that can 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 381 of 431

be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(a) Date. Calendar date of each record. 

(b) Increments of progress. Copies of the final 

control plan and any additional notifications, reported 

under §60.5235. 

(c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator 

training procedures and records specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must make 

available and readily accessible at the facility at all 

times for all SSI unit operators the documentation 

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

(1) Documentation of the following operator training 

procedures and information: 

(i) Summary of the applicable standards under this

subpart. 

(ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding 

sewage sludge. 

(iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

preventative and corrective procedures. 

(iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air 

supply levels. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 382 of 431

(v) Procedures for operating the incinerator and 

associated air pollution control systems within the

standards established under this subpart. 

(vi) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the incinerator operating limits. 

(vii) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. 

(viii) Procedures for handling ash. 

(ix) A list of the materials burned during the 

performance test, if in addition to sewage sludge. 

(x) For each qualified operator and other plant 

personnel who may operate the unit according to the

provisions of §60.5155(a), the phone and/or pager number at 

which they can be reached during operating hours. 

(2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who may operate the unit 

according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as follows: 

(i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operators 

and other plant personnel who have completed review of the 

information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as required 

by §60.5160(b), including the date of the initial review 

and all subsequent annual reviews. 

(ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operators 

who have completed the operator training requirements under 

§60.5130, met the criteria for qualification under 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 383 of 431

§60.5140, and maintained or renewed their qualification 

under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include 

documentation of training, including the dates of their 

initial qualification and all subsequent renewals of such 

qualifications. 

(3) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, but less 

than 2 weeks, as required in §60.5155(a). 

(4) Records showing the periods when no qualified 

operators were accessible for 2 weeks or more along with 

copies of reports submitted as required in §60.5155(b). 

(d) Air pollution control device inspections. 

Records of the results of initial and annual air pollution 

control device inspections conducted as specified in 

§§60.5195 and 60.5220(c), including any required 

maintenance and any repairs not completed within 10 days of 

an inspection or the timeframe established by the 

Administrator. 

(e) Performance test reports.

(1) The results of the initial, annual, and any 

subsequent performance tests conducted to determine

compliance with the emission limits and standards and/or to 

establish operating limits, as applicable. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 384 of 431

(2) Retain a copy of the complete performance test

report, including calculations. 

(3) Keep a record of the hourly dry sludge feed rate 

measured during performance test runs as specified in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(i). 

(4) Keep any necessary records to demonstrate that

the performance test was conducted under conditions

representative of normal operations, including a record of 

the moisture content measured as required in 

§60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of the sewage 

sludge burned during the performance test. 

(f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the 

following data, as applicable: 

(1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, all 

1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter, 

hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total 

mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

cadmium, and lead emissions. 

(2) For continuous automated sampling systems, all

average concentrations measured for mercury and 

dioxins/furans total mass basis at the frequencies 

specified in your monitoring plan. 

(3) For continuous parameter monitoring systems: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 385 of 431

(i) All 1-hour average values recorded for the 

following operating parameters, as applicable: 

(A) Combustion chamber operating temperature (or 

afterburner temperature). 

(B) If a wet scrubber is used to comply with the 

rule, pressure drop across each wet scrubber system, liquid 

flow rate to each wet scrubber used to comply with the 

emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

particulate matter, cadmium, or lead, and liquid flow rate 

and pH as introduced to each wet scrubber used to comply 

with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for 

sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. 

(C) If an electrostatic precipitator is used to 

comply with the rule, voltage of the electrostatic 

precipitator collection plates or amperage of the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates, and effluent 

water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrostatic 

precipitator. 

(D) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, mercury sorbent flow rate and carrier gas 

flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable. 

(ii) All daily average values recorded for the feed 

rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 386 of 431

sewage sludge incinerator, monitored and calculated as 

specified in §60.5170(f). 

(iii) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the 

rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the 

time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 

brief description of the cause of the alarm and the

corrective action taken. You must also record the percent 

of operating time during each 6-month period that the alarm 

sounds, calculated as specified in §60.5210. 

(iv) For other control devices for which you must 

establish operating limits under §60.5175, you must

maintain data collected for all operating parameters used 

to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the 

frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. 

(g) Other records for continuous monitoring systems. 

You must keep the following records, as applicable: 

(1) Keep records of any notifications to the 

Administrator in §60.4915(h)(1) of starting or stopping use 

of a continuous monitoring system for determining 

compliance with any emissions limit. 

(2) Keep records of any requests under §60.5220(b)(5) 

that compliance with the emission limits be determined 

using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an 

equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 387 of 431

(3) If activated carbon injection is used to comply 

with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any changes in 

the type of sorbent used. 

(h) Deviation Reports. Records of any deviation 

reports submitted under §60.5235(e) and (f). 

(i) Equipment specifications and operation and 

maintenance requirements. Equipment specifications and 

related operation and maintenance requirements received 

from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls, and 

monitoring equipment. 

(j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation checks

of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, 

calibration, and validation checks of any monitoring 

devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. 

(k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations for 

continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring 

plans required under §60.5200, and records of performance 

evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5). 

(l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to 

document that your SSI unit qualifies for less frequent 

testing under §60.5205(a)(3). 

(m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of 

the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durations as 

required under §60.5225(d). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 388 of 431

§60.5235 What reports must I submit?

You must submit the reports specified in paragraphs

(a) through (i) of this section. See Table 6 to this 

subpart for a summary of these reports. 

(a) Increments of progress report. If you plan to 

achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective 

date of state plan approval, you must submit the following 

reports, as applicable: 

(1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085(a) 

and 60.5110. 

(2) You must submit your notification of achievement 

of increments of progress no later than 10 business days 

after the compliance date for the increment as specified in 

§§60.5095 and 60.5100. 

(3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you 

must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked 

within 10 business days after the date for that increment, 

as specified in §60.5105. 

(4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than

comply with the state plan, submit a closure notification 

as specified in §60.5125. 

(b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the 

following information no later than 60 days following the 

initial performance test. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 389 of 431

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report. 

(4) The complete test report for the initial 

performance test results obtained by using the test methods 

specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(5) If an initial performance evaluation of a 

continuous monitoring system was conducted, the results of 

that initial performance evaluation. 

(6) The values for the site-specific operating limits 

established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and the 

calculations and methods, as applicable, used to establish 

each operating limit. 

(7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with 

the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak 

detection system has been installed and is being operated, 

calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170(b). 

(8) The results of the initial air pollution control 

device inspection required in §60.5195, including a

description of repairs. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 390 of 431

(9) The site-specific monitoring plan required under 

§60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial performance 

evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. 

(10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash 

handling system required under §60.5200, at least 60 days 

before your initial performance test to demonstrate

compliance with your fugitive ash emission limit. 

(c) Annual compliance report. You must submit an 

annual compliance report that includes the items listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this section for the 

reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. You must submit your first annual compliance 

report no later than 12 months following the submission of 

the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of this 

section. You must submit subsequent annual compliance 

reports no more than 12 months following the previous 

annual compliance report. (You may be required to submit 

these reports (or additional compliance information) more 

frequently by the title V operating permit required in 

§60.5240.) 

(1) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 391 of 431

(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of 

the reporting period. 

(4) If a performance test was conducted during the

reporting period, the results of that performance test. 

(i) If operating limits were established during the 

performance test, include the value for each operating 

limit and, as applicable, the method used to establish each 

operating limit, including calculations. 

(ii) If activated carbon is used during the 

performance test, include the type of activated carbon 

used. 

(5) For each pollutant and operating parameter 

recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest 

recorded 3-hour average and the lowest recorded 3-hour 

average during the reporting period, as applicable.

(6) If there are no deviations during the reporting 

period from any emission limit, emission standard, or 

operating limit that applies to you, a statement that there 

were no deviations from the emission limits, emission 

standard, or operating limits. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 392 of 431

(7) Information for bag leak detection systems 

recorded under §60.5230(f)(3)(iii). 

(8) If a performance evaluation of a continuous 

monitoring system was conducted, the results of that 

performance evaluation. If new operating limits were 

established during the performance evaluation, include your 

calculations for establishing those operating limits. 

(9) If you met the requirements of §60.5205(a)(3) and 

did not conduct a performance test during the reporting 

period, you must include the dates of the last three 

performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you 

achieved in the last three performance tests to the 50 

percent emission limit threshold specified in 

§60.5205(a)(3)(i), and a statement as to whether there have 

been any process changes and whether the process change 

resulted in an increase in emissions. 

(10) Documentation of periods when all qualified 

sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unavailable 

for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. 

(11) Results of annual air pollution control device 

inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the reporting 

period, including a description of repairs. 

(12) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when your continuous monitoring systems had a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 393 of 431

malfunction, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems had a malfunction. 

(13) If there were no periods during the reporting

period when a continuous monitoring system was out of 

control§, a statement that there were no periods during 

which your continuous monitoring systems were out of 

control. 

(14) If there were no operator training deviations, a 

statement that there were no such deviations during the 

reporting period. 

(15) If you did not make revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period, a 

statement that you did not make any revisions to your sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting period. If 

you made revisions to your site-specific monitoring plan 

during the reporting period, a copy of the revised plan. 

(d) Deviation reports.

(1) You must submit a deviation report if: 

(i) Any recorded 4-hour rolling average parameter 

level is above the maximum operating limit or below the 

minimum operating limit established under this subpart. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds for 

more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6-month 

reporting period. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 394 of 431

(iii) Any recorded 24-hour block average emissions

level is above the emission limit, if a continuous 

monitoring system is used to comply with an emission limit. 

(iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash

from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percent of the 

hourly observation period. 

(v) A performance test was conducted that deviated

from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart. 

(vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of 

control. 

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

monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded. 

(2) The deviation report must be submitted by August 

1 of that year for data collected during the first half of 

the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 

of the following year for data you collected during the 

second half of the calendar year (July 1 to December 31). 

(3) For each deviation where you are using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with an associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the items

described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of 

this section. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 395 of 431

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(iv) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(v) Duration and cause of each deviation from the 

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vi) Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime

incidents. 

(vii) A copy of the operating parameter monitoring

data during each deviation and any test report that

documents the emission levels. 

(viii) If there were periods during which the 

continuous monitoring system malfunctioned or was out of 

control, you must include the following information for 

each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit: 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 396 of 431

(A) The date and time that each malfunction started 

and stopped. 

(B) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. 

(C) The date, time, and duration that each continuous 

monitoring system was out of control, including start and 

end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions 

taken. 

(D) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a 

period of malfunction, during a period when the system as 

out of control, or during another period. 

(E) A summary of the total duration of the deviation 

during the reporting period, and the total duration as a 

percent of the total source operating time during that 

reporting period. 

(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the 

deviations during the reporting period into those that are 

due to control equipment problems, process problems, other 

known causes, and other unknown causes. 

(G) A summary of the total duration of continuous 

monitoring system downtime during the reporting period, and 

the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 397 of 431

as a percent of the total operating time of the SSI unit at 

which the continuous monitoring system downtime occurred 

during that reporting period. 

(H) An identification of each parameter and pollutant 

that was monitored at the SSI unit. 

(I) A brief description of the SSI unit. 

(J) A brief description of the continuous monitoring 

system. 

(K) The date of the latest continuous monitoring 

system certification or audit. 

(L) A description of any changes in continuous 

monitoring system, processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(4) For each deviation where you are not using a 

continuous monitoring system to comply with the associated 

emission limit or operating limit, report the following 

items:. 

(i) Company name, physical address, and mailing 

address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with that 

official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 

accuracy of the content of the report. 

(iii) The total operating time of each affected 

source during the reporting period. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 398 of 431

(iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated 

from the emission limits, emission standards, or operating 

limits requirements. 

(v) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. 

(vi) Duration and cause of each deviation from the

following: 

(A) Emission limits, emission standards, operating

limits, and your corrective actions. 

(B) Bypass events and your corrective actions. 

(vii) A copy of any performance test report that 

showed a deviation from the emission limits or standards. 

(viii) A brief description of any malfunction 

reported in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section, 

including a description of actions taken during the

malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§60.11(d) and to correct the malfunction. 

(e) Qualified operator deviation.

(1) If all qualified operators are not accessible for 

2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Submit a notification of the deviation within 10 

days that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i)(A) through (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section. 

(A) A statement of what caused the deviation. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 399 of 431

(B) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(C) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be available. 

(ii) Submit a status report to the Administrator 

every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii)(A) through (e)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. 

(A) A description of actions taken to ensure that a 

qualified operator is accessible. 

(B) The date when you anticipate that a qualified 

operator will be accessible. 

(C) Request for approval from the Administrator to

continue operation of the SSI unit. 

(2) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, 

under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure 

to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must 

notify the Administrator within five days of meeting 

§60.5155(b)(2)(ii) that you are resuming operation.

(f) Notification of a force majeure. If a force 

majeure is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred for 

which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator, in writing as 

soon as practicable following the date you first knew, or 

through due diligence, should have known that the event may 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 400 of 431

cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notification must 

occur before the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event 

delays the notice, and in such cases, the notification must 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(2) You must provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event and a rationale for 

attributing the delay in conducting the performance test 

beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure; 

describe the measures taken or to be taken to minimize the 

delay; and identify a date by which you propose to conduct 

the performance test. 

(g) Other notifications and reports required. You 

must submit other notifications as provided by §60.7 and as 

follows: 

(1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month before 

starting or stopping use of a continuous monitoring system 

for determining compliance with any emission limit.

(2) You must notify the Administrator at least 30 

days prior to any performance test conducted to comply with 

the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Administrator 

the opportunity to have an observer present. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 401 of 431

(3) As specified in §60.5220(a)(8), you must notify 

the Administrator at least 7 days prior to the date of a 

rescheduled performance test for which notification was 

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

(h) Report submission form.

(1) Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports 

electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before 

the submittal due dates. 

(2) After December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the 

date of completing each performance evaluation or 

performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with 

this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test 

audit data and performance test data to EPA by successfully 

submitting the data electronically into EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert tool.html/). 

(i) Changing report dates. If the Administrator 

agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting 

dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approval to 

change your reporting date. 

Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits 

§60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 402 of 431

Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approved 

and effective Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or 

tribal plan or an applicable and effective federal plan, 

you are required to apply for and obtain a title V 

operating permit for your existing SSI unit unless you meet 

the relevant requirements for an exemption specified in 

§60.5065. 

§60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit application 

for my existing SSI unit?

(a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an

earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V 

permit application must be submitted on or before the 

earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section. (See sections 129 (e), 503(c), 

503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 

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

(1) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable EPA-approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 

state or tribal plan. 

(2) 12 months after the effective date of any 

applicable federal plan. 

(3) [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 403 of 431

(b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier 

permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 

months after the promulgation of this subpart applies 

regardless of whether or when any applicable federal plan 

is effective, or whether or when any applicable Clean Air 

Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is approved by 

EPA and becomes effective. 

(c) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a 

result of some triggering requirement(s) other than those 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (for 

example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major 

source), then your unit may be required to apply for a 

title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requirement 

triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V 

permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit 

application is triggered by the requirement which first 

causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 

503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 

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

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

(d) A “complete” title V permit application is one

that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant 

permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 404 of 431

Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must 

submit a complete permit application by the relevant 

application deadline in order to operate after this date in 

compliance with federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 

502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 

71.7(b).) 

Model Rule—Definitions 

§60.5250 What definitions must I know?

Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined 

in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. 

Administrator means: 

(1) For units covered by the federal plan, the 

Administrator of the EPA or his/her authorized 

representative. 

(2) For units covered by an approved state plan, the 

director of the state air pollution control agency or 

his/her authorized representative. 

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward 

by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 405 of 431

Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. 

Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is 

capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the 

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

detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, 

but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 

other principle to monitor relative particulate matter 

loadings. 

Bypass stack means a device used for discharging 

combustion gases to avoid severe damage to the air 

pollution control device or other equipment. 

Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on 

January 1 and ending on December 31. 

Continuous automated sampling system means the total 

equipment and procedures for automated sample collection 

and sample recovery/analysis to determine a pollutant 

concentration or emission rate by collecting a single 

integrated sample(s) or multiple integrated sample(s) of 

the pollutant (or diluent gas) for subsequent on-or offsite analysis; integrated sample(s) collected are 

representative of the emissions for the sample time as 

specified by the applicable requirement. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 406 of 431

Continuous emissions monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facility. 

Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous 

emissions monitoring system, continuous automated sampling 

system, continuous parameter monitoring system or other 

manual or automatic monitoring that is used for 

demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 

continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The term 

refers to the total equipment used to sample and condition 

(if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a permanent 

record of emissions or process parameters. 

Continuous parameter monitoring system means a 

monitoring system for continuously measuring and recording 

operating conditions associated with air pollution control 

device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressure, and 

power). 

Deviation means any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of 

such a source: 

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including but not limited to 

any emission limit, operating limit, or operator 

qualification and accessibility requirements. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 407 of 431

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this 

subpart and that is included in the operating permit for 

any affected source required to obtain such a permit. 

Dioxins/furans means tetra- through octa-chlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. 

Electrostatic precipitator or wet electrostatic 

precipitator means an air pollution control device that 

uses both electrical forces and, if applicable, water to 

remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage sludge 

incinerator stack. 

Existing sewage sludge incineration unit means a 

sewage sludge incineration unit the construction of which 

is commenced on or before October 14, 2010. 

Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control 

device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas 

streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. 

Fluidized bed incinerator means an enclosed device in 

which organic matter and inorganic matter in sewage sludge 

are combusted in a bed of particles suspended in the 

combustion chamber gas. 

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 408 of 431

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are 

caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation 

are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction, the 

operator shall operate within established emissions and 

operating limits and shall continue monitoring all 

applicable operating parameters until sewage sludge is no 

longer in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage 

sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period 

of time not less than the sewage sludge incineration 

residence time) or until the malfunction ceases, whichever 

comes first. 

Modification means a change to an existing SSI unit 

later than [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that meets one of 

two criteria: 

(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life 

of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of 

building and installing the SSI unit (not including the 

cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). 

To determine what systems are within the boundary of the 

SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition 

of SSI unit. 

(2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in 

the method of operating it that increases the amount of any 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 409 of 431

air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 

of the Clean Air Act has established standards. 

Modified sewage sludge incineration unit means an 

existing SSI unit that undergoes a modification, as defined 

in this section. 

Multiple hearth incinerator means a circular steel 

furnace that contains a number of solid refractory hearths 

and a central rotating shaft; rabble arms that are designed 

to slowly rake the sludge on the hearth are attached to the 

rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and 

proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth to 

hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. 

Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 

midnight and the following midnight during which any amount 

of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SSI unit. 

Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter 

emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-8. 

Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means 

the product of the test-run average secondary voltage and 

the test-run average secondary amperage to the 

electrostatic precipitator collection plates. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 410 of 431

Process change means a significant permit revision, 

but only with respect to those pollutant-specific emission 

units for which the proposed permit revision is applicable, 

including but not limited to: 

(1) A change in the process employed at the 

wastewater treatment facility associated with the affected 

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

facility, which changes the method used for disposing of 

process solids and processing of the sludge prior to 

incineration). 

(2) A change in the air pollution control devices 

used to comply with the emission limits for the affected 

SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for activated 

carbon injection). 

Sewage sludge means solid, semi-solid, or liquid 

residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage 

in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not 

limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in 

primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment 

processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. 

Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the 

firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incineration 

unit or grit and screenings generated during preliminary 

treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 411 of 431

Sewage sludge feed rate means the rate at which sewage 

sludge is fed into the incinerator unit. 

Sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit means an 

incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing 

combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit 

designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. 

Shutdown means the period of time after all sewage 

sludge has been combusted in the primary chamber. 

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sewage sludge 

from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, agricultural operations, and from community

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges which are point sources subject to permits under 

section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 412 of 431

Standard conditions, when referring to units of 

measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a

pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals). 

Startup means the period of time between the 

activation, including the firing of fuels (e.g., natural 

gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to 

the unit. 

Toxic equivalency means the product of the 

concentration of an individual dioxin isomer in an 

environmental mixture and the corresponding estimate of the 

compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivalency 

factor for that compound. Table 5 to this subpart lists 

the toxic equivalency factors. 

Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control 

device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing 

liquid to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous 

metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and

neutralize acid gases. 

You means the owner or operator of an affected SSI 

unit. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 413 of 431

Table 1 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Increments of 

Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

Comply with these increments of 

progress By these datesa

Increment 1—Submit final control 

plan 

(Dates to be specified in state 

plan) 

Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in state 

plan)b

aSite-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the 

state. 

bThe date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date 

of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for SSI units that 

commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. 

Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

18 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

0.51 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 414 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Carbon 

monoxide 

58 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 10, 10A, 

or 10B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix 

A-4). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis); or 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

1.2 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter(total 

mass basis); 

or 

0.10 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter (toxic 

equivalency 

basis) 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Mercury 0.037 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02c 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

150 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 415 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC19 10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus]) 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Cadmium 0.0016 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Lead 0.0074 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters sample per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 416 of 431

b You have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method) 

Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission 

Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units 

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Particulate 

matter 

80 milligrams 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 5 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-3; 

Method 26A or 

Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Hydrogen 

chloride 

1.2 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 26, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

26A, collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run) 

Performance test 

(Method 26 or 26A 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A8). 

Carbon 

monoxide 

3,900 parts 

per million by 

dry volume 

3-run average 

(collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 10, 10A, 

or 10B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix 

A-4). 

Dioxins/furans 

(total mass 

basis) 

5.0 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 417 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Dioxins/furans 

(toxic 

equivalency 

basis)b

0.32 nanograms 

per dry 

standard cubic 

meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 23 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-7). 

Mercury 0.28 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average (For 

Method 29 and ASTM 

D6784-02c

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17), collect a 

minimum volume of 

3 dry standard 

cubic meters per 

run. For Method 

30B, collect a 

minimum sample as 

specified in 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; 

Method 30B at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8; or 

ASTM D6784-02,c 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

220 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average 

(Collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 7 or 7E 

at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A4). 

Sulfur dioxide 26 parts per 

million by dry 

volume 

3-run average (For 

Method 6, collect 

a minimum volume 

of 200 liters per 

run. For Method 

6C, collect sample 

for a minimum 

duration of one 

hour per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 6 or 6C 

at 40 CFR part 

40, appendix A-4; 

or ANSI/ASME PTC 

19.10-1981 Flue 

and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments 

and Apparatus]) 

(incorporated by 

reference, see 

§60.17). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 418 of 431

For the air 

pollutant 

You must meet 

this emission 

limita

Using these 

averaging methods 

and minimum 

sampling volumes 

or durations 

And determining 

compliance using 

this method 

Cadmium 0.095 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8). 

Lead 0.30 

milligrams per 

dry standard 

cubic meter 

3-run average 

(collect a minimum 

volume of 3 dry 

standard cubic 

meters per run) 

Performance test 

(Method 29 at 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-8. 

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Visible 

emissions of 

combustion ash 

from an ash 

conveying 

system 

(including 

conveyor 

transfer 

points) for no 

more than 5 

percent of the 

hourly 

observation 

period 

Three 1-hour 

observation 

periods 

Visible emission 

test (Method 22 

of appendix A-7 

of this part). 

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

at standard conditions. 

bYou have the option to comply with either the dioxin/furan 

emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/furan emission 

limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

c ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method). 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 419 of 431

Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Operating 

Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Unitsa 

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging 

time for 

compliance 

All sewage sludge incineration units 

Combustion 

chamber operating 

temperature (not 

required if 

afterburner 

temperature is 

monitored) 

Minimum 

combustion 

chamber 

operating 

temperature 

or 

afterburner 

temperature 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Fugitive 

emissions from 

ash handling 

Site-specific 

operating 

requirements 

Not 

applicable 

No 

applicable

Not 

applicable 

Scrubber 

Pressure drop 

across each wet 

scrubber 

Minimum 

pressure drop 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Scrubber liquid 

flow rate 

Minimum flow 

rate 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Scrubber liquid 

pH 

Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Fabric Filter 

Alarm time of the 

bag leak 

detection system 

alarm 

Maximum alarm time of the bag leak detection 

system alarm (this operating limit is provided 

in §60.4850 and is not established on a sitespecific basis)
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 420 of 431

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging 

time for 

compliance 

Electrostatic precipitator 

Secondary voltage 

of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Minimum power 

input to the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection 

plates 

Continuous Hourly 4-hour 

rolling.c

Secondary 

amperage of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

collection plates

Effluent water 

flow rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Minimum 

effluent 

water flow 

rate at the 

outlet of the 

electrostatic 

precipitator 

Hourly Hourly 4-hour 

rolling.c

Activated carbon injection 

Mercury sorbent 

injection rate 

Minimum 

mercury 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Hourly Hourly 4-hour 

rolling.c

Dioxin/furan 

sorbent injection 

rate 

Minimum 

dioxin/furan 

sorbent 

injection 

rate 

Carrier gas flow 

rate or carrier 

gas pressure drop 

Minimum 

carrier gas 

flow rate or 

minimum 

carrier gas 

pressure drop

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.c

Afterburner 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 421 of 431

For these 

operating 

parameters 

You must 

establish 

these 

operating 

limits 

And monitor using these minimum 

frequencies 

Data 

measurement

Data 

recordingb

Averaging 

time for 

compliance 

Temperature of 

the afterburner 

combustion 

chamber 

Minimum 

temperature 

of the 

afterburner 

combustion 

chamber 

Continuous Every 15 

minutes 

4-hour 

rolling.a

aAs specified in §60.5190, you may use a continuous emissions 

monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu 

of establishing certain operating limits. 

bThis recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the 

continuous monitor or other measuring device initially records 

data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate 

hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, you use hourly 

averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages to demonstrate 

compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour averages.

cCalculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating 

hours. 

Table 5 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Toxic

Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

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

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 1 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-pdioxin 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.0003 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.3 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 422 of 431

Dioxin/furan isomer 

Toxic equivalency 

factor 

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

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

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

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

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

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 

dibenzofuran 

0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzofuran 0.0003 

Table 6 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Summary of 

Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge 

Incineration Unitsa 

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of 

progress report 

No later than 10 

business days 

after the 

compliance date 

for the 

increment 

• Final control 

plan including 

air pollution 

control device 

descriptions, 

process 

changes, type 

of waste to be 

burned, and the 

maximum design 

sewage sludge 

burning 

capacity 

• Notification of 

any failure to 

meet an 

increment of 

progress 

• Notification of 

any closure 

§60.5235(a) 

Initial 

compliance 

report 

No later than 60 

days following 

the initial 

performance test

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement by a 

responsible 

§60.5235(b) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 423 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

official, with 

that official’s 

name, title, 

and signature, 

certifying the 

accuracy of the 

content of the 

report 

• Date of report 

• Complete test 

report for the 

initial 

performance 

test 

• Results of CMSb

performance 

evaluation 

• The values for 

the sitespecific 

operating 

limits and the 

calculations 

and methods 

used to 

establish each 

operating limit

• Documentation 

of installation 

of bag leak 

detection 

system for 

fabric filter 

• Results of 

initial air 

pollution 

control device 

inspection, 

including a 

description of 

repairs 

• The sitespecific 

monitoring plan 

required under 

§60.5200 

• The sitespecific 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 424 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

monitoring plan 

for your ash 

handling system 

required under 

§60.5200 

Annual 

compliance 

report 

No later than 12 

months following 

the submission 

of the initial 

compliance 

report; 

subsequent 

reports are to 

be submitted no 

more than 12 

months following 

the previous 

report 

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement and 

signature by 

responsible 

official 

• Date and 

beginning and 

ending dates of 

report 

• If a 

performance 

test was 

conducted 

during the 

reporting 

period, the 

results of the 

test, including 

any new 

operating 

limits and 

associated 

calculations 

and the type of 

activated 

carbon used, if 

applicable 

• For each 

pollutant and 

operating 

parameter 

recorded using 

a CMS, the 

highest 

recorded 3-hour 

average and the 

lowest recorded 

3-hour average, 

as applicable 

• If no 

deviations from 

§60.5235(c) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 425 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

emission 

limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits 

occurred, a 

statement that 

no deviations 

occurred 

• If a fabric 

filter is used, 

the date, time, 

and duration of 

alarms 

• If a 

performance 

evaluation of a 

CMS was 

conducted, the 

results, 

including any 

new operating 

limits and 

their 

associated 

calculations 

• If you met the 

requirements of 

§60.5205(a)(3) 

and did not 

conduct a 

performance 

test, include 

the dates of 

the last three 

performance 

tests, a 

comparison to 

the 50 percent 

emission limit 

threshold of 

the emission 

level achieved 

in the last 

three 

performance 

tests, and a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 426 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

statement as to 

whether there 

have been any 

process changes 

• Documentation 

of periods when 

all qualified 

SSI unit 

operators were 

unavailable for 

more than 8 

hours but less 

than 2 weeks 

• Results of 

annual 

pollutions 

control device 

inspections, 

including 

description of 

repairs 

• If there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs had 

malfunctions, a 

statement that 

there were no 

periods during 

which your CMSs 

had 

malfunctions 

• If there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control, 

a statement 

that there were 

no periods 

during which 

your CMSs were 

out of control 

• If there were 

no operator 

training 

deviations, a 

statement that 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 427 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

there were no 

such deviations

• Information on 

monitoring plan 

revisions, 

including a 

copy of any 

revised 

monitoring plan

Deviation report 

(deviations from 

emission limits, 

emission 

standards, or 

operating 

limits, as 

specified in 

§60.5235(e)(1)) 

By August 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the first half 

of the calendar 

year; by 

February 1 of a 

calendar year 

for data 

collected during 

the second half 

of the calendar 

year 

If using a CMS:

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

• The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits or 

operating 

limits 

• The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

• Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

• Dates, times, 

and causes for 

monitor 

downtime 

incidents 

• A copy of the 

operating 

parameter 

monitoring data 

during each 

deviation and 

any test report 

that documents 

the emission 

levels 

• For periods of 

CMS malfunction 

§60.5235(d) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 428 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

or when a CMS 

was out of 

control, you 

must include 

the information 

specified in 

§60.5235(d)(3)(

viii) 

If not using a 

CMS:

• Company name 

and address 

• Statement by a 

responsible 

official 

• The total 

operating time 

of each 

affected SSI 

• The calendar 

dates and times 

your unit 

deviated from 

the emission 

limits, 

emission 

standard, or 

operating 

limits 

• The averaged 

and recorded 

data for those 

dates 

• Duration and 

cause of each 

deviation 

• A copy of any 

performance 

test report 

that showed a 

deviation from 

the emission 

limits or 

standards 

• A brief 

description of 

any 

malfunction, a 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 429 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

description of 

actions taken 

during the 

malfunction to 

minimize 

emissions, and 

corrective 

action taken 

Notification of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation (if 

all qualified 

operators are 

not accessible 

for 2 weeks or 

more) 

Within 10 days 

of deviation 

• Statement of 

cause of 

deviation 

• Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator will 

be available 

• The date when a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

§60.5235(e) 

Notification of 

status of 

qualified 

operator 

deviation 

Every 4 weeks 

following 

notification of 

deviation 

• Description of 

actions taken 

to ensure that 

a qualified 

operator is 

accessible 

• The date when 

you anticipate 

that a 

qualified 

operator will 

be accessible 

• Request for 

approval to 

continue 

operation 

§60.5235(e) 

Notification of 

resumed 

operation 

following 

shutdown (due to 

qualified 

operator 

deviation and as 

specified in 

Within five days 

of obtaining a 

qualified 

operator and 

resuming 

operation 

• Notification 

that you have 

obtained a 

qualified 

operator and 

are resuming 

operation 

§60.5235(e) 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 430 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

§60.5155(b)(2)(i

) 

Notification of 

a force majeure 

As soon as 

practicable 

following the 

date you first 

knew, or through 

due diligence 

should have 

known that the 

event may cause 

or caused a 

delay in 

conducting a 

performance test 

beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline; the 

notification 

must occur 

before the 

performance test 

deadline unless 

the initial 

force majeure or 

a subsequent 

force majeure 

event delays the 

notice, and in 

such cases, the 

notification 

must occur as 

soon as 

practicable 

• Description of 

the force 

majeure event 

• Rationale for 

attributing the 

delay in 

conducting the 

performance 

test beyond the 

regulatory 

deadline to the 

force majeure 

• Description of 

the measures 

taken or to be 

taken to 

minimize the 

delay 

• Identification 

of the date by 

which you 

propose to 

conduct the 

performance 

test 

§60.5235(f) 

Notification of 

intent to start 

or stop use of a 

CMS 

1 month before 

starting or 

stopping use of 

a CMS 

• Intent to start 

or stop use of 

a CMS 

§60. 5235(g) 

Notification of 

intent to 

conduct a 

performance test 

At least 30 days 

prior to the 

performance test

• Intent to 

conduct a 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

Notification of 

intent to 

At least 7 days 

prior to the 

• Intent to 
The comments reflect interagency review of the draft rule 

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. 

Page 431 of 431

Report Due date Contents Reference 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance test

date of a 

rescheduled 

performance test 

conduct a 

rescheduled 

performance 

test to comply 

with this 

subpart 

aThis table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the 

rule for the complete requirements. 

bCMS means continuous monitoring system.