## MEMORANDUM

To: Amy Hambrick, U.S Environmental Protection Ag ency From: Eastern Research Group (ERG) Date: February 20, 2011 Subject: SSI – Summary of EPA Interagency Communication s

This memorandum summarizes the EPA’s interagency comm unications regarding development of the new source performance standards and e mission guidelines for the Sewage Sludge Incineration source category. The table belo w shows the topics discussed in each attachment. Attachment Topic A E-mail thread of correspondence with OMB containing seque nce 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 f or 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@o mb.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@ep amail.epa.gov; dubey.susmita@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: SSI edits Cortney, per our conversation, I have made the addi tional edits to the definition of affected sources for new and existing units. The attached version reflects your edits. Please let m e 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, Mayosh a Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US @EPA Date: 02/18/2011 08:54 PM Subject: Re: SSI editsCortney, per our conversation, I have made the addi tional edits to the

definition of affected sources for new and existing units. The attached version reflects your edits. Please let m e 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, Susmit a 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 r evised SSI package. Please call me if you have any additional questions [attachment "SSI FINAL Package 2.18 8pm.docx" delet ed 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, Susmit a 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 r evised 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, Susmit a 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 pleas e 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 m ade. Please call me if you have additional comments. (See attached file: SSI Final Package 2.18.11 3.21p m 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 tha t she will follow up with you a little later today (around noon). Pleas e 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 cou nties) For the 2009 HMIWI rule (as of Tuesday 2/17) 7 States have either submitted plans in some sha pe or form, or intend to. 13 States--Regions not sure whether they will su bmit state plan or negative declaration. For Small MWC rule (Source 68 FR 5144 January 31, 2 003) 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 i s 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 Rob in sends)

Amy Hambrick Natural Resources and Commerce Group US EPA / OAQPS / Sector Policies and Programs Divis ion 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, Mayosh a 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@o mb.eop.gov> Cc: Amy Hambrick/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosh a Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dubey/DC/USEPA/US @EPA Date: 02/16/2011 03:38 PM Subject: Re: Interagency comments on SSI -- se e attached documnet

Cortney, attached are our responses to your comment s. (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@o mb.eop.gov> To: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/14/2011 10:33 AM Subject: Interagency comments on SSI -- see at tached documnet

Hi Robin, Attached is a redline document with interagency com ments under EOs 12866 and 13563 on SSI. This is in addition to the quest ions 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_InteragencyComm entsUnderEO12866_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, Susmit a Dubey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mayosha Mendis/DC/USEPA/US @EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/R TP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/14/2011 03:43 PM Subject: Fw: SSI OMB Follow Up Items from Thur sday

Cortney, you asked for us to followup on a couple o f questions on last week's SSI call with you. Here are a few of our re sponses we have pulled together for your information. Please let u s 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 infl uent From EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/hg/dentalamalgam.html#contaminat ion- - "Mercury from dental offices contributes significan tly to the overall mercury contamination in wastewater. In an August 2 008 report (PDF) (76 pp., 1.0 MB, about PDF) on the dental industry, EPA estimated that in 2008 there were approximately 122,000 dental office s (approximately 160,000 dentists) that used or removed dental amalg am in the U.S., and that those offices discharged approximately 3.7 ton s of mercury each year to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Den tal 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 Jer sey harbor and watershed may have come from dental offices. In a nother study in 2002, Mercury Source Control & Pollution Prevention Pro gram Evaluation (PDF) (Embedded image moved to file: pic11827.gif)Exit EPA Disclaimer(62 pp., 240K, about PDF), the National Association o f Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) estimated that nearly 40 percent of the mercury in the nation’s wastewater system came from dental o ffices, and that mercury discharged from dental offices far exceed ed all other commercial and residential sources, each of which was below ten percent."4. Missing Comment Response

(See attached file: Missing Comment Response for OM B.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@o mb.eop.gov> To: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/14/2011 10:33 AM Subject: Interagency comments on SSI -- see at tached documnet

Hi Robin, Attached is a redline document with interagency com ments under EOs 12866 and 13563 on SSI. This is in addition to the quest ions 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_InteragencyComm entsUnderEO12866_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, Mayosh a Mendis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@E PA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Susmita Dube y/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 reque sted for SSI:

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

MACTFloor_AttachD_MHVariability_NSPS.xlsx)(See atta ched file: MACTFloor_AttachC_FBVariability_NSPS.xlsx)(See atta ched file: MACTFloor_AttachB_MHVariability.xlsx)(See attached file: MACTFloor_AttachA_FBVariability.xlsx)(See attached file: MACTFloor_AttachH_CO_SpanAdjustments.xlsx)(See atta ched file: MACTFloor_AttachG_Units w advanced controls.xls) (See attached file: MACTFloor_AttachF_MHVariability _DF.xlsx)(See attached file: MACTFloor_AttachE_FBVariability_DF.x lsx) -New Sources(2docs) (See attached file: SSI_Revised_New_Sources.pdf)(Se e attached file: NewSourcesMemo_Tables_012811.xlsx) -Data Revisions(2docs) (See attached file: SSI_Data_Revisions.pdf)(See att ached 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 car bon 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.xl sx)(See attached file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table1.xlsx)(See attach ed file: SSI_Revised_Compliance_Costs.pdf)(See attached file : CostandReductionsMemo_Table10.xlsx)(See attached fi le: CostandReductionsMemo_Table9.xlsx)(See attached fil e: CostandReductionsMemo_Table8.xlsx)(See attached fil e: CostandReductionsMemo_Table7.xlsx) (See attached file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table6.xl sx)(See attached file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table5.xlsx)(See attach ed file: CostandReductionsMemo_Table4.xls)(See attached file : CostandReductionsMemo_Table3.xlsx) -Secondary Impacts (1doc) (See attached file: SSI_Revised_Secondary_Impacts.p df)

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 o n 01/19/2011 11:57 AM

----- From: Patricia Grim/DC/USEPA/US To: Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alexan der Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/U S@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 S ludge 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 S ludge Incineration Units

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY : This action promulgates EPA’s new source performance standards and emission guidelines for s ewage sludge incineration units located at wastewater tre atment 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-dioxi ns 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 FEDERA L

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 D AYS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ].

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559 for this action. This doc ket includes previous actions including the standards p roposed 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 inform ation is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclo sure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, suc h 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 e ither electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Ro om, 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, excl uding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Publi c Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone n umber for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policie s and Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protecti on Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1; 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 Sy stem 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 Syst em 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 NO x 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 SO 2 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 wh at are the emissions? C. What is the relationship of the final standards to other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewa ge 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 exis ting 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 standard s? J. What are the requirements for submission of emis sions test results to EPA? IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Propos al A. Applicability B. Subcategories C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emiss ion Limits D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimatio n E. Compliance Requirements F. Definitions V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Ch anges 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 Sectio ns 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 Coordin ation with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children f rom Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significant ly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Addre ss Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome 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 wastew ater treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sew age 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 ent ities likely to be affected by the final action. To dete rmine whether your facility would be affected by the fina l action, you should examine the applicability criter ia 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 e ntity, 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 av ailable on the Worldwide Web (www) through the Technology T ransfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guida nce 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 foll owing

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various area s of air pollution control. C. Judicial Review Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of thi s final rule is available only by filing a petition f or 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 specific ity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mec hanism 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 su ch 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 demonstra tion to EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protecti on*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 11 of 494

Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsy lvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to bot h 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 Cou nsel (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 thes e 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 stan dards for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requi res EPA to establish performance standards, including emiss ion limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration un it” as “a distinct operating unit of any facility which co mbusts any solid waste material from commercial or industr ial 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 wa ste” shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sect ions 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 u nder CAA section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not them selves directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implement ed and enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a promulgated federal plan. States are required to s ubmit a plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for app roval not later than one year after EPA promulgates the E G (CAA section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at lea st as protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance wi th all applicable requirements not later than three years after the state plan is approved by EPA, or five years af ter promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is soone r. 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 beco me 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 p lan. However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce a federal plan for solid waste incineration units l ocated in any state which has not submitted an approvable state plan within two years after the date of promulgatio n of the relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal p lan must assure that each solid waste incineration unit subj ect to the federal plan is in compliance with all provisio ns 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 onl y until such time as a state without an approved plan submi ts and receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an applicable state plan has been approved, the requir ements 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 regulati ng emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute also provides EPA with substantial discretion to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of inci neration units within a category while setting standards. I n 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 determ ines are achievable for new and existing units, after consid ering costs, nonair quality health and environmental impa cts and energy requirements associated with the implementat ion of the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then d irects EPA to review those standards and revise them as ne cessary 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 t o 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 standard s for the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that standards “applicable to solid waste incineration u nits promulgated under section 111 and this section shal l reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emission s of [certain listed air pollutants] that the Administra tor, taking into consideration the cost of achieving suc h emission reduction and any nonair quality health an d environmental impacts and energy requirements, dete rmines is achievable for new and existing units in each ca tegory.” This level of control is referred to as a MACT stan dard. 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 catego ry, generally based on levels of emissions control achi eved 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 mi nimum stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources , or existing sources. For new and reconstructed source s, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of redu ction in emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less stringent than the emissions control that is achiev ed in practice by the best controlled similar unit, as de termined by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for exi sting units may be less stringent than standards for new units, but “shall not be less stringent than the average e missions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 perce nt of units in the category.” MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emission s from the best performing unit or units in a source category. The assessment can be based on actual em issions data, knowledge of the air pollution control in pla ce 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 esti mate the actual performance of the regulated units , or other emissions information . For each source category, the assessment involves a review of actual emissions da ta 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 estimate s of the actual emissions performance of a source or sources

. Where there is more than one method or technology to c ontrol emissions, the analysis may result in a series of p otential regulations (called regulatory options), one of whi ch 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 stringe ncy requirements, EPA must consider the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-a ir 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 opti ons in determining whether MACT standards are to reflect “beyond

- the

- floor” requirements

. If EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory option s have unreasonable impacts, EPA selects the “floor

- based” regulatory option as MACT. However, if EPA conc ludes that impacts associated with “beyond

- the

- floor” levels of control are reasonable in light of additional emiss ions reductions achieved, EPA selects those levels as MA CT. The CAA requires that the MACT floor for new sources be no less stringent than the emissions control ach ieved 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 establis hes one potential reg ulatory 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, consist ent with the factors described above. More stringe nt 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 limitat ion*** 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 o f the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units to form the floor re gulatory option. More stringent beyo nd

- the

- floor regulatory options reflect other or additional controls capable of ach ieving 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 eq ual to or less than 250 tpd.

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectiou s

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 unit s. A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewate r treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e 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 redu cing 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) thr ough (D), have been interpreted to be part of the broade r 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 furthe r 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, t T he 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 exclu sion of certain categories, including SSI 1 . While EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA' s final review, which became effective January 22, 2007, co ncluded that no additional changes were necessary to the 20 05 OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently b eing held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the

1 Sierra 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, an d that rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI u nits. In the OSWI rule issued on December 16, 2005, EPA stated that it had decided not to regulate SSI unit s under CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regula te SSI units under CAA section 112 , pointing to a statement in EPA’s 2000 Unified Regulatory Agenda stating that s ewage sludge incinerators do not combust waste from a com mercial 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 s ources.

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 requ ire 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 incinerato rs under section 112 or section 129 of the Act.

. In additi on, 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 o f “solid waste incine ration 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 Decem ber 1, 2000, emission standards for CISWI units, the Court 2 , held that any unit combusting any solid waste must be re gulated under section 129 of the CAA. The impact of this d ecision 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 intende d to encompass all solid waste incineration units that a re 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 t ime. EPA is taking final action on emission standards fo r SSI units at this time in advance of its re

- issuance of

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

- 8. 3 NRDC 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 1 12(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 la rgest

number of urban areas. EPA must then ensure that s ources representing 90 percent of the aggregate area sourc e emissions of each of the 30 identified HAP are subj ect 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. EP A is ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation unde r CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 2011 5

. 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 s even

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

. 5 Sierra 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 countin g for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA s ection 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 per cent requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meet ing 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 prio r 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 wh at are the emissions? Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by municipalities or other entities. Incineration con tinues 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 u nchanged 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 pollu tants for which numerical limits must be established, as specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO , HCl, Hg, NO x , PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO 2 ; and, where appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be established. These emissions come from the SSI uni t’s stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by th e associated visible emissions, also occur from ash h andling. 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 CW A, as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulg ated regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 50 3 designed to protect public health and the environme nt from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certa in pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. T he part 503 regulations establish requirements for the fina l use and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge i s 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 slu dge 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 gene rate or treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any per son who uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatme nt

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 requiremen ts. These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet th e 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 concent ration of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated us ing equations in the regulation. The inorganic polluta nts included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the equations must be determined on a case-by-case basi s, except for the risk-specific concentration for the inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific va riables for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion fac tor, control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) mu st 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 incin erator. 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 f requency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting require ments are also included in this subpart. Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covere d by the current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and th e following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NO x , SO 2 , PM, and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covere d here, there are other differences between the part 503 regulations and these final standards. The emissio n limits for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-ba sed numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 5 03 does not distinguish between new and existing units or b etween 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 cov er 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 w ill ould result in stricter emission standards than under the current CWA rule. Additional pollution controls will increase costs f or facilities that continue to use the incineration di sposal method. If the additional costs are high enough, m any entities may choose to adopt alternative disposal m ethods (e.g., surface disposal in landfills or other benef icial land applications). Consequently, a potential impa ct of this rule is that some of the estimated 110 facilit ies that operate SSI as the primary means of disposal could discontinue this practice and would instead landfil l or land apply their sewage sludge. Second, one must c onsider the available capacity of surface disposal sites to receive additional sewage sludge and the potential for adde d costs if the use of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI w ill ould be subject to two different sets of requirements (nume ric standards, operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) under the two differe nt statutes, creating an additional burden to these fa cilities unless alternative regulatory approaches are implem ented. EPA plans to evaluate the requirements under both s tatutes*** 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 t o 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 requi rements of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the final requirements and compliance times, see the SS I 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 60.478 0 and 40 CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facili ties designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI un it 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 removin g 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 b urn sewage sludge as defined in the subparts. The fina l standards define two subcategories for new and exis ting 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 S s ewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI unit located at a wastewater treatment facil ity designed to treat domestic sewage sludge is subject to other section 129 standards, such as the CISWI stan dards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this par t), the OSWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and F FFF), 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 t he MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subca tegory are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existin g 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% 0 2 0.095 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3, 900 800 64 58 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 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 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 220 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 subcateg ory are presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing so urces may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emi ssion 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% 0 2 0.0024 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 52 18 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.15 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 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% 0 2 0.0035 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.045 0.013

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 60 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 me thods. The final standards also provide an option for less frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresho lds of the emission limits. For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and annual emissions performance tests (or continuous e missions monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative ), bag leak detection systems for FF controlled units, con tinuous parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air pollution control devices , if they that may be are used to meet the emission limits. Additionally, existing u nits 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 ope rations during each compliance test. For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and annual emissions performance tests (or continuous e missions monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative ), bag leak detection systems for FF controlled units, as well as continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspecti ons of air pollution control devices that may be used to m eet the emission limits. The final rule requires all new S SI units to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are a lso required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions tes ting of the ash handling operations during each compliance test. For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NO x , PM,

Pb or SO 2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling with periodic sample analysis) are approved alterna tives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing . For new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl,

NO x , PM, Pb or SO 2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approv ed alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual co mpliance 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 exis ting SSI units? Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units ar e required to meet operator training and qualificatio n requirements, which include: ensuring that at leas t one operator or supervisor per facility complete the op erator training course, that qualified operator(s) or supervisor(s) complete an annual review or refreshe r course specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding t raining. Owners or operators of new SSI units are required t o conduct a siting analysis, which includes submittin g a report that evaluates site-specific air pollution c ontrol alternatives that minimize potential risks to publi c health or the environment, considering costs, energy impac ts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors rel ated to the practicability of the alternatives. Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units ar e required to submit a monitoring plan for any contin uous monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to comply with the rule. They must also submit a moni toring plan for their ash handling system that specifies t he operating procedures they will follow to ensure tha t 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 require ments? Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data, continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspect ions of the air pollution control devices, the siting analy sis (for new units only), monitoring plan and operator train ing and qualification must be maintained for five years. T he

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 exe mption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1 ), (the “General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated un der 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 11 2(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 t hese standards, EPA has taken into account startup and s hutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has n ot established different standards for those periods. We are not promulgating a separate emission standar d for the source category that applies during periods of startup and shutdown. Based on the information ava ilable at this time, we believe that SSI units will be abl e to meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units we have information on use natural gas, landfill ga s, or distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emission s 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 fue l oil are expected to generally be lower than from burnin g solid wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are a lso generally lower than emissions during normal operat ions because the materials in the incinerator would be a lmost fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermor e, the approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on actual performance fo r each pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate acco unting of emissions variability. Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe we have adequatel y addressed any minor variability that may potentiall y 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 d efined as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preven table failure of air pollution control and monitoring equ ipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a norm al or usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determi ned that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct ope rating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at su ch 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 al l 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 st andards. 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 performin g” 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 t o 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 po int, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as str ikes, 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 ta kes 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 dur ation, 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 appropria te response based on, among other things, the good fai th efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and cor rective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertai n 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 rea sonably 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 re levant

emission standard. 8 EPA is therefore finalizing the proposed adding to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission s 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 t o establish this affirmative defense Under this

7 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction). 8 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Rega rding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, a nd Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissio ns During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunct ions (Feb. 15, 1983). 9 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR §60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, i n the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the def endant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which ar e independently and objectively evaluated in a judici al 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 fo rth in

40 CFR 60.4860 and in 40 CFR 60.5180. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only wher e the event that causes an exceedance of the emission lim it 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 operatio n). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative def ense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evi dence that excess emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollutio n 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 i n accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and to prevent future malfunc tions. For example, the source must prove by a preponderan ce of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as expeditio usly as possible when the applicable emission limitations w ere being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible steps wer e taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on a mbient 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....” I n any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administ rator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defe nse and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, approp riate penalties may be assessed in accordance with sectio n 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 fin al SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Tit le V permit. These Title V operating permits assure com pliance with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, including all applicable CAA section 129 requiremen ts 10

. The permit application deadline for a CAA section 1 29 source applying for a Title V operating permit depe nds on when the source first becomes subject to the releva nt Title V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a ne w unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application mus t 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 1 2 months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 6 0, 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 Tit le V permit application no later than 12 months after the date the SSI unit commences operation as a new

source 11

.

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subj ect to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a complete Title V permit application b y 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 deadli ne of 36 months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, su bpart MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any app licable federal plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 p lan is approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA se ctions 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 o f some triggering requirement(s) other than those men tioned above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major sourc e (or part of a major source), then you may be required t o apply for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specifi ed above. If more than one requirement triggers a sou rce’s obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-mo nth time frame for filing a Title V permit application is tr iggered 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 V 12

. For additional background information on the interf ace between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’ s interpretation of section 129(e), information on up dating existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Co mmercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3 , 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Co mments and Responses” document in the OSWI docket (EPA-HQ- OAR2003-0156). I. What are the applicability dates of the standard s? New SSI units that commence construction after Octo ber 14, 2010, or that are modified six months or more a fter the date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission l imits of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within six months afte r 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 req uired to submit state plans containing the existing source e mission

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 requ irements to implement and enforce the EG within one year aft er promulgation of the EG. States must submit state p lans to EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGIS TER ]. State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (inc luding SSI that are modified prior to and including the da te 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 sta te plan or five years after promulgation of the EG, whichev er is earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expe cts states to require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. However, because we believe that many SSI units will find it necessary to retrofit existing e missions control equipment and/or install additional emissio ns 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 pl an, 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 app ly to existing SSI units in any state that has not sub mitted an approved state plan within two years after promu lgation of the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject to the federal plan up to five years after promulga tion 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 emis sions

test results to EPA? Electronic data collection is commonly employed to

col lect and analyze data for a variety of applications , such as the CAA Acid Rain Program. Both industry a nd the public benefit from electronic data collection in t hat 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 stand ards, as well as for many other purposes including complianc e determinations, emission factor development, and an nual 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 cons uming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies a nd 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 impro vement that has occurred in recent years is the availabili ty of stack test reports in electronic format as a replac ement for cumbersome paper copies. In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve data accessibility and increase the ease and effici ency 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 t he The ERT was developed with input from industry, stack testing companies who generally collect and compile performance test data electronically and of fices 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 emissi ons database (WebFIRE) will become available by Decembe r 31,

2011. The requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA would not require any additio nal performance testing and would apply to those perfor mance tests conducted using test methods that are support ed by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic da ta entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference me thods. 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 f or emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we beli eve industry will benefit from development of improved emission factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. The inf ormation to be reported is already required for the existing test methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformanc e 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 repo rted 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 inf ormation would be required. Another important benefit of su bmitting

these data to EPA at the time the source test is co nducted is that it should substantially reduce the effort i nvolved in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has source category performance test data in hand, ther e will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with prospective required r esidual risk assessments or technology reviews. This should

result s in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (i n terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collec tion requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distri buting data collection requests and assessing the results)

. State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit in that their review may be more streamlined and accurate b ecause they would not have to re-enter the data to assess the calculations and verify the data entry from the reduced burden associated with receipt of electro nic information opposed to having to process paper forms . Finally, another benefit of submitting these data to WebFIRE electro nically is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by supplem enting the pool of emissions test data upon which the emis sion*** 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 proc edures. A common complaint heard from industry and regulato rs is that emissions factors are outdated or not represen tative of a particular source category. Receiving and incorporating data for most performance tests will ensure that emissions factors, when updated, represent acc urately

the most current range of operational practices. In

summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air polluti on 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 while to 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 webs ite 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.m ain.*** 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 rep ort through EPA’s Central Data Exchange ( CDX ) network for storage in the WebFIRE database. Although ERT is n ot the only electronic interface that can be used to submi t source test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it mak es 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 Propos al EPA received over 90 public comments on the propose d rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public h earing to allow the public to comment on the proposed rule making. After consideration of public In response to these comments received , EPA is making several changes to the standards. Following are the major changes to the standards si nce the proposal. The rationale for these and any other significant changes can be found in section V of th is preamble or in the “Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI ) Rule: Summary of Public Comments and Responses” in the SS I docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). A. Applicability The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of se wage 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 sewag e sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI stand ards in subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning s ewage sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewate r treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e 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, sub parts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Haz ardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). B. Subcategories The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new source s. 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 Emiss ion Limits At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation t o determine variability. For the final rule, for exi sting FB units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calcu lation to account for the biasing of emissions data from o ne facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH uni ts.*** 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 i f 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 skewnes s and kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were nor mally distributed, the reported dataset was selected as t he basis of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed f or the reported values and the natural log-transformed rep orted values, the analysis done on the reported data valu es was chosen to be conservative. We have modified our assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtos is tests do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal distribution better represents the data, or when th ere are not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtos is tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the l ognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation

. In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond th e floor emission standards for Hg emissions from exis ting MH units. In the final rule, we are establishing the MACT floor emission limits but are not setting beyond th e floor standards. Also, we are not finalizing the propose d*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 54 of 494

opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limit s for

both PC D D/PCDF TMB and PC D D/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units to meet both limits. In the final standards, we ar e 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 spa n of the test to the measured CO values to determine if the values were consistent. For the final rule, we rev iewed the CO values obtained from emission test reports t o determine whether the span of the test used was cap able 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 consisten t with the span. We revised the CO limits based on the re sults of this analysis. The final emission limits resulting from the revise d MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 t hrough 6 of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emis sion limits. Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Exi sting 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% 0 2 0.0019 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 56 58 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.49 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0033 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 63 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0098 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.056 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.61 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 12 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 22 15

Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Exi sting MH SSI Units

Pollutant Units Proposed Emission Limit Final

Emission Limit Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.095 0.095 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,900 3, 8 9 00 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.0 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.02 0.28 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 220 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.30 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.32

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 5.0

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 80 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 18 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.024 0.013 0.0044

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.024 0.0044 0.013

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0024 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 52 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.15 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 210 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.0035 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.0022 0. 045 0022

PCDD/PCDF, ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.024 0. 0022 045*** 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% 0 2 4.1 60 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 inform ation provided by commenters. A discussion of the change s is presented in section V of this preamble. The resul ts 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 thei r 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 thir d year) is being revised to be the following:

o If SSI units demonstrate emissions below a specified threshold during the initial two*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 58 of 494

consecutive performance test s , they may test

every third three year s 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, slud ge feed rate and sludge moisture content are still required to be monitored during performance test ru ns, 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 val ue recorded during pollutant performance tests. In th e 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 performanc e

tests.

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annu al 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 ni ne calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test); and you m ust 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 wit h the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed f rom 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, ha s 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 maximu m 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 revisi on 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 Ch anges 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 th e comment response document for SSI units in the dock et. 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, accor ding 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 wi thin each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the solids handling and treatment processes at each POT W. Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be regulated under CAA section 129 because they are co mbusting*** 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 ne ither a commercial or industrial establishment nor the gene ral public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). The commenters added that, based on the proposed defini tion of solid waste, even if they had a new point of genera tion within the POTW where they were generating solid wa ste, the POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and d oes not pass the broad applicability for solid waste incine ration under CAA section 129. Another commenter added tha t CAA section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set st andards for solid waste incineration units combusting munic ipal waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipa l waste, the unit must first be a solid waste incineration u nit. The commenters concluded that this would not includ e SSI units. Several commenters stated that EPAs determination to regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradict s previous decisions where EPA has stated that regula tions 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 S SI units was because there were no major sources in the sour ce 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 o n an overly broad reading of the NRDC case. Response: As explained in the NPRM, EPA issued emissions standards for POTW in 1999 pursuant to se ction 112(d), and those emissions standards did not inclu de standards for SSI units. In the proposed POTW emis sions standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge inciner ation will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA[.]” See 63

FR 66084, 66087 (December 1, 199 8 9 ). Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that regul ation of SSI units under section 129 is inconsistent with pa st EPA statements. EPA also explained in the NPRM for today’s action that the EPA’s statements regarding SSI units durin g its promulgation of emissions standards for OSWI un its are squarely in conflict with the Court’s decision in N RDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The commenter ’s do es not appear to disagree with that conclusion, but in stead simply argue s that EPA cannot regulate SSI units under section 129 because it previously stated that it wo uld regulate them under section 112. However, the NRDC decision precludes EPA from doing so. Additionally, section 112 (c)(6) requires that EPA promulgate emi ssion 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 sou rce 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 unit s are need to meet our 90 percent requirement for mercury . This decision is documented in the memorandum “Emission Standards for Meeting the Ninety Percent Requiremen t 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 secti on 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 stand ards for initially listed source categories as expeditiously as practicable, with certain specific deadlines in sec tion 112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EP A shall prioritize source categories for regulation, and re quires EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissio ns 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 fo r POTW in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standa rds shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. T hus, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI units under section 112(d), but rather simply ident ifies the date by which EPA must issue emissions standard s 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 1 29(g) as explained in NRDC v. EPA . Section 129(g) defines “solid waste incineration unit” to include any unit combus ting any solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s position that it could choose to regulate certain u nits, combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead o f under section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid wast e, EPA does not have the discretion under section 129 to c reate an exemption for SSI units from the statutory definiti on of solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) i tself specifies certain units that combust solid waste bu t are exempt from the definition, and noted that where Co ngress 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 s ection VI of this preamble, today’s action will achieve re ductions 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 t o waive more stringent requirements of any other law. Ther efore, Congress clearly did not intend for regulation of S SI 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 standar ds if they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some com menters 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 burnin g nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SS I 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 ex emption for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less b y weight of sewage sludge. Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide exclusions for all solid waste incineration units t hat 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 combu stor regulations and/or hazardous waste management permi ts 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 ex emption for hazardous waste combustion units that are affec ted 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. A ny amount of sewage sludge combusted in a A n incinerator located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e sludge that combusts any amount of sewage sludge is subject to the final SSI standards. We have clarified that the fi nal standards and guidelines do not apply to sewage slu dge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater tre atment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. Sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wa stewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e 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, sub parts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Haz ardous 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 W aste Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standa rds 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 determin ations regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid was te. 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. Theref ore, today’s action is consistent with using the definti on 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 sol id waste by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage slud ge in what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states t hat solid waste does not include solid or dissolved mat erial 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 Identifica tion 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 usingthe 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 Wa ste 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 subcatego ries for the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappro priate 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 severely restrict a POTW ability to modify existing MH units, including modification s to improve combustion efficiency or boost steam output for electricity generation. Some commenters stated tha t, 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 commente rs agreed with the decision to use the best-performing FB unit

as the best similar source for the MH SSI source ca tegory. Other commenters requested further subcategorizati on based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludg e*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 71 of 494

incinerated, limited use units, and distance over w hich 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 un its 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. Th e differences between the two combustor designs resul t in significant differences in emissions, size of the f lue gas stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control of temperature and other process variables, auxilia ry fuel use and other characteristics. To reflect the diff erences 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 th e last 20 years, and information provided by the industry

indicates that future units that will be constructe d 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 subcategoriz ing 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, W w e 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 under go modification , including energy efficiency improvements that

may subject them to new source standards . These units

wo uld not be able to meet the new source standards ba sed on FB units. We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any other basis because we do not have data that would differ entiate 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 o n 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 beca use none of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneou sly meet all the proposed standards. One commenter stated t hat EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review of actual emissions data with an appropriate accoun ting for emissions variability". However, the commenter con tended that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practic al manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units an d that this results is unrealistically stringent limits th at are not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters not ed that this was especially true for the new source standar ds. Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-po llutant basis violates the statute and its own views of the statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneou sly meet all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards b ecause*** 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 mand ated 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 NO x standards is flawed because EPA did not take into account the inherent conflict in comp lying with two standards. The commenters noted that CO a nd NO x emissions are inversely proportional. The commente rs explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NO x and vice versa. The commenters added that high temperature combustion with long residence times and high oxyge n concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that those same operating conditions favor high NO x emissions.

The commenters added that the conditions used to mi nimize CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume mo re fuel and produce more CO 2 emissions.

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most advanced control technologies, and those EPA indica ted 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 wou ld not comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points w ould not comply with the Pb standard, 22 of 30 would not com ply 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 com ply with

the NO x standard. The commenter concluded that data variability has not been appropriately accounted fo r and that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor ba sed 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 sect ion 129 does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors mus t be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, appl ying the requirement to set MACT floors based on what has be en achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonab le interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provi sion (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 o n the actual emissions of “the best controlled similar un it” or “best-performing 12 percent of units in the categor y” for each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclud e that the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonabl e under the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ interpretation is certainly not compelled by the st atute. We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable u nder the statute and appropriate given the problems associat ed with implementing the commenters’ approach. The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “estab lish performance standards and other requirements pursua nt to section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursu ant to CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall refle ct the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance sta ndards promulgated under section [111] of this title and t his section [129] and applicable to solid waste inciner ation 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 fin e), 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, t hat MACT floors be derived for each pollutant based on the e mission levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, alth ough the provisions do not state whether there is to be a se parate floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress si ngled out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of control need not be limited by the performance of d evices 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 inst ance 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 thatEPA 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 firs t sets emission floors for each pollutant and source category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-po llutant approach has, as outlined above, been in place sinc e 1997 for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier fo r 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 bee n upheld in other contexts. See, e.g. , Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA , 870 F.2d 177, 239 (5 th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing CWA best available technology standards on a pollut ant-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 EP A’s obligations under that similar statute). We note t hat the CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA prog ram. S. Rep. No. 228, 101 st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34. Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would li kely 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 per forming 12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, th e floor for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflectin g best performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach woul d require EPA to make value judgments as to which pol lutant reductions are most critical in working to identify the single unit that reduces emissions of the nine poll utants on an overall best-performing basis. Such value ju dgments are antithetical to the command of the statute at t he MACT floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relativ e 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 phra se “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-pollutan t are based on the performance of a hypothetical facility , so that the limitations are not based on those achieve d 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 thi s rule reflect actual performance and are achieved in prac tice. An interpretation that the floor level of control m ust be limited by the performance of devices that only control some of these pollutants effectively “guts the stan dards” by including worse performers in the averaging proc ess, whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the average performance of best performing sources. Si nce 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 goal s 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 pol lutant 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 emi ssion 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 tech nical

reason that new units could not install the most ad vanced pollution control techniques or reduce the pollutan t concentrations in the sludge to meet the new source

standards. We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approa ch for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in t his case, increase the overall cost of the regulation c ompared 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 Cong ress did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regula tions developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limi ts that are achieved by the best controlled unit for each pollutant, as long as the control systems are compa tible with each other. To our knowledge, there is no tec hnical reason why these air pollution control systems cann ot be combined. Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and N O x with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the SSI facility to determine whether combustion condit ions can be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, ins tall NO x controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR syst ems, FGR, or low NO x 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 S CR, we also do not know of technical reason why they could not be used. Given the limited data available on SSI unit s with FGR, we could not definitely determine how effectiv e the technology was on SSI units. However, we also do n ot know of a technical reason why they could not be used, i f*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 83 of 494

necessary, to meet NO x 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 pr ovision in section 129 requires them to set the existing fl oor 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 co ntendedthat EPA did not have emissions data from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources or even from 12 pe rcent of sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collecte d data are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EP A is using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determin e how the top 12 percent perform. Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit i ts ICR to just nine entities because collecting inform ation*** 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 co mmenters 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: t o determine which of the SSI units are the best perfo rming

sources. Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted it s ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest em issions based on the type of unit and the installed air pol lution controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targ eted approach to collecting data from expected top perfo rmers undermines its ability to presume the data is a ran dom sample representative of the entire source category or subcategory. The commenters stated that if the dat a gathered are not representative at the outset, then the data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equat ion to predict the emissions data across the source catego ry or subcategory. Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has use d permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed rate control, and other information to establish MA CT*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 85 of 494

standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenter s stated that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actua l emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at least 12% of the units. Another commenter stated that EPA used emission dat a from state databases for an additional nine MHs. Th e commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Cou rt to collect data from the best-performing 12% of existi ng sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emission s data from the state databases for the additional nine MH s 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, Comm ercial, and Institutional Boilers MACT standards and the CI SWI 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 characteri ze affected sources. EPA then evaluated the informati on*** 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 d ata gaps in the emissions information. The second component of the ICR consisted of emissions testing at sufficient so urces to collect enough data, in combination with the test r eports submitted with the ICR, to determine the best perfo rming 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, th e requirements of the PRA applied, and required EPA t o seek public input on a draft ICR as well as obtain appro val 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 fl oor standards for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent ICRs to nin e entities that own and operate SSI units. EPA ident ified SSI units that were expected to be the best-control led sources and the best performers for further emissio ns testing. The Agency acknowledges that this selecti on methodology targets identifying the best-performing sources rather than selecting a representative sample of so urces. However, given the court-ordered deadline for EPA t o issue the final SSI rule, it was not possible to undertak e 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 bein g 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 g enerally achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA se ction 129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify f or each pollutant the units with the lowest emissions. For example, units were selected that operated more tha n one of the following technologies: activated carbon inject ion to reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine part iculate; high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubb ers and impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO 2 ; and units with multiple control devices that could redu ce 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 o r*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 88 of 494

operators selected were from different states in di fferent regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum o f

sources for sludge generated wastewater being treated

. Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the ni ne operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some owners of multiple units at a facility provided inf ormation for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit instead of 2, because not all units were in operati on 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 collecte d emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collec ted from state environmental agencies public databases. For some pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental t est reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sou rces. The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use al l the emissions information from these test reports in th e MACT floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test r eports that were older than 15 years. The older reports w ere determined to not be appropriate for this rulemakin g because they were unlikely to represent current emi ssions*** 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 predated were prior to sources coming into required compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In total, emission s information were collected from 6 FB units and 20 M H units from facilities responding to the ICR and additiona l test reports provided by state environmental agencies. As discussed in the NPRM and background documentati on, the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the minimum number of observations needed to accurately characterize the distribution of the best-performin g 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 be stperforming 12 percent of the source population. Th e EPA maintains that the emissions information that we ha ve collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor f or the best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with th e commenters’ recommendation to use other types of da ta, such as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate c ontrols with the emissions information to calculate the MAC T floor. The other types of data mentioned do not represent the actual emissions or operation of the unit but are p otential*** 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 th e UPL calculation is based on emission test runs of actua l 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 le tters. The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB uni ts 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 invento ry results in more than 12 percent of MH units with da ta for PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of em issions data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source C ategory” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). The EPA solicited additional emission test reports in the N PRM.*** 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 sit especific emissions to EPA’s baseline emissions, non e of the commenters actually provided the emissions test rep orts. 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 verif y the tests represent a valid test result that can be use d in the MACT floor analysis. Additionally, the test report s provide information necessary to correct the emissi ons measured into the units used for the MACT floor ana lysis. 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 fro m the required number of units in each subcategory, EPA a pplied statistical analysis to single test run results. S everal commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data available for MACT development, EPA counted each te st run as a separate data point. Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The comm enters*** 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 standar ds for existing sources must be as stringent as the "emiss ions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 perce nt of units in, the category." The commenters added that , assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limit ation" with the concept of emission level (as often stated by EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emiss ion levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floo rs. The commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid e missions level test. The commenter stated that a test run i s not an accurate measure of the performance of the unit and should not be used as if it were. Commenters added that E PA should use the results of the test for each unit (c omprised of at least three test runs) to represent what is b eing 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 adde d that it is important that individual sources, not units, be utilized because the composition of the sludge vari es greatly from source to source and utilizing multipl e units at one source skews the data development process an d*** 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 sta ndard at

best. Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 percent UPL values were calculated for each polluta nt and for each subcategory using the test run data for th ose units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consisten t with EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as H MIWI, 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 repres ents the value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run performance tests form the best-performing 12 perce nt of sources to fall below, with 99 percent confidence, based upon the results of the independent sample observat ions from the same best-performing sources. Variability Calculation For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are incorporating variability in the MACT floor calcula tion for this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also following the same procedures for establishing limi ts 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 weight ed UPL’s for existing FB units. Second, we selected log-nor mal 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 co mments. The revision to the CO limits based on reviewing th e CO span was done to correct errors in the CO values pr ovided in test reports and to be consistent with the calcu lation

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 rep orted value. If the span was inconsistent with the report ed value, the CO levels were adjusted to provide a val ue that was more consistent with the span. EPA Method 10 i s structured such that measurement data quality relat ive to the calibration span of the instrument can be asses sed. For a measurement made using an instrumental test m ethod, the equivalent of the method detection level can be assessed using: a square root formula, the reported calibration span value, and the allowable data qual ity criteria (i.e. the allowable calibration error, bia s, 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 r esulting from the square root formula was adjusted by a fact or of three to be consistent with the methodology EPA app lied for non-detect data (where limits no less than three ti mes the method detection level were established). In order to develop a basis for measurement error, instrument calibration spans in available test repo rts 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 10 0 ppm. This assumption was made because, before revisions were made to Method 10 in May of 2008, it was common tha t units were using the prescriptive span guidance that was listed

in the old method. The current version of EPA Metho d 10 does not include these span requirements but instea d requires the tester to choose calibration ranges th at reflect the range of expected emission concentratio ns 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 Incinerat or 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 Existin g SSI Units

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a

Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0016 0.095

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 58 64 3, 900 800

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.51 b 1.2

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.037 0.28 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 150 220

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0074 0.30 PCDD/PCDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.1 0.32 PCDD/PCDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 1.2 5.0

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 18 80 SO 2 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a @7% O 2 a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. b Limits represent three times the detection level. Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a

Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0011 0.0024

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 18 27 52

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.24 1.2 c

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.001 0 0.15 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 30 210

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.00062 0.0035 CDD/CDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0044 0.0022 CDD/CDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.013 0.045

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 9.6 60

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 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 wer e less stringent than EG.

Comment: One commenter contended that because the CAA section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floor s 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 th at by claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consi der variability under the CAA and relevant case law. T he commenter explained that, although EPA may consider variability in estimating an individual source’s ac tual performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the ca se law even suggests that EPA may account for differences in performance between sources except as section 129 p rovides, by averaging the emission levels achieved by the so urces 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, ba sed on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions control that ha s been achieved by the best performing sources considering these sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision indicated that floors for existing sources must ref lect the average emission limitation achieved by the best-pe rforming 12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision also reiterated that EPA may account for variabilit y in setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA e rred in assessing variability because it relied on data fro m the worst performers to estimate best performers’ varia bility. The Court held that “EPA may not use emission level s of the worst performers to estimate variability of the bes t performers without a demonstrated relationship betw een the two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. In determining the MACT floor limits, we first determine the floor, which, for existing sources, i s the emissions limitation achieved in practice by the av erage of the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the leve l 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 perform ance.*** 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 b y using a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT f loor

level based on that can be met by the average of the best performing sources using based 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 a vailable emission observations (e.g., test runs), and does n ot embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A pred iction interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an interval that will, with a specified degree of conf idence, contain the next (or some other pre-specified) rand omly selected observation from a population. In other w ords, the prediction interval estimates what future value s will be, based on present or past background samples tak en. Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the mean of three future test run observations (three-r un average) can be expected to fall below, based on th e results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same population. Therefore, should a future test condit ion 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 emissio n 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 n ot have test data from all of the SSI units in the best per forming 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 u pon the results of the independent sample size from the sam e population, the UPL reflects adequately gets at the notion

of average emissions. The UPL is also consistent with other recent rulemakings, such as the boiler and CI SWI

standards.

Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and u tilized data from all available test runs for the best perf orming units without regard to the number of data points a vailable 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 uni t to unit. One commenter stated that using data this wa y biases the statistical results, and ultimately, the standa rds by over-weighting the performance of the units that ha ve more data. The commenter suggested that EPA should empl oy an alternate methodology which determines the emission s limitation achieved for each best performing unit f irst, and then averages these limitations to determine th e least stringent standard, or MACT floor. Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed units contains data from six units at four faciliti es. 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. O ne facility, with three units, provided results of emi ssions 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, a nd 75 percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the existing source MACT floors calculated using the UP L 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 result s 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-perfo rmingsingle source, rather than the average of the bestperforming 12 percent of sources. . In order to adequately incorporate the emissions from all the best-performing the SSI units in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weigh ted UPL was used for calculating the existing source MACT f loors for the final rule. The weighted UPL is calculated from a weighted mean and weighted variance as described be low. There are many different types of weighting procedures. We have chosen the most straightforwar d methodology, to base it on the number of data point s (i.e., test runs) from each SSI unit. 13 This weighting scheme ensures that no facility in the MACT best performer s 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 ea ch

13 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIS T Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, Nat ional 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, w ij , as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:       ×        

= N M w i ij 1 1 (Eq. 1)

Where:

i 

### M = Number of observations (i.e., runs) for source i and N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT po ol.

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance for the weighted data from the weight terms using E quations 2 and 3 of this preamble:

Weighted Mean: 

## ∑∑

∑∑

= = = = = N

i M

j ij N

i M

j ij ij weighted

i i

w x w x

1 1

1 1

Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

# ( ) ( )

K w K x x w

N

i M

j ij N

i M

j weighted

U ij ij weighted

i i 

# ∑∑ ∑∑

= = = =

− −

=

1 1 1 1 2

1 ν

Equation 3 Where: 

## ∑

= = N

i i M K 1 is the total number of observations in the MACT bes t*** 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 equati ons 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 calculat ion (discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e. , unweighted) mean and variance.



## ( ) 

# ( )         + × ×

− + = i i weighted i weighted m n n t x UPL 1 1 1 , 99.0 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 faciliti es with 14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT floor calculations are not skewed by one or two uni ts or facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for exist ing multiple hearth units does not need to be calculate d 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 C ategory” 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 cons istent with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Man ual, which holds that it is more likely that environment al data are distributed log-normally. The commenter consid ered it reasonable to believe that environmental emission distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots typically show many readings approaching zero and f ewer large readings forming an elongated tail to the rig ht. The commenter concluded that normal distributions may e xist 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 docume nt shows that environmental data are more likely to be log-n ormally distributed than normally distributed. In the prop osed rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtos is, were examined to determine if the data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or log-normally distribute d. If both the reported values and the natural-log transf ormed reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistic s that*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 107 of 494

indicated neither were normally distributed, the re ported dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to b e conservative. If the results of the skewness and ku rtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the natural log-transformed reported values, the analys is done on the reported data values was chosen to be conser vative. Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/0 84, July 2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whe ther 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 ha ve 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 accoun t for the full variability of an SSI’s performance. Seve ral 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 th e MACT floor limits by incorporating the variability of th e sludge*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 108 of 494

contents. The commenters added that the methodolog y in developing the proposed standards does not take int o account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO 2 emissions are a function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlor ine and sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits were based on test results obtained with sludge con taining very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and su lfur. The commenter explained that if the sludge burned d uring an

emissions test was not at or near the maximum const ituent concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variabil ity), a new source emission limit based on these data could not be achieved over the full range of expected normal ope rating conditions confronted by the best performing source

. The commenters contended that EPA must consider all available data (including Part 503 data) for the be st performing source and use that to establish a varia bility factor applied to the stack test data. The comment ers 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 ac counted 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 t he sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, resulting in highly variable and often unpredictabl e spikes in concentrations. The commenters continued that PO TW inlet concentrations also vary based on the nature and ty pe of dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW tr eat wastewater from residential, commercial and industr ial dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment opportunities also vary because POTW authority to c ontrol 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 c hanges over time as the character of a community changes, the age of the population changes, and commercial and indus trial dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without the use of long-term data to support the level of e mission standards, this variability makes numeric technolog y-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 period s 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-flo w periods, which often results in a spike in metals concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage slu dge. The commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in Januar y and February that were used for the EPA database would not have captured these events. The commenter also noted th at northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways experience significant increases in chlorides durin g the winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at exist ing 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, an d western states. Each facility has its own unique s ludge characteristics from different residential and comm ercial populations. We agree that the emissions data repr esents a “point in time”. However, combined together, they represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and populations that adequately incorporates variabilit y in wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We ha ve 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

t T he variability analysis based on the emissions data collected adequately characterizes the potential differences in sludge contents and regional differe nces. 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 w arm weather climates. Additionally, we did not have sufficient information at proposal to consider if it were appr opriate to incorporate variability based on sludge content. We requested additional information in the NPRM, but d id not receive adequate sampling data from the best-perfor ming

sources.

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s identification of the relevant best performing unit s for both existing and new unit standards is both unlawf ul and arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control tec hnology as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pol lution control technology is the only factor determining e mission levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated t hat, in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Clu b'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 s olely on the performance of one method: add-on technology. The

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule b ecause EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities con trol emissions. The commenters stated that this require ment is consistent with doing a more complete study as requ ired by section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology ba sed solely on emission levels since setting the floor i n this fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of control. The commenters concluded that EPA's perfo rmance data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did

not check for all methods that sources use to reduc e pollution. Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges that EPA has not properly identified the best perfo rming SSI units for purposes of calculating MACT floor li mits. As explained above, EPA targeted its emissions test ing requests to units it believed have the lowest emiss ions, 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 taki ng non-technology measures to reduce emissions to comp ly 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 establishe s 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, facili ties are already incorporating management practices and meas ures to reduce waste and limit the concentration of polluta nts in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as segregating contaminated and uncontaminated wastes and establis hing discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for non

domestic users discharging wastewater to POTW. Thu s, the facilities from which EPA received emissions test r esults 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 li mits, it should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter st ated 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 ann ual 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 variab ility 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 Existi ng 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 mea surement and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. Another commenter suggested that control and monito ring of PM is sufficient. Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero opacity) limit for combustion processes is impracti cal for both compliance and enforcement purposes. We also believe that a measurable opacity may or may not be indicat ive of compliance with a PM emissions limit when applied t o 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 co rrespond to a PM emissions level different than that same op acity limit applied to another facility and one or both m ay be emitting above the PM limit. That opacity limits d o not apply very well when wet control devices are used f urther confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. W e also agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific pa rametric monitoring approaches applicable to various control devices that can be more closely aligned with PM control an d compliance with the PM emissions limit than would a n opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of establishing opacity limits that may or may not ass ure compliance with PM emissions limits, the final rule s include rigorous requirements for establishing site

specific operating limits derived from the results of performance testing. The rules also include a requ irement that sources update those enforceable operating lim its with each repeated performance test. Re-establishing op erating limits periodically will assure that the monitoring will continue to indicate compliance with the PM emissio ns limits. The rules also provide the source the opti on of apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of int erest in lieu of parametric monitoring. We believe that con tinuous*** 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 complian ce with the PM emission limits more effectively than would periodic or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable op acity limit. The final rule does not set opacity limits. We bel ieve

that , with continuous parametric monitoring and stack testing, facilities will be able to demonstrate con tinuous compliance with the PM emission limits.

Format of the Standards

Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA develop emission limits for some pollutants in diff erent units or to provide a control efficiency alternativ e. The commenters expressed concern that the use of concen tration limits would not reflect the variability of the uni que sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may un fairly penalize units with very low or very high feed concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, C d, 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 standar ds in other units at proposal. We requested additional information in the proposal. However, sufficient d ata were not provided in response to our request for alterna tive formats to be developed. D. Baseline Emissions

Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated baseline emissions because EPA used incorrect air f low rate parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters p rovided stack test data, emission estimates, and correction s to the EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters not ed that EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow r ate factors in combination with pollutant concentration s corrected to seven percent oxygen. Response: We have incorporated corrections to the inventory and calculation inputs provided by the co mmenters where applicable. In some cases, commenters did no t 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 con vert the concentration information provided to standardized units (7 percent oxygen). Other commenters may have provide d emission rates in pounds per hour, but did not prov ide vent gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to convert to concentration units. None of the commen ters 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 da ta 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 esti mate baseline emissions for the final standards is prese nted in the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emis sions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA -HQ-OAR2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and oth er corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emi ssions 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 t heir units were running. The upper bound represents an estimation of potential emissions if the sludge fee d rate was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We es timated the potential emissions because the amount of waste water treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantl y based on changes in population or sources of wastewater. Facilities have the potential to burn up to their u nits permitted capacity although they may not be doing s o 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 NO x 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 PCDD/PCDF TEQ a 0.00012-

0.00016 0.00076-0.0010 0.0009-0.0012 PCDD/PCDF TMB a 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

SO 2 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 uni ts because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and c osts for Hg control were understated. Many of the commenter s contended that carbon injection is an unproven tech nology for SSI units, and is currently used at only one fa cility

with FB units. The commenters added that the facil ity is undergoing significant issues with the technology. Commenters also contended that Hg removal using car bon injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM c ontrols, such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be ne cessary. The commenters added that the high moisture content in the form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will p lug FFs, and additional equipment may be necessary to keep t he temperature above the dew point, such as an afterbu rner. 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 baselin e emissions, new facility specific data and inputs pr ovided by commenters, and revised control options. We have analyzed several three control requirement options for as beyond-the-floor control s 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. Ww e 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 demons trated 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. Howe ver, 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 problemat ic due to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon inject ion with a FF with high moisture streams, a waste heat boile r, RTO, or afterburner is necessary to maintain a high enou gh temperature to keep the stream above the dew point prior to sending the stream to the FF. Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of usi ng Option 3 is an RTO afterburner , carbon injection, and FF for additional control of Hg at MH units. Additional e quipment 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 estimat e this cost. Table 10 of this preamble summarizes the cos t for existing SSI units to comply apply with different control s that were analyzed

. the MACT control option s. Table 10. Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units to Comply Apply with MACT Control s Options Analyzed (2008$)

Option Control Requirement Analyzed Total Capital Costs (million $) Total Annualized Costs (million ($/Yr) a 1 - MACT Floor 55 18 2 - MACT Floor Option 1 + Afterburner for MH units 155 46*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 123 of 494

Option Control Requirement Analyzed Total Capital Costs (million $) Total Annualized Costs (million ($/Yr) a 3 – MACT Floor Option 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 control s analyzed configurations the MACT control options

. Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existi ng Units to Comply Apply with the MACT Control s Options Analyzed Sources

Pollutant Emission Reductions for Each MACT Option Controls Analyzed (TPY)

MACT Floor Option 1 MACT Floor +

Afterburner Option for MH Units 2 MACT Floor + Afterburner + ACI and FF for MH Units 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 NO x 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 Floor Option 1 MACT Floor +

Afterburner Option for MH Units 2 MACT Floor + Afterburner + ACI and FF for MH Units Option 3 SO 2 430-700 430-700 430-700 The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this preamble were calculated using data gathered for ea ch

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 would that requiring require either the use of an afterburner for MH units not already having an afterburner or the rmal oxidizer , could require as much as 1, 700 010 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to be burned, resulting in NO x and CO emissions

of 84 51 and 70 43 TPY, respectively. We estimate that applying activated carbon injection with a FF and a n afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg an d PCDD/PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 million dollars (using a discount rate of seven per cent) 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 afterburne rs/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 necessa ry to cool the flue gas is also necessary. Therefore, giv en these factors, we are not finalizing any going beyond-the-floor requirements for MH SSI units with option s 2 or 3

. We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO 2 reduction, a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, a nd SNCR for additional NO x reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve g reater reduction of HCl, SO 2 , PM, Cd, Pb, and NO x considering the cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-th e-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 th e beyond the floor option of Hg control as well as for the M ACT*** 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 info rmation for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The com menters 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 num ber of sources that could meet the proposed standards resu lting in a significant underestimation of controls. Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices o f controls to cost for compliance with the proposed s tandards 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 appr opriate 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 c osts are estimated based on technologies we believe may be appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions l imits.*** 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 estima ted costs and emissions reductions based on the best av ailable information to us. We acknowledge that the invento ry database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flu e 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 Followin g Proposal . However, for a number of inputs, we are still assigning default values where data were not availa ble for each SSI. For the final rule, we have correlated s ome of the defaults to populations served by the facilitie s in order to better estimate costs and emission reducti ons more specifically to each facility. Sources will have t he best idea of the costs of controls for their site specif ic conditions. For some sources, the costs and emissi on 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 informati on available to us. We also note that the MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination of the n umber 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 t ypes 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 we t ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture str eams. We have also costed out SNCR for SSI ’ s that we estimate will need further control of NO x 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 SO 2 . 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 cos ts and emissions reductions estimates for the final standa rds is provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emissi on Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in th e 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 slud ge instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is the appropriate basis of the sludge because even af ter 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 pe rcent moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimate s for landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The commenters added that because of the error, EPA has significantly underestimated the impacts from trans porting sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA h ad not evaluated the negative social impact of hauling slu dge to a landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not c onsider the additional costs for specific state landfilling regulations. Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly estimated the on-site sludge storage requirements b ecause calculations were not done on a wet basis. Comment ers 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 lan dfill 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. Tab le 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 impa cts of this alternative if small entities choose to landfi ll rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emissi on Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in th e SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that m any sources will find landfilling an appropriate altern ative. The selection of a management option for sewage slu dge is often a local decision that is based on environmental protection concerns, community needs, geographic constraints, and economic conditions. G iven a full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, landfilling or land treatment may be a better manag ement 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 di fficult to comply with certain proposed emission limits dur ing startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters wer e 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 S SI because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combus tion is completed creating a small flow of CO. One comment er contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO sta ndard 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 comb ustor 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 comme nters stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to incre ase during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combu stion that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and note d that the influence of unstable combustion may be more pr onounced during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the re maining sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commente rs recommended that EPA account for situations where h igher emissions occur during the time it takes to bring c ontrol 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 sta ndard during periods of startup and shutdown. We request ed information in the NPRM. However, no data were pro vided. Based on the information available at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to meet the emission li mits during periods of startup. Units we have informati on on use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached co mbustion temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generall y be lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions du ring periods of shutdown are also generally lower than e missions during normal operations because the materials in t he incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units ba sed on actual performance for each pollutant and subcatego ry, 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 shutdow n 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 determin ed that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct ope rating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at su ch times were not needed to be factored into development of CAA section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, app ly 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 stand ards for SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated tha t EPA has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur during SSM periods. One commenter contended that t he Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, n ot CAA section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 111), and pointed out that this interpretation is n ot merely a technical distinction. The commenter poin ted 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 s ection*** 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 ther e is nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amen dments to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overt urn 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 d ifferent emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdow n, and malfunction. H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pre ssure drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combu stion temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) wo uld not be achievable. They explained that these ranges ar e 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 a greed 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 procedu re 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 te sts) may be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of energy or other operating needs. We determined tha t the operating limits should be more appropriately based on values recorded during the performance test runs. The final rule requires that operating limits be establ ished on a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, a s appropriate) operating parameter value measured dur ing the performance test. This approach has been incorpora ted into the final rule for all operating parameters and wil l result in achievable operating ranges that will ensure tha t the control devices used for compliance will be operate d to achieve continuous compliance with the emissions li mits.

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 max imum rated capacity. They explained that the proposed a pproach fails to take into account the normal feed conditio n 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 b asis. A few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a st eadier state of control and more efficient combustion of t he sludge. Many commenters indicated that the proposed operati ng range for sludge moisture content would not be achi evable 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 moistu re is very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received b y an SSI, temperature changes, the biological systems th at treat the sewage, and to operational changes, and that th ese changes cannot always be anticipated and are not al ways immediately correctable. Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rat e and sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge w ithin specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber (or after burner temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustio n practice, and that moisture content is not needed t o*** 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 the ir emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture co ntent, the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with t heir operating limit for temperature of the combustion c hamber. We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge moisture content within specified ranges. We are a lso no longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed rates within specified ranges due to the seasonal variabi lity at wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate info rmation is necessary during performance test runs to establ ish that SSI units are in compliance with the new requiremen t that they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capaci ty. We are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI uni ts should already be keeping records of these paramete rs, 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 ca pacity. This level has been selected based on the performan ce test operating information provided by the commenters an d 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 r ule for determining compliance with the operating parameter s and CO limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They explained that the recordkeeping and compliance bur den is less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both based on a 24-hour block average. They also explai ned that the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average b asis would be unachievable with MH incinerators and diff icult 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 sufficie nt indication of compliance and will allow more flexib ility for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emis sion 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 prea mble. 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 compliance in 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 perform ance tests (e.g., a three run test of 4 hour test runs w ould 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 th e alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 12 9 requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regul ated pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be use d 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 neede d to demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsisten t with current Title V permits. They also argued that Met hod 22 compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is no t feasible or difficult to conduct due to space const raints, and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash remov al systems that do not require annual testing. They e xplained that the cost for emissions testing may be signific antly higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They further explained that Title V permits require faci lities 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 s trict health-based sludge content limits under the CWA se ction 405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help en sure that SSI units are in compliance with their emissio n limits. One commenter pointed out that the propose d compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will essentially shorten the testing year by one month e ach

year. Response: The proposed standards included provisions for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has revised these provisions, making it easier for faci lities to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that facilities that do less frequent testing are well b elow their emission limits. In the final standards, own ers or operators are required to establish that emissions of a given pollutant are under a specified threshold for only two consecutive years 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 frequen t*** 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 tes ting. 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 assura nce 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 hav e a high degree of assurance that the emission level wi ll 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 f ugitive emissions from ash handling, owners or operators mu st demonstrate that visible emissions occur no more th an two percent of the time during each Method 22 1-hour observation period. This allowance for fugitive as h 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 initi al compliance test to establish that their ash handlin g system will continuously meet the visible emissions limit. Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility regarding their test dates, to ensure that faciliti es are not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months , and to ensure that facilities are testing once per year, w e have revised the testing schedule provisions. In the fi nal standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducte d on a calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar mon ths and no more than 15 calendar months following the previ ous performance test); and facilities must complete fiv e performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year cale ndar period.

Comment: Many commenters requested that the definition of “process change” be revised to exclud e the provision that a process change include an increase in the allowable wastewater received from an industrial so urce. They pointed out that any such increase would trigg er a performance test, as required by the proposed stand ards, 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 constitu te only a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3. 5 percent, four to eight percent), that such discharg es are sometimes from sources that do not discharge the po llutants regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g. , food processing facilities), that some merchant SSI faci lities regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from o ther regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it is difficult for impossible to anticipate some indu strial load changes ahead of time. Several commenters arg ued that this proposed requirement would be redundant to the National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, wh ich are incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Di scharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require th em to establish local limits on industrial discharges to prevent interference with sludge processes, use, and dispos al. The commenters anticipate that they would establish sim ilar limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emis sion limits. A few commenters suggested that the propos ed provision for industrial discharges is vague and op en to interpretation. Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process change” and agrees with the commenters that there a re 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 waste water received from an industrial source should not trigg er a performance test. We have revised the definition o f “process change” to more specifically and clearly i dentify the type of process change that will trigger a perf ormance test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” as pollutant-specific and as including only situati ons where the SSI has undergone a significant permit re vision. This revision will ensure that facilities retest wh enever 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 section s 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 t hat data are normally distributed, and revising CO limits ba sed 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 t he inventory and calculation inputs provided by the co mmenters where applicable. We have also revised the calcula tion of baseline emissions by revising the defaults assigne d to SSI units where information was not available. Th ese change s resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for e ach of the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL an d decreased baseline emissions resulted in less SSI u nits estimated to need additional control to meet the MA CT floor limits. For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floo r level of control for both subcategories instead of selecting a beyond-the-floor option requirement

. 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, C d, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have costed out wet ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture strea ms. 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 baselin e emissions and emission reductions to present a rang e to show the variability in the emission calculations b etween estimated actual and estimated potential sludge fee d rates. Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised A nalysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI d ocket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existin g SSI Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits

Pollutant Range of Reductions Achieved

Through Meeting MACT By Subcategory (TPY) Range of Total Reductions (TPY) FB MH Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 CO 0 0 0 HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 NO x 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 (TPY) FB MH 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 SO 2 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 l imits. These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrub bers, which would need to be treated. We estimate an ann ual requirement of 234 million gallons per year of addi tional wastewater will be generated as a result of operati ng additional controls or increased sorbents. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revis ed Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineratio n 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 addit ional*** 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 poll ution control devices. For example, increased scrubber p ump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricit y consumption; sorbent injection controls would likew ise 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 co ntrol devices. The analysis is documented in the memoran dum “Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EP A-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 NO x , CO, PM and SO 2 and an increase in

CO 2 emissions. Since NO x and SO 2 are covered by capped emissions trading programs, and methodological limi tations prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM , we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts f or 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 equ ipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requireme nts to comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standa rds). Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall to tal capital investment of $55 million with an associate d total annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (an d using a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Tabl e 13 of this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will need to install one or more air pollution control d evices for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission limits. The analysis is documented in the memorand um “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI U nits” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 13. Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities Comply With Proposed Emission Limits (Millions of 2 008$)

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 percen t.*** 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 alternativ e disposal method. We have revised our costs and imp acts 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 o f this

alternative if small entities choose to landfill ra ther than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussi on 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-O AR-2009- 0559). Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that m any sources will find landfilling an appropriate altern ative. However, the selection of a management option for s ewage sludge is often a local decision that is based on environmental protection concerns, community needs, geographic constraints, and economic conditions. G iven a full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, landfilling or land treatment may be a better manag ement 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 Entiti es 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 percen t. B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SS I units constructed and replaced, technical advantage s of FB incinerators, and information provided by the indus try on likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI u nits 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 potentia lly being constructed in the next five years. Table 15 of this preamble summarizes these emission reductions for M ACT compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incin erators. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revis ed Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Wit hin 5 Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SS I 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 NO x 14 Pb 0.00053 PM 0 PM 2.5 0 SO 2 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 planne d to include in the absence of this rule to meet the fin al 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 ye ar 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 memorandu m*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 153 of 494

“Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Source Category” in the SSI doc ket (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 w ill require disposal are anticipated to be approximatel y 34 TPY from activated carbon injection for the two units. 3. What are the energy impacts? The energy impacts associated with meeting the fina l emission limits would consist primarily of addition al electricity needs to run added or improved air poll ution control devices. For example, increased scrubber p ump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricit y consumption. Sorbent injection controls would like wise require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 mega watthours per year will be required for the additional and improved control devices for the two new units mode led to come on-line in the next five years. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of S econdary*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 154 of 494

Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source C ategory Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Inciner ation 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 memoran dum “Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 5. What are the cost impacts? We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI unit s coming on-line in the next five years. This analys is is based on a model plant, the assumption that two new units will come on-line and will add the necessary contro ls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, a nd reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate a n overall total capital investment of $8 million (200 8$) with an associated total annualized cost of $2 million ( 2008$ and using a seven percent discount rate). This ana lysis 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. H owever, the cost of the final standards are no longer likel y to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 millio n or more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted t his action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO s 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documente d in the docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RI A of the potential costs and benefits associated with the pr oposed standards we are simply updating the RIA rather tha n revising it. A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationar y Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Source s: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based o n the lower costs associated with the selected alternativ e 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 th is update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the options control s analyzed and have provided a comparison of

the selected option control s with the alternatives. 14 While the characteristics of the options control s analyzed have changed, we have also provided a comparison of the costs and benefits of the proposed option control s analyzed with the selected alternative in this final action. A s ummary of the differences are presented below.

• Costs for the selected option control s analyzed for promulgation are 80% lower and benefits are 81% low er than they were for the selected option control s analyzed for proposal.

• B ecause the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a government provided service that does not involve a market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts w ere estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impac t analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% lower for the selected option control s analyzed for promulgation compared to the proposed option control s analyzed , the control costs are expected to be a smaller portion of government revenues for the selected option control s for promulgation than they were for the proposed option control s .

14 In the RIA, the control s 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 cha nges due to the requirements for operating and maintaini ng 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 thr ee percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven perc ent. The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct exposure to NO x and SO 2 , ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment have not been monetized, incl uding reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 poun ds of Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd.

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators N SPS 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 Incinera tors 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 units Beyond the Floor $20 to $50 $18 to $45

Option 3: Beyond the Floor 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 Options Control s 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 Control s 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 units Option 2: Beyond the Floor $46

MACT Floor + Afterburner + and aA ctivated carbon injection + fabric filter for MH units 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 Control s 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 rul e have been submitted for approval to the OMB under t he Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The information collection requirements are not enforce able until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepare d 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 subpa rt LLLL, and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in thi s rule are based on the information collection requir ements in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provision s (40 CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and rep orting requirements in the General Provisions are mandator y 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 safegua rded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implement ing 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 annua l compliance with the emission limits using EPA appro ved emissions test methods. The burden also includes continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspecti ons of air pollution control devices that may be used to m eet the emission limits. Operators are required to obtain qualification and complete annual training. New un its are also required to submit a report prior to construct ion,*** 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 emiss ion guidelines over the first 3 years following promulg ation is estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and to tal annualized capital/startup and operation and mainte nance costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the monitoring requirements, storage of data and report s 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 es timated to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost o f $40,000. The total annualized capital/startup cost s are estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumul ative annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. B urden 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 informat ion unless it currently displays a valid OMB control nu mber. 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 c ontrol number for the approved information collection requ irements 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 th e 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 busin esses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdi ctions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this actio n on small entities, a small entity is defined as fol lows: 1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulatio ns at 13 CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction t hat 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 numb er 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 significa nt 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 estima ted capital costs stayed at the same level as those est imated at proposal. Therefore, given the decrease in cost s from the proposed rule, we consider the final rule to ha ve no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. After considering the economic impacts of this fina l 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 h as costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, thi s 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 en tities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of t his 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 con ducted in recent years to show compliance rather than requ ire all new testing and allowing reduced testing with conti nued compliance.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not contain a federal mandate that m ay 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 r ule 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 sect ion VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, Octob er 14, 2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found in the docket. At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than t he estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EP A prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of cost s and benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impa ct Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationa ry Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Source s: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. B ased on*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 165 of 494

estimated compliance costs associated with the fina l rule and the predicted change in prices and production i n the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the final rule are $55 million ($). At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entiti es expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consi stent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are d iscussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 6 3260). This final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulato ry requirements that might significantly or uniquely a ffect 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 p rivate entities, there would be no requirements that uniqu ely apply to such government or impose any disproportio nate impacts on them. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the sta tes, on the relationship between the national government an d 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 govern ment, as specified in Executive Order 13132

. Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications, that impos es substantial direct compliance costs, and that is no t required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance co sts incurred by state and local governments, or EPA con sults 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 govern ments and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA consulted with elected state and local government officials, or their representative national organiz ations, when developing regulations and policies that impos e substantial compliance costs on state and local governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conduc ted a briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organiz ations representing elected state and local government off icials, as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal prea mble (75 FR 63260) to formally request their comments and in put 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 hav e federalism implications, as defined by Agency guida nce for implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’s direct compliance costs on state or local governmen ts resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million

. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consiste nt with EPA policy to promote communications between E PA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solic ited comment on the proposed rule from state and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordin ation 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 implic ations. However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outr each and discuss possible SSI implications with tribal conta cts. EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and specifically solicited additional comment on the pr oposed 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. Comme nters expressed that SSI units located in proximity to In dian country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigg er tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they bel ieve EPA failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the standards and have failed to fully assess the poten tial impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly , commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overl ay that accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tri bes can acquire a better understanding on how they might be affected by such sites and these standards in gener al. EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to discuss the rule development process, first to prov ide general information on the development of the SSI s tandards and second providing more specific background infor mation on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locati ons of units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarif ying questions and requested information if any NTAA mem bers were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewag e 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 f rom Environmental Health and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory act ions 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 wil l improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for children’s health. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significant ly 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 Order s 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 regulato ry activities unless to do so would be inconsistent wi th applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are develo ped or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to pr ovide 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 Inci neration Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Serv ice Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also cont acted VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their dat a 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 alterna tives 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, Part icleBound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fir ed Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)" is an ac ceptable alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also dec ided to use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, l0A, l0B, 2 2, 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 a nd analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's ref erence method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and revi ewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential st andards 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 M ethod 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific , engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinatio ns of impracticality when additional information is avail able for particular VCS. The search identified other VCS that were potential ly applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference m ethods.*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 172 of 494

After reviewing the available standards, EPA determ ined that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 90 96:1992 (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 D1608-9 8 (2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/ CSA Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (199 6), EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CA N/CSA Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions o f pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and ot her important technical and policy considerations. Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provision s, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alt ernative 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 Addre ss Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 199 4) establishes federal executive policy on environment al justice. Its main provision directs federal agenci es, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by la w, 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 a nd activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not ha ve disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income pop ulations because it increases the level of environmental pro tection 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 hu man*** 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 rulemak ing. An analysis of demographic data showed that the averag e of populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be effected by the sources, were sim ilar in demographic composition to national averages. The results of the demographic analysis are presented in “Revie w of Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy o f which is available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-055 9).

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 t he populations considered to be living near affected s ource s, such that they have notable exposures to current em issions 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 ident ified 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 simila r proportions of American Indians, African

- Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and “Other and Multi

- racial” populations, and similar proportions of families wi th incomes below the poverty level as the national ave rage. 19

This final action establishes national emission standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA estimates that there are approximately 204 such uni ts

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 Socio

economic Disparities in Environmental Justice Resea rch.” Demography

. 2006;43(2): 383

– 399. 17 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populati ons 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 present ed 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 e missions 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, irrit ation 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 substantia l reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NO x , PM and

PM 2.5 and SO 2 . Sulfur dioxide and NO x are precursors for

the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions

will reduce ozone and PM 2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and

cardiovascular diseases. For additional informatio n, 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 Commitme nt to Environmental Justice,” to mean the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with res pect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws and policies, and their meaningf ul involvement in the decisionmaking process of the*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 177 of 494

government include meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or inco me with respect to the develop ment, 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 ru le, are aware of its content and have an opportunity to com ment during the comment period. During the comment peri od, EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental newslet ters, 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 fed eral permitting requirements will provide state and loca l governments and members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit condi tions 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 submi t 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 r ule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller Gener al 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 DAY S AFTER

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGIS TER ]. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice a nd procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting a nd 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 Regulatio ns, 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 Stati onary 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 D DDD, §§ 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), §60.105 a(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), a nd (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 subpa rt 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 (i i), 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 Sewa ge 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 sludg e incineration unit? 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration u nit? 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 stand ards 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 qualifi cation 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 qualificatio n? 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualific ation? 60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not accessible? 60.4840 What site-specific documentation is requir ed and how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage s ludge incineration unit operators and other plant personn el 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 mus t I meet and by when? 60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I d o 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, s hutdown, 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 comp liance 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 ai r pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? 60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitorin g plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous 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 pol lution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs?

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements 60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitori ng, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission limits and standards? 60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s?*** 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 ti tle V operating permit for my unit? 60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit applic ation 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 Incin eration 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 Parame ters for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalenc y Factors Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Repor ting Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Uni ts

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) unit s. To the extent any requirement of this subpart is incon sistent with the requirements of subpart A of this part, th e requirements of this subpart will apply. §60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MON THS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ]. Some of the requirements in this subpart apply to p lanning an SSI unit and must be completed even before const ruction is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e., the preconstruct ion requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). Other requ irements such as the emission limits, emission standards, an d operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins op eration. Applicability and Delegation of Authority §60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage slud ge incineration unit? Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meet s all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) throug h (c) of this section. (a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for which construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or fo r which modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MON THS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ].*** 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 eithe r of the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) o r (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 S SI unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subp art MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Ti mes for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not q ualify as a modification under this subpart. §60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from this subpart? This subpart exempts combustion units that incinera te sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater t reatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These units may be subject to another subpart of this par t (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 b y the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delega ted authority such as your state, local, or tribal agen cy. If the Administrator has delegated authority to your s tate, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement and e nforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your st ate, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tri bal agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are n ot 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 limit s 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 recordkeepin g and reporting. (5) The requirements in §60.4855. (6) The requirements in §60.4835(b)(2). (7) Performance test and data reduction waivers un der §60.8(b). (8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 an d §60.4805. §60.4790 How are these new source performance stan dards

structured? These new source performance standards contain the nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) thro ugh (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 calibrati on 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 sourc e performance standards apply at the same time? No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analy sis requirements before you commence construction of th e SSI unit. The operator training and qualification, emi ssion limits, emission standards, operating limits, perfo rmance testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recor dkeeping and reporting requirements are met after the SSI un it 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 pollutio n control alternatives that minimize, on a site-speci fic basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the environment, including impa cts of the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visib ility, soils, and vegetation. In considering such alterna tives, the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, no nair 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 fede ral 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 qualif ication requirements? (a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessib le,*** 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 wi thin 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supe rvisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate th e unit. If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4 835. (b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a state-approved program or by com pleting 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 paragrap hs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. (i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions. (ii) Basic combustion principles, including produc ts of combustion. (iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerato r to be used by the operator, including proper startu p, 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 a nd factors affecting performance (if applicable). (vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air pollution control devices. (vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to preven t 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 Heal th Administration workplace standards. (x) Pollution prevention. (2) An examination designed and administered by th e state-approved program. (3) Written material covering the training course topics that may serve as reference material followi ng completion of the course. §60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed? The operator training course must be completed by t he 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 assume s 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 cri teria under §60.4810(b). (b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training course is completed and the operator succe ssfully passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2 ). §60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualificati on? To maintain qualification, you must complete an ann ual review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of t his 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 b y attendees. §60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualifi cation? You must renew a lapsed operator qualification befo re you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the tw o 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 describ ed in §60.4825. (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repea t 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 m eet the criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) o f this section, depending on the length of time that a qua lified operator is not accessible. (a) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are famil iar with the operation of the SSI unit and who have complete d 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 wit hin the past 12 months. However, you must record the perio d when a qualified operator was not accessible and include t his deviation in the annual report as specified under §60.4915(d). (b) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r 2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions that a re described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this s ection. (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 anti cipate that a qualified operator will be accessible. (2) Submit a status report to the Administrator ev ery 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 access ible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to c ontinue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the fir st status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administ rator of the deviation under paragraph (b)(1) of this sectio n. (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 fo r 30 days, and then must cease operation. (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualifi ed operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a ). You must notify the Administrator within 5 days of havi ng resumed operations and of having a qualified operat or accessible. §60.4840 What site-specific documentation is requi red and how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage s ludge incineration unit operators and other plant personn el 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 s pecified under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation rea dily accessible to all SSI unit operators. (b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qual ified 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 i n §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months af ter 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 emplo yee’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 startu p, whichever comes first. The emission limits and sta ndards apply at all times the unit is operating, and durin g periods of malfunction. The emission limits and st andards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent whil e sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until th e sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge incineratio n residence time). §60.4850 What operating limits and requirements mu st 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 spec ified in paragraph (e) of this section. The operating param eters 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 requir ements in paragraph (f) of this section and the requiremen ts in paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new o perating limits, reestablished in §60.4890. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 cha mber (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 comp ly 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 pollut ion

control device. (c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits, you must install the bag leak dete ction system specified in §60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate t he 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 speci fied in §60.4870. (d) You must meet the operating requirements in yo ur site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, su bmitted 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 th e feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days a fter its initial startup, whichever comes first. (f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage slud ge 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 ra te and calculate a daily average for all hours of oper ation during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the d aily average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(i i). (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 oth er than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comp ly 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 th an a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precip itator, or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions i n some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply wi th the emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requ irements 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 operat ing 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. You must not conduct the initial performance test u ntil after the petition has been approved by the Adminis trator, and you must comply with the operating limits as wr itten, pending approval by the Administrator. Neither sub mittal*** 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 list ed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this s ection. (i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to monitor. (ii) A discussion of the relationship between thes e parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants c hange with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulat ed 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 ass ociated 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 standard s, and operating limits apply during periods of startup, s hutdown, and malfunction? The emission limits and standards apply at all time s and during periods of malfunction. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 a re caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Approp riate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in t he 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 mee t 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 t his

section are met. (1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this sec tion. (i) Were caused by a sudden, shor t, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and mo nitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to opera te in a

normal or usual manner. (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and mai ntenance practices. (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or taken into

account planned for

. (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicati ve 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 exce ss 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 quali ty, the environment and human health. (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems w ere kept in operation if at all possible consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices

. (7) All of Your the actions in response to the excess emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs. (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizin g 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 em issions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emis sions

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) trans mission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business d ays 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 ass ert an affirmative defense, you must also submit a written report to the Administrator within 30 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in §60 .4845 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting document ation, that you have met the requirements set forth in par agraph (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 b efore 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 reque st 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 occurrenc e of the

exceedance. Initial Compliance Requirements §60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial com pliance with the emission limits and standards? To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpar t, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this s ection for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/ furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow th e procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this secti on for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures s pecified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedu res specified in paragraph (b) of this section for part iculate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total ma ss basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxid es, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet t he*** 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 secti on, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this sect ion, according to the performance testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). E xcept as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 6 0 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its initial start up, whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that yo ur SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards specif ied in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test required in §60.8. You must demon strate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and st andards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for parti culate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total ma ss basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxid es, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissio ns from ash handling using the performance test. The initi al performance test must be conducted using the test m ethods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and calibrati on 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 continu ous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous em issions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/fu rans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to hydrogen ch loride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in th e 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 contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al Register . Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and use the following procedures: (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the car bon monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 t o this subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuou s 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 s ubpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/ furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous monitoring syste m 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 req uired in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: (i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring system for any pollutant speci fied in paragraph (b)(2) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the initial performance test for that pollutant in para graph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/fu ran 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 sec tion, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring sy stem 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 comp liance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arith metic average emission concentrations, calculated using E quation 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in pa ragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: (i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 Performanc e Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Proc edure 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 continuo us automated sampling systems according to the provisi ons of §60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be cond ucted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specif ied 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/fu rans 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 octa

chlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, m M ultiply the isomer concentration of each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octa-chlorinat ed) 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 tota l*** 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 s S ubmit an initial compliance report, as specified in §60.4915(c). (e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a the 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the ini tial performance test as soon as practicable after the f orce majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine w hether or not to grant the extension to the initial perfor mance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of ap proval or disapproval of the request for an extension as s oon as practicable. Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved by the Administrator, yo u remain strictly subject to the requirements of this subpar t. §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 t his 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 confir m these operating limits or reestablish new operating limit s using the most recent performance tests required in §60.4 885. You must follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and data averaging times specified in T able 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 e stablish operating limits for the operating parameters liste d in Table 3 to this subpart for a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce 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 o f hydrogen chloride and or sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monito r 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 f or 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 o f particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monitor pressur e 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 demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or and lead. (3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, a nd lead, you are not required to establish an operating limi t and monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage of the collection plates, or and effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring s ystem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or and lead. (4) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of mercury, you are not requir ed to establish an operating limit and monitor mercury sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrie r 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 demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for mercury. (5) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monito r 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 emiss ion 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 cadm ium emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, eq ual to

the lowest 4- hour ly average pressure drop across each such

wet scrubber recorded measured during th re e most recent performance test run periods demonstrating 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 lowes t 4-

hour ly average liquid flow rate recorded measured during

th re e most recent performance test run*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 218 of 494

periods demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limitations

. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubb er used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chlorid e emission limit s in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equal to

the lowest 1- hour ly average scrubber liquid pH measured during the th re e most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chl oride emission limitations run periods at the inlet to each applicable wet scrubber

. (e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperatu re (or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest

4- hour ly average combustion chamber operating temperature (or afterburner temperature) recorded measured during th re e

most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limitations

. (f) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-

hour ly average power input recorded measured during th re e

most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and c admium 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 precipitator collection plates. B , b oth the secondary voltage and secondary amperage must b e recorded during th re e performance test run periods

. (g) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the lowest 4-

hour ly average effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator recorded measured during

th re e most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter, lead, and c admium

emission limitations

. (h) For activated carbon injection, establish the site-specific operating limits specified in paragra phs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section. (1) Minimum mercury sorbent injection rate, equal to

the lowest 4- hour ly average mercury sorbent injection rate

recorded measured during th re e most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limitation

. (2) Minimum dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate, equal to the lowest 4- hour ly average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate recorded measured during th re e most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equival ency*** 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 carri er gas pressure drop, as follows: (i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the

lowest 4- hour ly average carrier gas flow rate

recorded measured during th re e most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limitation

. (ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to t he

lowest 4- hour ly average carrier gas flow rate

recorded measured during th re e most recent performance test run periods demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limitation

. (i) Y ou 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 a ir pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? (a) You must conduct an air pollution control devi ce inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of installing an air pollution control device or withi n 180 days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollu tion 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 complet ed unless you obtain written approval from the Adminis trator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs o f the SSI unit must be completed. §60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitori ng plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? You must develop and submit to the Administrator fo r approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system required under this su bpart, according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) thr ough (d) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative moni toring parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of thi s section. If you use a continuous automated samplin g system to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total m ass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, y ou must develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58 b(q), and you are not required to meet the requirements i n*** 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 a lso submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of t his section. You must submit and update your monitorin g 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 requi rements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of th is 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 syst em sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that th e measurement is representative of control of the exh aust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last contr ol device). (2) Performance and equipment specifications for t he sample interface, the pollutant concentration or pa rametric signal analyzer and the data collection and reducti on systems. (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptan ce*** 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, y our performance evaluation and acceptance criteria will must 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 duratio n of out-of-control periods will affect the suitabili ty of CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning giv en 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 a ssurance procedures. (A) If you have an operating limit that requires th e 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 representat ive

flow. (2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivi ty of no greater than 2 percent of the expected proces s flow

rate. (3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnor mal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstre am 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 frequentl y than annually. (B) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of thi s section. (1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position t hat provides a representative measurement of the pressu re (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 n ot obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage d aily). (5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressu re monitoring system in accordance with your monitorin g plan at the time of each performance test but no less fr equently than annually. (6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds t he manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure mo nitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system continues to me et 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 i n (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provi des*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 226 of 494

a representative measurement of scrubber effluent p H. (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 monitorin g plan at least once each process operating day. (4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a t wopoint calibration with one of the two buffer soluti ons having a pH within 1 of the pH of the operating lim it) of the pH monitoring system in accordance with your mo nitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no le ss frequently than quarterly. (D) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of a temperature measurement device, you must m eet the requirements in (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of thi s 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 tolera nce of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1 .0 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, 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 tolera nce of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2 .5 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a cryogenic temperature range. (4) Conduct a temperature measurement device performance evaluation at the time of each performa nce 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 requi rements 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 electri c power monitoring system in accordance with your mon itoring plan at the time of each performance test but no le ss frequently than annually. (F) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injec tion rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flo w measurement device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(F)(1) through (2) of this sec tion. (1) Install the system in a position(s) that provi des*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 228 of 494

a representative measurement of the total sorbent i njection

rate. (2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorben t injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance tes t but no less frequently than annually. (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures i n 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 t he applicable calibration drift specification in the applicable performance specification or in the rele vant

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 aud it, 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 correctiv e action and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate t hat the system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance require ments are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a perform ance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements establis hed under this part. The end of the out-of-control per iod is the hour following the completion of corrective act ion 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 f ollowing 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 rela tive or absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhau st stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a posit ive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. (B) Use a bag leak detection system certified by t he manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per ac tual cubic meter or less. (2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag lea k 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 recogniz ed 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 pr ovided in EPA–454/R–98–015 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17). ( 3 4 ) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures. ( 4 5 ) Maintenance of How the bag leak detection system

will be maintained , including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list. ( 6 5 ) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of How the bag leak detection system data output will be recorded

and stored

. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal f rom 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 continuo us monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the monitoring system. (d) You must submit a monitoring plan specifying t he*** 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 sta ndards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of parag raphs (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 l onger averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed levels achieved over the duration of three performa nce test

runs. (2) If the application to use an alternate monitor ing requirement is approved, you must continue to use t he original monitoring requirement until approval is r eceived to use another monitoring requirement. (3) You must submit the application for approval o f 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, su ch 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 par ameter to be monitored, the monitoring approach and techni que, the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit i s to be

calculated. (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring requirement would provide eq uivalent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. (4) The Administrator will notify you of the appro val or denial of the application within 90 calendar day s after receipt of the original request, or within 60 calen dar days of the receipt of any supplementary information, wh ichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an al ternate monitoring application unless it would provide equi valent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. Before disapproving any alterna te monitoring application, the Administrator will prov ide 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 wh ich the intended disapproval is based. (ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting information before final acti on 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. Neither submittal of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove th e application relieves you of the responsibility to c omply 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 esta blishing operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate comp liance 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 th is section, at least 60 days before your initial compl iance

test date. (h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring p lan if there are any changes or potential changes in yo ur monitoring procedures or if there is a process chan ge, 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 emiss ion limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to t his subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chlor ide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalen cy basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this s ection for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedur es specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you als o have the option to demonstrate continuous compliance usi ng the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this secti on for*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 236 of 494

particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/fura ns (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, 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) thr ough (e) of this section, according to the performance testi ng, monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.490 0(a) and (b). You may also petition the Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters as specified in p aragraph (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 th e initial performance test for each pollutant in Tabl e 1 or 2 to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed , you must conduct a performance test for each such pollu tant on a calendar year and annual basis ( no less than 9 calendar

months and no more than 15 calenda r 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, aver aging 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 accor ding to the testing, monitoring, and calibration requiremen ts specified in §60.4900(a). (1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. The Administrator m ay 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 t est for any pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart e xcept carbon monoxide demonstrates that the emission leve l for the pollutant is no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of t his 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 perform ance test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You m ust 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 c admium*** 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 le vels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section fo r you to qualify for less frequent testing under this paragr aph. (i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalenc y basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, and lead, the emission level equal to 50 percent of the applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this s ubpart. (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 three 1-hour observation periods. (4) If you are conducting less frequent testing fo r a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emis sion level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii ) of this section, as applicable, you must conduct annua l performance tests for the pollutant according to th e schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollu tant 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 continuou s automated sampling system. The option to use a con tinuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on th e date a final performance specification applicable to hydro gen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is publi shed 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 s uch a continuous automated sampling system is published i n 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 ca rbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system spe cified in §60.4900(b). (2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen ch loride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalen cy basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuou s 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 speci fied in paragraph (b)(2) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the annual performance test for that pollutant in parag raph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/fur an 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 moni toring system and follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, cor rected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour bloc k 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on 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 ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 subp art. (B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance w ith the dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or to xic 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 samp ling 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 performanc e evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring system and continuo us*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 242 of 494

automated sampling systems, according to the schedu le specified in your monitoring plan. If you were pre viously determining compliance by conducting an annual perf ormance test (or according to the less frequent testing for a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection), you must complete the initial performance evaluatio n required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for th e continuous monitoring system prior to using the con tinuous emissions monitoring system to demonstrate complian ce or continuous automated sampling system. Your perform ance evaluation must be conducted using the procedures a nd acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3). (c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/fur ans toxic equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) o r (b) of this section, you must determine dioxins/furans tox ic equivalency as follows: (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted usin g EPA Method 23.(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with par agraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply the isomer concent ration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor speci fied 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 tota l 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 devi ation report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance t hat 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the per formance 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. U ntil 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 com pliance, 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 complianc e with my operating limits? You must continuously monitor your operating parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this se ction and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, according to the monitoring and calibratio n requirements in §60.4905. You must confirm and ree stablish 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 equipm ent and according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 o r established in §60.4855. You must use the averaging period established in Table 3 of this Subpart Four

- 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) u nless a different averaging period is established under §60 .4855. (1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets t he 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 t he operating limit for bag leak detection systems as f ollows: (i) For a bag leak detection system, you must

calculate the alarm time as follows: (A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrate s that no corrective action is required, no alarm tim e is

counted. (B) If corrective action is required, each alarm t ime

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 ti me 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 spec ified 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 r ange of the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits established under this subpart, except during perfo rmance tests conducted to determine compliance with the em ission 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 subpar t. (c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous compliance. (d) You must confirm your operating limits accordi ng to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of t his section. Your operating limits must be established so as to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limi ts. 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 operati ng data recorded during any the most recent performance test conducted to comply with this subpart or any the 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 a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. §60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air po llution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs? (a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution control device used to comply with the em ission limits, according to §60.4900(c), within 10 to no later than 12 months following the previous annual air polluti on 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 approva l from the Administrator establishing a date whereby all n ecessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements §60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitor ing, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission

limits and standards? You must meet, as applicable, the performance testi ng requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this sec tion,*** 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 insp ections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this sec tion, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragr aph (d) of this section. (a) Performance testing requirements

. (1) All performance tests must consist of a minimu m of three test runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations, as specified i n § 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limit s or standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered deviations from the appl icable emission limits or standards. (2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the performance test is representative of th e sludge burned under normal operating conditions by: (i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned during the performance test by contin uously monitoring and recording the average hourly rate th at 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 incine rator*** 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, includin g measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneous ly with

each method. (6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry

basis. (20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (de fined

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. %O 2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,

percent. (7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in accordance with the test methods and pro cedures 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 th e results of which he has determined to be adequate f or indicating whether a specific source is in complian ce. (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 variabl es or other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is constr ued to abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require t esting

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 a s specified under other subparts, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present. If af ter 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 perform ance 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 emiss ion rates can be accurately determined by applicable te st methods and procedures. (B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flo w during performance tests, as demonstrated by applic able 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, e ach performance test must consist of three separate run s using the applicable test method. Each run must be condu cted for the time and under the conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic me an of the three runs. In the event that a sample is acci dentally lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, fa ilure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extre me meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the Administrato r’s approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean o f the

results of the two other runs. (11) During each test run specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewag e sludge incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maxi mum permitted capacity. (b) Continuous monitor requirements . You must meet the following requirements, as applicable, when usi ng a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce 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 sys tem for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specificatio n applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, ca dmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register . If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring system ins tead of conducting annual performance testing, you must mee t the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. If you elect to use a continuous automate d sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragrap h (b)(7) of this section. The option to use a continuous au tomated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al Register

. (1) You must notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the continuous monitoring sy stem. (2) You must notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the continuous monitoring sy stem, 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 a nd recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accord ance 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 Specificat ion 11 of appendix B of this part. (B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specificati on 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 a ccuracy*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 255 of 494

determinations and daily calibration drift tests) o f appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this secti on. For each pollutant, the span value of the continuous em issions monitoring system is two times the applicable emiss ion limit, expressed as a concentration. (A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendi x 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 o r 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 paragra ph (b)(5) of this section) must be collected concurren tly (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the conti nuous emissions monitor ing systems s and the test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(vi ii) of this section. Relative accuracy testing must be at representative operating conditions while the SSI u nit is charging sewage sludge. (i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR par t 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 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 shall be used. , or as an

a A lternative ly 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), may 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 ANSI/AS ME PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analys e s [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 volum e, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur dioxid e continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the method tes t 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 em issions monitoring system, whichever is greater. (viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as establishe d in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 C FR part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative ANSI/ASME PT C 19.10–

1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analys e s [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used. (5) You may request that compliance with the emiss ion limits be determined using carbon dioxide measureme nts 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 leve ls must be established during the initial performance test according to the procedures and methods specified i n paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this sec tion. This relationship may be re-established during subs equent performance compliance tests. (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CF R 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 Analys e s [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 di oxide 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 sys tem and collect data with the continuous monitoring sys tem as

follows: (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected SSI uni t is operating and at the intervals specified in paragra ph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions defined in §60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitori ng system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero an d span adjustments). Any such periods that you do not col lect data using the continuous monitoring system constit ute 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 monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities conducted during mo nitoring system malfunctions must not be included in calcula tions 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 mo nitoring system quality assurance or control activities cond ucted 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 monito ring system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constit ute 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 paragraph s (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of this section in asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol system. (7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must: (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system according to t he 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 inspectio ns 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 equi pment. ( 3 2 ) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good operating condition. ( 3 4 ) 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 by pass stack during a performance test invalidates the per formance

test. §60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s? (a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the continuous parameter monitoring system s 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 fl ow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement

devices: (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected SSI uni t 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 paragra ph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions defined in §60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitori ng system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero an d span adjustments). Any such periods that you do not col lect data using the continuous monitoring system constit ute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report. (ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities conducted during mo nitoring system malfunctions must not be included in calcula tions used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation r eport. (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 mo nitoring system quality assurance or control activities cond ucted 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 monito ring system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constit ute 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 paragraph s (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section in asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol system. (vi) Determine the 4

- hour rolling average of all recorded readings, except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section. (vi i ) 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 activat ed*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 265 of 494

carbon injection), during the performance test cond ucted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, accordi ng to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this cha pter. (ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrat e that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accura cy. (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 representat ive

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 distur bances. (D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at lea st semi

- annually. (E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activa ted carbon injection), during the performance test cond ucted 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 t he use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the following requirements: (A) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position th at 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 ran ge. (D) Ensure continuous acceptable operation (e.g.,

c heck pressure tap for pluggage )

. (E) C heck gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified max imum 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 demonstrat e that the system is maintained wit hin +/

- 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 t he following requirements: (A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provid es a representative measurement of scrubber eff luent 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 operation daily

. (iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a temperature measurement device, you must m eet the following requirements: (A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necess ary equipment in a position that provides a representat ive temperature. (B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum toler ance of 2. 3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1.0 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a noncryogenic temperature range. (C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolera nce of 2. 3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, 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 t he continuous parameter monitoring systems for voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak det ection system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b )(3) of this section. (1) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of equipment to moni tor secondary voltage and secondary amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic preci pitator, you must use secondary voltage and secondary ampera ge monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage a nd secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitato r . (2) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorb ent 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 i njection

rate. (ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordanc e 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

accor dance 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 install ed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner co nsistent 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 part iculate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. (D) The bag leak detection system sensor must prov ide output of relative or a bsolute 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 sig nal from

the sensor. (F) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound automa tically when an increase in relative particulate matter emissions o ver a preset level is detected. The alarm must be locate d such that the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator where 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. Additiona lly: ( G i ) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct all compartments of cells to a common s tack, a bag leak detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. ( H ii ) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be share d among

detectors. (I) You must operate and mainta in 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

(ii i ) You must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, a nd you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hou rs of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) a re necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following: (A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, to rn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condit ion that may cause an increase in particulate matter emissio ns. (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 o r 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 paragraph s (a) and (b) of this section in continuous operation acc ording 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’ specification s), maintain, and operate a device or method for measur ing the use of the bypass stack including date, time, and d uration. Recordkeeping and Reporting §60.4910 What records must I keep? You must maintain the items (as applicable) specifi ed 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 th at can be printed upon request, unless an alternative form at 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 paragr aphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must ma ke 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 traini ng 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 feedi ng sewage sludge. (iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfuncti on 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 n umber at which they can be reached during operating hours. (2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as foll ows:*** 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 operator s 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 r eview and all subsequent annual reviews. (ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operator s who have completed the operator training requiremen ts under §60.4810, met the criteria for qualification under §60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualifica tion under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of t heir initial qualification and all subsequent renewals o f such qualifications. (3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, bu t 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 po llution control device inspections conducted as specified i n §§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 a nd/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 ra te 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 re cord of the moisture content measured as required in §60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of th e sewage sludge burned during the performance test. (f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as applicable: (1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, a ll 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 dioxid e, 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 fl ow rate

and scrubber liquid pH as introduced to for each wet scrubber used to comply with an emission limit in T able 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 compl y 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 fee d 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 th e rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm an d 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 t he 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 parameter s 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 system s . 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 stop ping 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 determi ned using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. (3) If activated carbon injection is used to compl y with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any cha nges 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 rece ived from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls , and monitoring equipment. (j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation chec ks of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, calibrations, and validations checks of any monitor ing*** 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 fo r continuous monitoring systems . Records of the monitoring plans required under §60.4880, and records of perfo rmance evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). (l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that your SSI unit qualifies for less freq uent testing under §60.4885(a)(3). (m) Use of bypass stack . Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durat ions 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 th is 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) thro ugh (b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: (1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity

. (2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry slud ge 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 und er §60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial perf ormance evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. (6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system required under §60.4880, at least 6 0 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 followi ng 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 t he 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 res ults of that initial performance evaluation. (6) The values for the site-specific operating lim its established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and t he calculations and methods, as applicable, used to es tablish each operating limit. (7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply wit h the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been installed and is being op erated, calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850( b). (8) The results of the initial air pollution contr ol 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 li sted 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 f or the reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of t his section. You must submit your first annual complia nce report no later than 12 months following the submis sion of the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of t his section. You must submit subsequent annual complia nce reports no more than 12 months following the previo us 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 t he 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 t est. (i) If operating limits were established during th e performance test, include the value for each operat ing limit and, as applicable, the method used to establ ish 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 car bon

used. (5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest average parameter value and lowest average paramete r 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 reportin g period from any emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to you, a statement th at there were no deviations from the emission limits, emissi on 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 tha t performance evaluation. If new operating limits we re established during the performance evaluation, incl ude your calculations for establishing those operating limit s. (9) If you met the requirements of §60.4885(a)(3) and did not conduct a performance test during the repor ting*** 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 thre e performance tests, a comparison of the emission lev el 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 th ere have been any process changes and whether the process ch ange resulted in an increase in emissions. (10) Documentation of periods when all qualified S SI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hou rs, but

less than 2 weeks. (11) Results of annual air pollution control devic e inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the repo rting 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 malf unction. (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 dur ing 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 perio d, a statement that you did not make any revisions to yo ur sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting perio d. 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 operating average parameter level is above the maximum operating limi t 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 fo r 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 emissio n limit. (iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percen t 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 sub part. (vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of

control. (vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may h ave caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded

. (2) The deviation report must be submitted by Augu st 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by Fe bruary 1 of the following year for data you collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to Decembe r 31). (3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with an asso ciated emission limit or operating limit, report the items described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(vi ii) of this section. (i) Company name, physical address, and mailing

address. (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with tha t official’s name, title, and signature, certifying t he accuracy of the content of the report (iii) The calendar dates and times your unit devia ted*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 287 of 494

from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating limits requirements. (iv) The averaged and recorded data for those date s. (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 o ut 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 starte d and stopped. (B) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. (C) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 288 of 494

monitoring system was out of control, including sta rt 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 sys tem as out of control, or during another period. (E) A summary of the total duration of the deviati on during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during t hat reporting period. (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those t hat 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 per iod, 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 occ urred during that reporting period. (H) An identification of each parameter and pollut ant 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 monitori ng 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 ass ociated emission limit or operating limit, report the follo wing items: (i) Company name, physical address, and mailing

address. (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying t he accuracy of the content of the report. (iii) The total operating time of each affected SS I during the reporting period. (iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviat ed from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating 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 operat ing 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 stan dard. (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 wit h 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 para graphs (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 Administrato r, under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an accessible qualified operator, you mu st 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 kn ew, or through due diligence should have known that the ev ent may cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notificatio n 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 t he initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the notice, and in such cases, the notificat ion must occur as soon as practicable. (2) You must provide to the Administrator a writte n description of the force majeure event and a ration ale 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 minim ize 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 befo re 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 com ply with the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present. (3) As specified in §60.4900(a)(8), you must notif y 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 de fined in §63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with thi s subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test aud it (i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., compliance test) data, except opacity data, electro nically 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 colle cted 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 a fter the date of completing each performance evaluation or perfor mance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit da ta 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 submit ting the

data el ectronically 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 re porting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approv al to change your reporting date. Title V Operating Permits §60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a t itle 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 operatin g permit unless you meet the relevant requirements for an ex emption specified in §60.4780. §60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit appli cation for my new SSI unit? (a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart i s not subject to an earlier permit application deadli ne, a complete title V permit application must be submitt ed 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 T HE

FEDERAL REGISTER ], then a complete title V permit application must be submitted not later than [INSER T THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FE DERAL

REGISTER ]. (2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operati on 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 th an 12 months after the date the unit commences operation as a new

source. (b) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart i s 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 pa rt of a major source), then your unit may be required to ap ply for a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified i n 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 Cl ean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). Yo u must submit a complete permit application by the relevan t 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 defi ned in the Clean Air Act and §60.2. Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put f orward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has t he burden of proof, and the merits of which are indepe ndently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administ rative 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 i n the exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) in orde r to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system i ncludes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittanc e, or other principle to monitor relative particulate mat ter 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 colle ction and sample recovery/analysis to determine a polluta nt concentration or emission rate by collecting a sing le 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 re cording the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facil ity. Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous automated s ampling system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other manual or automatic monitoring that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulat ion on a continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The t erm refers to the total equipment used to sample and co ndition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a perma nent record of emissions or process parameters. Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system for continuously measuring and re cording operating conditions associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressu re, and power). Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or oper ator of

such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limi ted 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 t his subpart and that is included in the operating permi t for any affected source required to obtain such a permi t. 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, wat er to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage slu dge 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 filter ing gas streams through filter media, also known as a bagho use. 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 th e 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 con trol or monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a proce ss to operate in a normal or usual manner (e.g., to provi de valid data for monitoring systems). Failures that are ca used, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the op erator shall operate within established emissions and oper ating limits and shall continue monitoring of all applica ble operating parameters until sewage sludge is no long er in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage slud ge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of t ime 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 li fe 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 dol lars). To determine what systems are within the boundary o f the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the def inition*** 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 amoun t of any air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or sect ion 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 attache d to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth t o hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. New sewage sludge incineration unit means an SSI unit the construction of which is commenced after Octobe r 14, 2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a mo dified solid waste incineration unit. Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight during which an y amount of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SS I 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 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CF R part 60, appendix A-8. Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of the test-run average secondary volta ge 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 e mission units for which the proposed permit revision is app licable, including but not limited to: (1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment facility associated with the a ffected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for disposi ng of process solids and processing of the sludge prior t o incineration). (2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the emission limits for the aff ected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for acti vated 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 remove d in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatmen t processes; and a material derived from sewage sludg e. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinera tion unit or grit and screenings generated during prelim inary 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 remo ving combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration uni t 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 treatmen t plant, or air pollution control facility and other discard ed material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or co ntained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commerc ial, 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 permi ts under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclea r, 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., na tural 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 estimat e of the compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorin ated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivale ncy 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 scrubbi ng liquid to collect particulate matter (including non vaporous 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 Incin eration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 9.6 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 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).*** 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 limit a 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, ( c C ollect a minimum volume of 1 3 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 1 2 00 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 Analys e s [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatu s] (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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Mercu ry 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 60 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average

(collect a minimum volume of 0.75 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 20 6 0 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 0.75 3 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 a s 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 Analys e s [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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Mercu ry 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 Parame ters for*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 318 of 494

New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a

For these operating parameters You must

establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording b 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 4 12 -hour

rolling block

. 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 12 -hour

rolling block

. c

Scrubber liquid flow rate Minimum flow

rate Continuous Every 15 minutes 4 12 -hour

rolling block

. c

Scrubber liquid pH Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 minutes 4 3 -hour

rolling block

. 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

recording b 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

recording b 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 block 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 12-hour block 4

- 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

recording b Averaging time

for compliance Mercury sorbent injection rate Minimum

mercury sorbent injection rate Hourly Hourly 12-hour block 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 12-hour

block 4

- hour rolling. c

a As specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages t o demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour average s. c Calculated 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 Equivalenc y Factors

Dioxin/furan isomer Toxic equivalency factor 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 11,2,3,7,8-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 Repor ting Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Uni ts a

Report Due date Contents Reference

Notification of construction Prior to commencing construction 1. Statement of intent to construct 2. Anticipated date of commencement of construction 3. Documentation for siting requirements 4. Anticipated date of initial startup §60.4915(a)

Notification of initial startup Prior to initial startup 1. Maximum design dry sewage sludge burning capacity 2. Anticipated and permitted maximum feed rate §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 petitionfor 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 CMS b 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 Referencethe 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 tha t 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 statem ent 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 avera ged 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 t he 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 us e 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 negativ e 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 spec ified in subpart B? 60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are the re other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its sectio n 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 pl an?

Use of Model Rule 60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the requ ired elements of my state plan? 60.5080 What are the principal components of the m odel rule?

Model Rule—Increments of Progress 60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting incre ments of progress and achieving final compliance? 60.5090 When must I complete each increment of pro gress? 60.5095 What must I include in the notifications o f 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 prog ress?*** 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 prog ress for submittal of a control plan? 60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of prog ress 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 cl ose my SSI unit and not restart it?

Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 60.5130 What are the operator training and qualifi cation 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 qualificatio n? 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualific ation? 60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not accessible? 60.5160 What site-specific documentation is requir ed and how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI oper ators 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 mus t I meet and by when? 60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I d o not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterb urner, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to co mply*** 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, s hutdown, 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 comp liance 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 ai r pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitorin g plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous 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 pol lution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs?

Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Cal ibration Requirements 60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitori ng, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission 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 limit s?

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 ti tle V operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit applic ation 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—Incre ments of Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Units Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sew age Sludge Incineration Units Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth S ewage Sludge Incineration Units Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Opera ting 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—Summa ry 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 f rom sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollut ants addressed by these emission guidelines are listed i n Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 12 9 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the e xtent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent wit h the requirements of subpart A of this part, the require ments 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 wi th 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 implemen ts the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. (b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSE RT 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 comme nced on or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you s ubmit a negative declaration letter in place of the state p lan. §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 tho se that have ceased operation but have not been disman tled. (2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in your state. (3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI uni t. (4) Emission limits, emission standards, operator training and qualification requirements, and operat ing limits for affected SSI units that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. (5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and report ing requirements. (6) Certification that the hearing on the state pl an was held, a list of witnesses and their organizatio nal*** 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 sub mission. (7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. (8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms that you selected for implementing the emission gui delines 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 an d content of the emission guidelines contained in thi s 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 cont ained in this subpart. Your state plan must address regulat ory applicability, increments of progress for retrofit, operator training and qualification, emission limit s 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 fo r 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 REGIST ER ], 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 cov ered 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 app roved. §60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negati ve declaration letter? No. The EPA has no formal review process for negat ive declaration letters. Once your negative declaratio n letter has been received, EPA will place a copy in the pub lic 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 automati cally apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is app roved. §60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include i n 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 o r before October 14, 2010, your state plan must inclu de compliance schedules that require SSI units to achi eve final compliance as expeditiously as practicable af ter approval of the state plan but not later than the e arlier 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 app roval, state plans must include dates for enforceable incr ements of progress as specified in §60.5090. §60.5040 Are there any state plan requirements for this subpart that apply instead of the requirements spec ified in subpart B? Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements fo r developing and processing section 111(d) state plan s. This subpart applies instead of the requirements in subp art B of this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) o f 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 subpar t must be as protective as the emission guidelines co ntained in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This ap plies instead of the option for case-by-case less stringe nt emission standards and longer compliance schedules in §60.24(f). (b) State plans developed to implement this subpar t are required to include two increments of progress for the affected SSI units. These two minimum increments a re the final control plan submittal date and final complia nce date in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of t he requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a st ate plan to include all five increments of progress for all SSI units. §60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are th ere 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 mee ts the requirements of this section. This is the only oth er*** 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 lega l authority to administer and enforce the federal pla n. (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 st ate plan submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at t he hearing, and a brief written summary of each presen tation 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 de legation and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer o f 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 t ime of the delegation request, the state also requests wit hdrawal 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 paragrap hs (a) through (g) of this section. (a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limit s 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 recordkeepin g 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 un der §60.8(b). §60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI uni t 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 pla n you develop to implement the emission guidelines contai ned 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 t his subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DAT E 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 commen ced 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 me et all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) t hrough*** 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 u nit 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 af ter [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICA TION IN

THE FEDERAL REGISTER ], the SSI unit becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this part and the state plan no lon ger 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 DAT E 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. Suc h changes do not qualify as modifications under subpa rt LLLL of this part. §60.5065 What SSI units are exempt from my state p lan? This subpart exempts combustion units that incinera te sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater t reatment*** 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 par t (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 emissio n guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that address es the regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. T he model rule provides these requirements in regulation form at. You must develop a state plan that is at least as prote ctive as the model rule. You may use the model rule languag e as part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alte rnative language is at least as protective as the model rul e contained in this subpart. (b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250 , “you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specifie d in §60.5250. §60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the req uired 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 sectio n. (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 calibrati on requirements. (g) Recordkeeping and reporting. (h) Definitions. (i) Tables. Model Rule—Increments of Progress §60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting incr ements 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 pr ogress? 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 ha s 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 a fter the compliance date for the increment. §60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of pro gress? If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you m ust*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 351 of 494

submit a notification to the Administrator postmark ed within 10 business days after the date for that inc rement of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must i nform the Administrator that you did not meet the increme nt, and you must continue to submit reports each subsequent calendar month until the increment of progress is m et. §60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of pro gress for submittal of a control plan? For your control plan increment of progress, you mu st satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraph s (a) and (b) of this section. (a) Submit the final control plan that includes th e 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 co mply with the emission limits and standards and other requirements of this subpart. (2) The type(s) of waste to be burned, if waste ot her 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 pro gress for achieving final compliance? For the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete all process changes and retrofit cons truction of control devices, as specified in the final contr ol 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 pl an, 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 li mits, emission standards, and operating limits on the dat e your unit restarts operation. §60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently c lose 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 comp ly 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 qualif ication requirements? (a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessib le, either at the facility or can be at the facility wi thin 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supe rvisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate th e unit. If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5 155. (b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a state-approved program or by com pleting 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 paragrap hs*** 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 produc ts of combustion. (iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerato r to be used by the operator, including proper startu p, sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. (iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. (v) Operation of air pollution control equipment a nd factors affecting performance (if applicable). (vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air pollution control devices. (vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to preven t 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 Heal th Administration workplace standards. (x) Pollution prevention. (2) An examination designed and administered by th e 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 followi ng completion of the course. §60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed? The operator training course must be completed by t he 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 assume s 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 cri teria under §60.5130(b). (b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training course is completed and the operator succe ssfully passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2 ). §60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualificati on? To maintain qualification, you must complete an ann ual*** 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 t his

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 b y attendees. §60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualifi cation? You must renew a lapsed operator qualification befo re you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the tw o 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 describ ed in §60.5145. (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repea t 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 m eet the criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) o f this section, depending on the length of time that a qua lified operator is not accessible. (a) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are famil iar with the operation of the SSI unit and who have complete d a review of the information specified in §60.5160 wit hin the past 12 months. However, you must record the perio d when a qualified operator was not accessible and include t his deviation in the annual report as specified under §60.5235(d). (b) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r 2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions that a re described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this s ection. (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 anti cipate 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 ev ery 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 access ible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to c ontinue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the fir st status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administ rator of the deviation under paragraph (b)(1) of this sectio n. (i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation fo r 30 days, and then must cease operation. (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualifi ed operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a ). You must notify the Administrator within 5 days of havi ng resumed operations and of having a qualified operat or accessible. §60.5160 What site-specific documentation is requi red and how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI oper ators 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 s pecified*** 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 rea dily accessible to all SSI unit operators. (b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information listed in §60.5230(c)(1) with each qual ified 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 i n §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months af ter the effective date of this subpart or prior to an emplo yee'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 fi nal compliance date under the approved state plan, fede ral plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission l imits*** 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 operat ing 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 b een cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage s ludge incineration residence time. §60.5170 What operating limits and requirements mu st 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 spec ified in paragraph (e) of this section. The operating param eters 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 requir ements in paragraph (f) of this section and the requiremen ts in paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new o perating limits, reestablished in §60.5210. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 cha mber (or afterburner combustion chamber) that you establish in §60.5190. (b) If you use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterb urner to comply with an emission limit, you must meet the si tespecific operating limits that you establish in §60 .5190 for each operating parameter associated with each a ir pollution control device. (c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits, you must install the bag leak dete ction system specified in §60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate t he 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 speci fied in §60.5210(a)(2)(i). (d) You must meet the operating requirements in yo ur site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, su bmitted 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, a s applicable. (f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage slud ge incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. (1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed ra te and calculate a daily average for all hours of oper ation during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the d aily average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(i i). (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 oth er than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comp ly 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 afterb urner, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to co mply with the emission limits? If you use an air pollution control device other th an a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precip itator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limi t emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials bal ance) to comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you mu st 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 operat ing 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. You must not conduct the initial performance test u ntil after the petition has been approved by the Adminis trator, and you must comply with the operating limits as wr itten, pending approval by the Administrator. Neither sub mittal 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 list ed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this s ection. (i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to monitor. (ii) A discussion of the relationship between thes e parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants c hange with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulat ed 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 ass ociated 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 standard s, and operating limits apply during periods of startup, s hutdown, and malfunction? The emission limits and standards apply at all time s and during periods of malfunction. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 a re caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Approp riate penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to m eet 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 mee t 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 t his

section are met. (1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this sec tion. (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and mo nitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to opera te in a

normal or usual manner. (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and mai ntenance*** 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

account planned for

. (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicati ve 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 exce ss 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 quali ty, the environment and human health. (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems w ere 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 the 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 minimizin g 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 em issions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emis sions

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) trans mission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business d ays 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 ass ert 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 30 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in §60 .5165 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting document ation, that you have met the requirements set forth in par agraph (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 b efore the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a reque st 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 occurrenc e of the

exceedance. Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements §60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial com pliance with the emission limits and standards? To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpar t, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this s ection. In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragr aph (a) of this section, you have the option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedures specified in paragr aph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen ch loride,*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 370 of 494

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis o r toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfu r dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the requirements of paragr aphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragra phs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the perfo rmance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements i n §60.5220(a) and (b). (a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test required in §60.8. You must demon strate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and st andards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for parti culate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins /furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling using the perf ormance test. The initial performance test must be conduct ed using the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sa mpling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to t his subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must demonstrate that your SSI unit me ets 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 Tab le 1 to this subpart). (2) You may use the results from a performance tes t conducted within the 2 previous years that was cond ucted under the same conditions and demonstrated complian ce with

the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 t o 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 d uring the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits and standards i n 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 continu ous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous em issions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/fu rans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to hydrogen ch loride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in th e 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 contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al 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 s ubpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon m onoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalen cy basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuou s 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 speci fied in paragraph (b)(1) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the initial performance test for that pollutant in para graph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/fur an 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 foll ow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must me asure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial comp liance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arith metic average emission concentrations, calculated using E quation 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in pa ragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: (i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 thi s subpart. (ii) Comply with the provisions in §60.58b(q) to develop a monitoring plan. For mercury continuous automated sampling systems, you must use Performanc e Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Proc edure 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 continu ous automated sampling systems by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance ev aluation must be conducted using the procedures and acceptan ce 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/fu rans 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

- t hrough octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply the isomer

concentr ation 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 tota l concentration of dioxins/furans emitted in terms of toxic equivalency. (d) You must s S ubmit an initial compliance report, as specified in §60.5235(b). (e) If you demonstrate initial compliance using a the 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng 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 ini tial performance test as soon as practicable after the f orce majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine w hether or not to grant the extension to the initial perfor mance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of ap proval or disapproval of the request for an extension as s oon as practicable. Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved by the Administrator, yo u remain strictly subject to the requirements of this subpar t. §60.5190 How do I establish my operating limits? (a) You must establish the site-specific operating limits specified in paragraphs (b) through ( j 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 confir m these operating limits or reestablish new operating limit s using the most recent performance tests required in §60.5 205. You must follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and data averaging times specified in T able 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 e stablish*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 377 of 494

operating limits for the operating parameters liste d in Table 4 to this subpart for a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce 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 o f hydrogen chloride and or sulfur dioxide, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monito r 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 f or hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. (2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions o f particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monitor pressur e 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 demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or and lead. (3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, a nd 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 limi t and monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage of the collection plates, and or effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring s ystem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, lead, or and cadmium. (4) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of mercury, you are not requir ed to establish an operating limit and monitor mercury sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrie r gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for mercury. (5) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monito r 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 emiss ion 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 cadm ium emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, eq ual to

the lowest 4- hour l y 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 lowes t 4-

hour ly average liquid flow rate measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance wi th all applicable emission limitations. rec orded during t hree performance test run periods. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubb er used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chlorid e emission limit s in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equal to

the lowest 1- hour ly average scrubber liquid pH measured during the most recent three performance test demonstrating compliance with the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chl oride emission limitations run 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 tempera ture (or afterburner temperature) measured during the most r ecent 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 chamb er operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly average combustion chamber operating temperature recorded during

t hree performance t est run periods. ( f ) If you use an afterburner to comply with the requirement of this rule, minimum afterburner combu stion

chamber operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly afterburner combustion chamber temperature recorded during

t hree performance test run periods. ( g f ) Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest 4-hour average secondary electric power measured during th e most recent performance test demonstrating compliance wi th the particulate matter, lead, and cadmium emission limi tations. Power input must be calculated as the product of th e 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 re corded during the performance test. Minimum power input to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates, equal to the lowest hourly average power input recorded during t hree performance test run periods. P ower input must be calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitato r, both recorded during three performance test run periods

. ( g h ) Minimum effluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator, equal to the low est 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 limi tations. 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 t he electrostatic precipitator recorded during three performance test run periods

. ( i h ) For activated carbon injection, establish the site-specific operating limits specified in paragra phs ( h i )(1) through ( i h )( 2 3 ) 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 rat e measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limitation 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 4-hour average dioxin/furan sorbent injection rate measured during the most recent perf ormance test demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limitation hourly average dioxin/furan sorbent injection

rate recorded during three performance test run periods

. (3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carri er gas pressure drop, as follows: (i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured durin g the most recent performance test demonstrating comp liance 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 t he

lowest 4-hour average carrier gas flow rate measured durin g*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 383 of 494

the most recent performance test demonstrating comp liance with the applicable emission limitation hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorded during three performance test run periods

. (j) Y ou 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 a ir pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? (a) You must conduct an air pollution control devi ce inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final co mpliance date under the approved state plan, federal plan, o r delegation, as applicable. For air pollution contr ol 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 complet ed unless you obtain written approval from the Adminis trator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs o f the SSI unit must be completed. §60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitori ng 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 dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? You must develop and submit to the Administrator fo r approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system required under this su bpart, according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) thr ough (c) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative moni toring parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of thi s section. If you use a continuous automated samplin g system to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total m ass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58 b(q), and you are not required to meet the requirements i n paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must a lso submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of t his section. You must submit and update your monitorin g 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 requi rements*** 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 th is 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 syst em sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that th e measurement is representative of control of the exh aust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last contr ol device). (2) Performance and equipment specifications for t he sample interface, the pollutant concentration or pa rametric signal analyzer and the data collection and reducti on systems. (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptan ce criteria (e.g., calibrations)

. (i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, y our performance evaluation and acceptance criteria will must 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 duratio n of out-of-control periods will affect the suitabili ty of CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning giv en 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 th e 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 representat ive

flow. (2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivi ty of no greater than 2 percent of the expected proces s flow

rate. (3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnor mal*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 387 of 494

velocity distributions due to upstream and downstre am 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 frequentl y than annually. (B) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in (a)(3)(ii)(B)(1) through (6) of thi s section. (1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position t hat provides a representative measurement of the pressu re (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 n ot obstructed (e.g., check for pressure tap pluggage d aily). (5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressu re*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 388 of 494

monitoring system in accordance with your monitorin g plan at the time of each performance test but no less fr equently than annually. (6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds t he manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure mo nitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system continues to me et 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 i n (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provi des a representative measurement of scrubber effluent p H. (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 monitorin g plan at least once each process operating day. (4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a t wopoint calibration with one of the two buffer soluti ons*** 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 lim it) of the pH monitoring system in accordance with your mo nitoring plan at the time of each performance test but no le ss frequently than quarterly. (D) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of a temperature measurement device, you must m eet the requirements in (a)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (4) of thi s 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 tolera nce of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1 .0 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a noncryogenic temperature range. (3) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolera nce of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2 .5 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a cryogenic temperature range. (4) Conduct a temperature measurement device performance evaluation at the time of each performa nce 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 requi rements 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 electri c power monitoring system in accordance with your mon itoring plan at the time of each performance test but no le ss frequently than annually. (F) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of a monitoring system to measure sorbent injec tion rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flo w measurement device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(F)(1) through (2) of this sec tion. (1) Install the system in a position(s) that provi des a representative measurement of the total sorbent i njection

rate. (2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the sorben t injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance tes t but no less frequently than annually. (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures i n 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 t he applicable calibration drift specification in the applicable performance specification or in the rele vant

standard. (B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fails a performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit) , relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy test aud it, 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 correctiv e action and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate t hat 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 require ments are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a perform ance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements establis hed under this part. The end of the out-of-control per iod is the hour following the completion of corrective act ion and successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits. (8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance evaluations of your continuous monitori ng 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 f ollowing 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 rela tive or absolute particulate matter loadings for each exhau st stack, roof vent, or compartment (e.g., for a posit ive*** 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 t he manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per ac tual cubic meter or less. (2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag lea k 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 recogniz ed 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 pr ovided in EPA–454/R–98–015 (incorporated by reference, see §60.17). ( 3 4 ) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality assurance procedures. ( 4 ) Maintenance of How 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

( 5 6 ) Recordkeeping (including record retention) of the bag leak detection system data. Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to continuo usly 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 t he operating procedures for your ash handling system t hat you will follow to ensure that that your meet the fugit ive emissions limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this s ubpart. (e) You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the sta ndards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of parag raphs (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 l onger*** 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 performa nce test

runs. (2) If the application to use an alternate monitor ing requirement is approved, you must continue to use t he original monitoring requirement until approval is r eceived to use another monitoring requirement. (3) You must submit the application for approval o f 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, su ch 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 par ameter to be monitored, the monitoring approach and techni que, the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit i s to be

calculated. (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring requirement would provide eq uivalent 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 appro val or denial of the application within 90 calendar day s after receipt of the original request, or within 60 calen dar days of the receipt of any supplementary information, wh ichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an al ternate monitoring application unless it would provide equi valent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. Before disapproving any alterna te monitoring application, the Administrator will prov ide the following: (i) Notice of the information and findings upon wh ich the intended disapproval is based. (ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting information before final acti on 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. Neither submittal of an application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove th e*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 397 of 494

application relieves you of the responsibility to c omply with any provision of this subpart. (6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case basis that additional or alternative o perating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing o perating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance wit h 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 th is section, at least 60 days before your initial compl iance

test date. (h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring p lan if there are any changes or potential changes in yo ur monitoring procedures or if there is a process chan ge, 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 emiss ion*** 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 t his subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the procedures spec ified 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 part iculate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins /furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must mee t the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sect ion, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the performance testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). Y ou may also petition the Administrator for alternative mon itoring parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this se ction. (a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (e) of this section, following the date that th e initial performance test for each pollutant in Tabl e 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 pr evious*** 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 m ust complete 5 performance tests for each such pollutan t 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 a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. The Administrator m ay 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 t est for any pollutant in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart demonstrates that the emission level for the pollut ant is no greater than the emission level specified in par agraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applica ble, and you are not required to conduct a performance test for the pollutant in response to a request by the Administr ator 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 chang e 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 pol lutant. 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 testin g under this paragraph. (i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, car bon monoxide, dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfu r dioxide, cadmium, and lead, the emission level equa l 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 three 1-hour observation periods. (4) If you are conducting less frequent testing fo r a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection*** 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 emis sion level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii ) of this section, as applicable, you must conduct annua l performance tests for the pollutant according to th e schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollu tant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. (b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuou s automated sampling system. The option to use a con tinuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on th e date a final performance specification applicable to hydro gen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is publi shed 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 s uch a continuous automated sampling system is published i n 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 ch loride,*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 402 of 494

carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis o r toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfu r 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) o f this section, as follows: (i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring system for any pollutant speci fied in paragraph (b)(1) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the annual performance test for that pollutant in parag raph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/fur an 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 comp liance*** 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 arith metic average emission concentrations, calculated using E quation 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on 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 ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 w ith 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 samp ling 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 performanc e evaluations required in your monitoring plan for an y continuous emissions monitoring systems and continu ous automated sampling systems, according to the schedu le specified in your monitoring plan. If you were pre viously determining compliance by conducting an annual perf ormance test (or according to the less frequent testing for a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection), you must complete the initial performance evaluatio n required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the continuous monitoring system prior to using the con tinuous emissions monitoring system to demonstrate complian ce or continuous automated sampling system. Your perform ance evaluation must be conducted using the procedures a nd acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). (c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/fur ans toxic equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) o r (b) of this section, you must determine dioxins/furans tox ic 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 isom er concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalenc y 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 tota l 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 deviat ion report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instanc e 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the per formance 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. U ntil 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 com pliance, 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 complianc e with my operating limits? You must continuously monitor your operating parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this se ction and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, according to the monitoring and calibratio n requirements in §60.5225. You must confirm and ree stablish 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 equipm ent 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 o r 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) u nless a different averaging period is established under §60 .5175. (1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets t he 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 t he operating limit for bag leak detection systems as f ollows: (i) For a bag leak detection system, you must calculate the alarm time as follows: (A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrate s that no corrective action is required, no alarm tim e is

counted. (B) If corrective action is required, each alarm t ime 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 ti me 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 spec ified in §60.5170(c). (b) Operation above the established maximum, below the established minimum, or outside the allowable r ange of the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits established under this subpart, except during perfo rmance tests conducted to determine compliance with the em ission 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 subpar t. (c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous compliance. (d) You must confirm your operating limits accordi ng to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of t his section. Your operating limits must be established so as to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limi ts. 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 operati ng 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 a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. §60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air po llution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs? (a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution control device used to comply with the em ission limits, according to §60.5220(c), no later than within 10

to 12 months following the previous annual air polluti on 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 approva l from the Administrator establishing a date whereby all n ecessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Cal ibration 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, monitor ing, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission

limits and standards? You must meet, as applicable, the performance testi ng requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this sec tion, the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control device insp ections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this sec tion, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragr aph (d) of this section. (a) Performance testing requirements

. (1) All performance tests must consist of a minimu m of three test runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations, as specified i n § 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limit s or standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered deviations from the appl icable emission limits or standards. (2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the performance test is representative of th e sludge burned under normal operating conditions by: (i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned during the performance test by contin uously*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 411 of 494

monitoring and recording the average hourly rate th at 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 incine rator 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 t his 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, includin g measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneous ly with

each method. (6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 412 of 494

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry

basis. (20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (d efined

oxygen correction basis). 20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. %O 2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,

percent. (7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in accordance with the test methods and pro cedures 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 th e results of which he has determined to be adequate f or indicating whether a specific source is in complian ce. (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 variabl es or other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is constr ued to abrogate the Administrator's authority to require t esting 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 a s specified under other subparts, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present. If af ter 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 perform ance 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 emiss ion rates can be accurately determined by applicable te st*** 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 flo w during performance tests, as demonstrated by applic able 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, e ach performance test must consist of three separate run s using the applicable test method. Each run must be condu cted for the time and under the conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic me an of the three runs. In the event that a sample is acci dentally lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, fa ilure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extre me meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the Administrato r's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean o f the

results of the two other runs. (11) During each test run specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewag e 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 maxi mum permitted capacity. (b) Continuous monitor requirements . You must meet the following requirements, as applicable, when usi ng a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart . The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring sys tem for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specificatio n applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, ca dmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register . If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring system ins tead of conducting annual performance testing, you must mee t the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. If you elect to use a continuous automate d sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragrap h (b)(7) of this section. The option to use a continuous au tomated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al Register

. (1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month befo re*** 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 befo re stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance t est within prior to ceasing operation of the system. (3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring a nd recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accord ance 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 Specificat ion 11 of appendix B of this part. (B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specificati on 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 a ccuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) o f appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this secti on. For each pollutant, the span value of the continuous em issions monitoring system is two times the applicable emiss ion limit, expressed as a concentration. (A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendi x 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 o r out-of-control period, you must complete repairs an d resume operation of your monitoring system as expeditiousl y 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 monitor ing s ystems and the test methods specified in paragraph (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(viii) of this se ction. 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 par t 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 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, shall be used. Alternatively f or as an alternative mercury, 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 Me chanical Engineers ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analys e s [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be used. For source s 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 monitori ng 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 volum e absolute value of the mean difference between the m ethod and the continuous emissions monitoring system, whi chever is greater. (viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as establishe d in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 C FR 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 Analys e s [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be u sed. (5) You may request that compliance with the emiss ion limits be determined using carbon dioxide measureme nts 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 leve ls must be established during the initial performance test according to the procedures and methods specified i n*** 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 sec tion. This relationship may be re-established during subs equent performance compliance tests. (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CF R 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 Analys e s [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be u sed to determine the oxygen concentration at the same loca tion 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 uni t 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 paragra ph (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 an d span adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect data using the continuous monitoring system constit ute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report. (ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be include d in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods must be reported in a deviation re port. (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 mo nitoring*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 423 of 494

system quality assurance or control activities cond ucted 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 monito ring system malfunction as defined in §60.5250, constitu te 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 paragraph s (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of this section in asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol system. (7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must: (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system according to t he 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 inspectio ns 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 equi pment. (3) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good operating condition. ( 4 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). 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 by pass stack during a performance test invalidates the per formance

test. §60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s? (a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the continuous parameter monitoring system s 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 fl ow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement devices: (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected SSI uni t is operating and at the intervals specified in paragra ph (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 an d span adjustments). Any such periods that you do not collect data using the continuous monitoring system constit ute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report. (ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem*** 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 include d in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods must be reported in your annual de viation 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 calculati ons used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfu nction, as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a d eviation report. (v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except those periods specified in paragraph s (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section in asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol 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 t he 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 representat ive

flow. (B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivi ty of 2 percent of the flow rate. (C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and d ownstream disturbances. (D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at lea st semi

- annually. (E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activa ted carbon injection), during the performance test cond ucted 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 cha pter. (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 th at*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 428 of 494

provides a representative measurement of the pressu re. (B) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (C) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27

c entimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. (D) Ensure continuous acceptable operation (e.g.,

c heck for or provide high reverse gas pressure periodical ly to minimize pressure tap pluggage )

. (E) C heck gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operat ing 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 demonstrat e that the system is maintained within +/

- 5 percent accuracy. (iii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH meas urement device, you must meet the following requirements: (A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provid es a representative measurement of scrubber effluent p H.*** 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 operation daily

. (iv) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a temperature measurement device, you must m eet 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 tolera nce 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 tolera nce of 2.3 8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2.5 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, 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 system s for voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak det ectio n 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 t he use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and s econdary amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic preci pitator,

you mus t use secondary voltage and secondary amperage monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage a nd secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitato r. (2) If you have an operating limit that requires t he 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 provid es a representative measurement of the total sorbent i njection

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 detect ion 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 co nsistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and S tandards (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 certifie d by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting part iculate

matter emi ssions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. (D) The bag leak detection system sensor must prov ide output of relative or absolute particulate matter l oadings. (E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device t o 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 o ver 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 th at do not duct all compartments of cells to a common s tack, a bag leak detection system must be installed in each baghouse compa rtment or cell. (H) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required , the system's instrumentation and alarm may be share d 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, a nd you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hou rs 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, to rn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condit ion that may cause an increase in particulate matter emissio ns. (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 o r otherwi se 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 paragraph s (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' specification s), maintain, and operate a device or method for measur ing the

use of the bypass stack including date, time, and duration. (2) Operate and maintain your continuous monitorin g system according to your monitoring plan required u nder §60.4880. Additionally: (i) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activat ed carbon injection), during the performance test cond ucted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, accordi ng 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 cha pter. (ii) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon injection), during the performance test conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrat e that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accura cy. (b) You must operate and maintain your bag leak detection system in continuous operation according to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. Additiona lly: (i) For positive pressure fabric filter systems th at do not duct all compartments of cells to a common s tack, a bag leak detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. (ii) Where multiple bag leak detectors are require d, the system’s instrumentation and alarm may be share d among

detectors. (iii) You must initiate procedures to determine t he cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm, a nd you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hou rs of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) a re necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following: (A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, to rn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condit ion 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 emissio ns. (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 o r 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 paragraph s (a) and (b) of this section in continuous operation acc ording to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. (d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specification s), maintain, and operate a device or method for measur ing the use of the bypass stack including date, time, and d uration. Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting §60.5230 What records must I keep? You must maintain the items (as applicable) specifi ed 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 th at can be printed upon request, unless an alternative form at 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, repo rted under §60.5235. (c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training procedures and records specified in paragr aphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must ma ke 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 traini ng procedures and information: (i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart. (ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feedi ng sewage sludge. (iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfuncti on 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 n umber at which they can be reached during operating hours. (2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as foll ows: (i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s 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 r eview and all subsequent annual reviews. (ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operator s who have completed the operator training requiremen ts 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 qualifica tion under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of t heir initial qualification and all subsequent renewals o f such qualifications. (3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, bu t 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 po llution control device inspections conducted as specified i n §§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 a nd/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 ra te 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 re cord of the moisture content measured as required in §60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of th e sewage sludge burned during the performance test. (f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as applicable: (1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, a ll 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter , hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxid e, 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 compl y 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 T able 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 or 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 compl y 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 fee d 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 th e rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm an d 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 t he 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 parameter s used to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. (g) Other records for continuous monitoring system s . 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 stop ping 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 determi ned using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. (3) If activated carbon injection is used to compl y with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any cha nges 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 rece ived from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls , and monitoring equipment. (j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation chec ks of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, calibration, and validation checks of any monitorin g devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. (k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations fo r continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plans required under §60.5200, and records of perfo rmance evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5). (l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that your SSI unit qualifies for less freq uent*** 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 durat ions 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 th is subpart for a summary of these reports. (a) Increments of progress report . If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the e ffective date of state plan approval, you must submit the fo llowing reports, as applicable: (1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085 (a) and 60.5110. (2) You must submit your notification of achieveme nt of increments of progress no later than 10 business days after the compliance date for the increment as spec ified in §§60.5095 and 60.5100. (3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a notification to the Administrator pos tmarked within 10 business days after the date for that inc rement, 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 notifi cation as specified in §60.5125. (b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following information no later than 60 days followi ng 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 t he 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 res ults of that initial performance evaluation. (6) The values for the site-specific operating lim its established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and t he calculations and methods, as applicable, used to es tablish each operating limit. (7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply wit h 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 op erated, calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170( b). (8) The results of the initial air pollution contr ol device inspection required in §60.5195, including a description of repairs. (9) The site-specific monitoring plan required und er §60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial perf ormance evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. (10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your as h handling system required under §60.5200, at least 6 0 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 li sted in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this section f or the reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of t his section. You must submit your first annual complia nce report no later than 12 months following the submis sion of the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of t his section. You must submit subsequent annual complia nce reports no more than 12 months following the previo us 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 t he 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 t est. (i) If operating limits were established during th e performance test, include the value for each operat ing limit and, as applicable, the method used to establ ish each operating limit, including calculations. (ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test, include the type of activated car bon

used. (5) For each pollutant and operating parameter recorded using a continuous monitoring system, the highest average parameter value and lowest average paramete r 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 reportin g period from any emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to you, a statement th at there were no deviations from the emission limits, emissi on 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 tha t performance evaluation. If new operating limits we re established during the performance evaluation, incl ude your calculations for establishing those operating limit s. (9) If you met the requirements of §60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct a performance test during the repor ting period, you must include the dates of the last thre e performance tests, a comparison of the emission lev el 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 th ere have been any process changes and whether the process ch ange resulted in an increase in emissions. (10) Documentation of periods when all qualified sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unav ailable*** 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 devic e inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the repo rting 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 malf unction. (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 du ring which your continuous monitoring systems were out o f

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 perio d, a statement that you did not make any revisions to yo ur sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting perio d. 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 average operating parameter level is above the maximum operating limi t 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 fo r 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 emissio n limit. (iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percen t of the hourly observation period. (v) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this sub part. (vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of

control. (vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may h ave caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded

. (2) The deviation report must be submitted by Augu st*** 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 Fe bruary 1 of the following year for data you collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to Decembe r 31). (3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with an asso ciated emission limit or operating limit, report the items described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(vi ii) of this section. (i) Company name, physical address, and mailing

address. (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with tha t official’s name, title, and signature, certifying t he accuracy of the content of the report. (iii) The calendar dates and times your unit devia ted from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating limits requirements. (iv) The averaged and recorded data for those date s. (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 o ut 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 starte d and stopped. (B) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. (C) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was out of control, including sta rt 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 sys tem as out of control, or during another period. (E) A summary of the total duration of the deviati on*** 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 t hat reporting period. (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those t hat 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 per iod, 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 occ urred during that reporting period. (H) An identification of each parameter and pollut ant that was monitored at the SSI unit. (I) A brief description of the SSI unit. (J) A brief description of the continuous monitori ng 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 ass ociated emission limit or operating limit, report the follo wing items:. (i) Company name, physical address, and mailing

address. (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with tha t official's name, title, and signature, certifying t he 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 deviat ed from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating 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 stan dards. (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 wit h §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 para graphs (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 Administrato r, under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an accessible qualified operator, you mu st notify the Administrator within five days of meetin g §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 kn ew, or through due diligence, should have known that the e vent may cause or caused a delay in conducting a performance test beyond the regulatory deadline, but the notificatio n must occur before the performance test deadline unless t he initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the notice, and in such cases, the notificat ion must occur as soon as practicable. (2) You must provide to the Administrator a writte n description of the force majeure event and a ration ale 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 minim ize 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 befo re 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 com ply with the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present. (3) As specified in §60.5220(a)(8), you must notif y 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 de fined 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 thi s subpart, you must submit relative accuracy test aud it (i.e., reference method) data and performance test (i.e., compliance test) data, except opacity data, electro nically 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 colle cted 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 complianc e with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data to E PA by successfully submitting the data electronically into EPA’s Centr al Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (se e 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 rep orting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approv al 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 t itle V operating permit for my existing SSI unit? Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approv ed and effective Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 stat e 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 specifie d in §60.5065. §60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit appli cation for my existing SSI unit? (a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete tit le V permit application must be submitted on or before t he 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 earlie r permit application deadline, the application deadli ne of 36 months after the promulgation of this subpart appli es regardless of whether or when any applicable federa l plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable Cle an Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is appr oved 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 fo r a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requireme nt 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 f irst causes the source to be subject to title V. (See s ection 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 C FR*** 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 Cl ean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). Yo u must submit a complete permit application by the relevan t 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 defi ned 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, t he 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 f orward*** 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 t he burden of proof, and the merits of which are indepe ndently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administ rative 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 i n the exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) in orde r to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system i ncludes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittanc e, or other principle to monitor relative particulate mat ter 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 colle ction and sample recovery/analysis to determine a polluta nt concentration or emission rate by collecting a sing le*** 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 re cording the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facil ity. Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous automated s ampling system, continuous parameter monitoring system or o ther manual or automatic monitoring that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulat ion on a continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The t erm refers to the total equipment used to sample and co ndition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a perma nent record of emissions or process parameters. Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system for continuously measuring and re cording operating conditions associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressu re, 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 oper ator of

such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limi ted 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 t his subpart and that is included in the operating permi t for any affected source required to obtain such a permi t. 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, wat er to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage slu dge 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 filter ing gas streams through filter media, also known as a bagho use.*** 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 th e combustion chamber gas. Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution con trol and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a proce ss to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless op eration are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunctio n, 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 s ewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge incineratio n residence time) or until the malfunction ceases, wh ichever 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 li fe*** 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 dol lars). To determine what systems are within the boundary o f the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the def inition of SSI unit. (2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of operating it that increases the amoun t of any air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or sect ion 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 attache d to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth t o hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight during which an y amount of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SS I 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 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CF R part 60, appendix A-8. Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of the test-run average secondary volta ge 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 e mission units for which the proposed permit revision is app licable, including but not limited to: (1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment facility associated with the a ffected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for disposi ng of process solids and processing of the sludge prior t o incineration). (2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the emission limits for the aff ected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for acti vated 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 remove d in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatmen t processes; and a material derived from sewage sludg e. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinera tion unit or grit and screenings generated during prelim inary 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 remo ving combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration uni t 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 treatmen t plant, or air pollution control facility and other discard ed material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or co ntained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commerc ial,*** 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 permi ts under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclea r, 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., na tural 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 estimat e of the compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorin ated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivale ncy 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 scrubbi ng liquid to collect particulate matter (including non vaporous 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—Incre ments of Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Units Comply with these increments

of progress By these dates a

Increment 1— Submit final control plan (Dates to be specified in state plan) Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in state plan) b

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discreti on of the state. b The date can be no later than 3 years after the eff ective 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, 201 0.*** 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—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sew age Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes

or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 18 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 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, c C ollect a minimum volume of 1 3 d ry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 2 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 472 of 494

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Mercury 0.037

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average (For

Method 29 and AST M D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) c (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) , collect a minimum volume of 1 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 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 part60, 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 limit a 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, col lect 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 Analys e s [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 3 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 474 of 494

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Lead 0.0074

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 3 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 (Meth od 22 of appendix A- 7 of this part).

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth S ewage Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 80 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 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 1 3 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 t est (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 2 3 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 2 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 477 of 494

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Mercury 0.28

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average (For

Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) c (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) , collect a minimum volume of 1 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 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 Analys e s [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 1 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 1 3 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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—Opera ting Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a

For these operating parameters You must

establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording b 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 12 -hour

rolling block

. 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

block 4

- hour rolling. c Scrubber liquid flow rate Minimum flow

rate Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block 4

- hour rolling. c Scrubber liquid pH Minimum pH Continuous Every 15 minutes 3-hour block 4

-

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

recording b 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 block 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 12-hour block 4

- 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

recording b Averaging time

for compliance Activated carbon injection Mercury sorbent injection rate Minimum

mercury sorbent injection rate Hourly Hourly 12-hour block 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 12-hour

block 4

- hour rolling. c

Afterburner Temperature of the afterburner combustion chamber Minimum

temperature of the afterburner combustion chamber Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block 4

- hour rolling. a

a As 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. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages t o demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour average s. c Calculated 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 11,2,3,7,8-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—Summa ry of Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of progress report No later than 10 business days after the compliance date for the increment 1. Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be burned, and the maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity 2. Notification of any failure to meet an §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 CMS b performance evaluation 6. The values forthe sitespecific operating limits and the calculations an d 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 re corded 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 evalu ation 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 c omparison 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 durin g 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 record ed 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 t o 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 befor e 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 th e 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 “Se ction 7. Sewage Sludge Incinerators” (70 FR 74880)of the rule was “The Age ncy 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 o r the general public.’ Therefore, SSI that combust this sludge are not “so lid waste incineration units” and section 129 does not apply to them. Vir tually all of the SSIs that would be candidates for regulation combust slu dge from POTWs, and thus are not covered under Section 129.” As well as the explanation that they had been liste d 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 NO x 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 SO 2 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 AddressEnvironmental 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 SSI 1 

## . While EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded that no additional changes were necessary to the 2005 OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently being held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the emission standards for OSWI units in the future, 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

1 

## Sierra 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

2 

## NRDC 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,

2011 4



## . In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of source categories for regulation under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for

3 

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

## Sierra 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, NO x , PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO 2 ; 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, NO x , SO 2 , 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% 0 2 0.095 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,800 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.28 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 220 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.0024 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 52 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.15 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0035 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.045 0.013

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 60 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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, NO x , PM,

Pb or SO 2 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,

NO x , PM, Pb or SO 2 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 coursespecified 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 healthor 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 requirements 9

. The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be submitted on or before the relevant date below.

• 

## For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title V permit application no later than 12 months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL; or

• 

## For a SSI unit that commences operation as a new source after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a complete Title V permit application no later than 12 months after the date the SSI unit commences operation as a new

source 10

.

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 V 11



## . For additional background information on the interface between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Commentsand 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 thedata 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 kurtosistests. 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% 0 2 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% 0 2 56 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.49 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0033 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 63 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0098 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.056 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.61 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 12 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.095 0.095 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,900 3,800 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.0 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.02 0.28 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 220 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.30 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.32

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 5.0

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 80 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.013

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0024 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 52 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.15 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 210 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.0035 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0022

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 4.1 60 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 Section112(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 commentersrequested 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 NO x standards is flawed because EPA did not take into account the inherent conflict in complying with two standards. The commenters noted that CO and NO x emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NO x 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 NO x emissions.

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel and produce more CO 2 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 NO x 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 thatEPA 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 (5 th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basingCWA 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, 101 st 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 NO x 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 NO x 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 NO x 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 NO x 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 finalSSI 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 SO 2 ; 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 accuraterepresentation 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 SewageSludge 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a @7% O 2

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 64 3,800

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.51 b 1.2

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.037 0.28 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 150 220

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0074 0.30 PCDD/PCDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.1 0.32 PCDD/PCDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 1.2 5.0

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 18 80

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 15 26

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. b Limits represent three times the detection level. Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a

Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0011 0.0024

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.24 1.2 c

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0010 0.15 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 30 210

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.00062 0.0035 CDD/CDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0044 0.0022 CDD/CDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.013 0.045

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 9.6 60

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 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-performingsingle 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, w ij , as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:       ×        

= N M w i ij 

### 1 1 

## (Eq. 1)

Where:

i 

## M = 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). “NIS T Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, Nat ional 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 x w x

1 1

1 1



## Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

# ( ) ( )

K w K x x w

N

i M

j ij N

i M

j weighted

U ij ij weighted

i i 

# ∑∑ ∑∑

= = = =



## − −

=

1 1 1 1 2



## 1 

## ν

Equation 3 Where: 

# ∑

= 

## = N

i i 

## M K 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 

## m n n t x UPL 1 1 1 , 99.0 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 SO 2 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

NO x 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 PCDD/PCDF TEQ a 0.00012-

0.00016 0.00076-0.0010 0.0009-0.0012 PCDD/PCDF TMB a 0.0014-0.0020 0.011-0.015 0.013-0.017

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 SO 2 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 NO x 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 SO 2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

## 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 NO x 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 SO 2 reduction, a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR for additional NO x reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater reduction of HCl, SO 2 , PM, Cd, Pb, and NO x 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 NO x 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

SO 2 . 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 (TPY) FB MH Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 CO 0 0 0 HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 NO x 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 SO 2 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 SludgeIncineration 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 NO x , CO, PM and SO 2 and an increase in

CO 2 emissions. Since NO x and SO 2 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 NO x 14 Pb 0.00053 PM 0 PM 2.5 0 SO 2 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.



## • B 

## ecause 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 a s Option 1 (MACT floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activate d 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 NO x and SO 2 , 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

a ctivated 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 numberof 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 AddressEnvironmental 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, NO x , PM and

PM 2.5 and SO 2 . Sulfur dioxide and NO x are precursors for

the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions

will reduce ozone and PM 2.5 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 requirementsare 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:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = 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. %O 2 = 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, astatement 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 continuousmonitoring 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) ofthe 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 9.6 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Hydrogen chloride 0.24 parts per

million by dry volume 3-run average

(Collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).

## *** 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Carbon monoxide 27 parts per

million by dry volume 24-hour block

average (using 1- hour averages of data ). 

### For determining compliance with the carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon monoxide CEMS, the correction to 7 percent oxygen does not apply during periods of startup or shutdown. Use the measured carbon monoxide concentration without correcting for oxygen concentration in averaging with other carbon monoxide concentrations (corrected to 7 percent oxygen) to determine the 24- hour average value. Continuous emissions monitoring system. (Performance Specification 4B of this part, using a low- range span of 100 ppm and a high-range span of 1000 ppm, and a RA of 0.5 ppm instead of 5 ppm specified in section 13.2. For the cylinder gas audit of Procedure 1, +/- 15% or 0.5 whichever is greater)

## *** 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Dioxins/fur ans (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 limit a 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 60 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Hydrogen chloride 1.2 parts per

million by dry volume 3-run average

(For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 200 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).

## *** 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Units a

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

a As specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block a verage specified in this table for demonstrating complianc e. 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 Units a Report Due date Contents Reference

Notification of construction Prior to commencing construction 1. Statement of intent to construct 2. Anticipated date of commencement of construction 3. Documentation for siting requirements 4. Anticipated date of initial startup §60.4915(a)

Notification of initial startup Prior to initial startup 1. Maximum design dry sewage sludge burning capacity 2. Anticipated and permitted maximum feed rate 3. If applicable, the petitionfor 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 CMS b performance evaluation 6. The values forthe 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 tocomply 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 O 2 

## ) 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 requirementsare 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:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = 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. %O 2 = 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 acontinuous 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, astatement 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 continuousmonitoring 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) ofthe 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 dates a

## *** 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

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discreti on of the state. b The date can be no later than 3 years after the eff ective 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, 201 0. 

## Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 18 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters sample per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, appendix A8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/furan emission limit on a total mass basis or the dioxin/ furan emission limit on a toxic equivalency basis. 

## c Incorporated by reference, see §60.17. Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

## *** 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 80 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, appendix A8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Units a

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording

b Data averaging period for compliance All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion chamber operating temperature (not required if afterburner temperature is monitored) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature

or afterburner temperature Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block.

Fugitive emissions from ash handling Site- specific operating requirements Not

applicable No

applicable Not

applicable

Scrubber Pressure drop across each wet scrubber Minimum pressure drop Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block

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

block

## *** 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

recording

b 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 providedin §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

recording

b 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

recording

b 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

a As 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. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block a verage specified in this table for demonstrating complian ce. 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 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 Units a

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of progress report No later than 10 business days after the compliance date for the increment 

## 1. Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be burned, and the maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity 

## 2. Notification of any failure to meet an §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 CMS b performance evaluation 

## 6. The values forthe 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 NO x 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 SO 2 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 AddressEnvironmental 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 SSI 1 

## . While EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded

1 

## Sierra 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

2 

## NRDC 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,

2011 4



## . In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of source categories for regulation under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) (63 FR 17838). Sewage sludge incineration units are one of the identified source categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the

3 

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

## Sierra 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, NO x , PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO 2 ; 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, NO x , SO 2 , 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% 0 2 0.095 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,800 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 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 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 220 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.0024 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 52 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.15 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 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% 0 2 0.0035 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.045 0.013

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 60 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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, NO x , PM,

Pb or SO 2 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,

NO x , PM, Pb or SO 2 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 coursespecified 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 healthor 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 requirements 9

. The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be submitted on or before the relevant date below.

• 

## For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a

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

source 10

.

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a complete Title V permit application by the earlier of the following dates:

• 

## Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that implements the SSI EG); or

• 

## Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable federal plan; or

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 V 11



## . For additional background information on the interface between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Commentsand 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 thedata 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 kurtosistests. 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% 0 2 0.0019 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 56 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.49 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0033 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 63 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0098 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.056 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.61 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 12 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.095 0.095 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,900 3,800 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.0 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.02 0.28 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 220 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.30 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.32

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 5.0

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 80 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.013

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0024 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 52 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.15 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 210 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.0035 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0022

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.045

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 60 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 Section112(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 commentersrequested 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 NO x 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 NO x emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NO x 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 NO x emissions.

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel and produce more CO 2 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 NO x 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 (5 th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basingCWA 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, 101 st 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 NO x 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 NO x controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, FGR, or low NO x 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 NO x 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 contendedthat 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 finalSSI 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 SO 2 ; 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 accuraterepresentation 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 SewageSludge 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a

Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0016 0.095

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 64 3,800

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.51 b 1.2

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.037 0.28 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 150 220

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0074 0.30 PCDD/PCDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.1 0.32 PCDD/PCDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 1.2 5.0

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 18 80

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 15 26

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. b Limits represent three times the detection level. Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a Cd mg/dscm 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a @7% O 2

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 27 52

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.24 1.2 c

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0010 0.15 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 30 210

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.00062 0.0035 CDD/CDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0044 0.0022 CDD/CDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.013 0.045

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 9.6 60

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 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-performingsingle 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, w ij , as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:       ×        

= N M w i ij 

### 1 1 

## (Eq. 1)

Where:

i 

## M = 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). “NIS T Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, Nat ional 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 x w x

1 1

1 1



## Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

# ( ) ( )

K w K x x w

N

i M

j ij N

i M

j weighted

U ij ij weighted

i i 

# ∑∑ ∑∑

= = = =



## − −

=

1 1 1 1 2



## 1 

## ν

Equation 3 Where: 

# ∑

= 

## = N

i i 

## M K 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 

## m n n t x UPL 1 1 1 , 99.0 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 SO 2 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 rulesinclude 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 Emissionsfrom 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 NO x 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 PCDD/PCDF TEQ a 0.00012-

0.00016 0.00076-0.0010 0.0009-0.0012 PCDD/PCDF TMB a 0.0014-0.0020 0.011-0.015 0.013-0.017

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 SO 2 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 NO x 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 SO 2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

## 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 NO x

## *** 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 SO 2 reduction, a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR for additional NO x reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater reduction of HCl, SO 2 , PM, Cd, Pb, and NO x 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 NO x 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 SO 2 . 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 NO x 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

SO 2 . 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 (TPY) FB MH Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 CO 0 0 0 HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 NO x 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 SO 2 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 SludgeIncineration 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 NO x , CO, PM and SO 2 and an increase in

CO 2 emissions. Since NO x and SO 2 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 NO x 14 Pb 0.00053 PM 0 PM 2.5 0 SO 2 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 SludgeIncineration 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.



## • B 

## ecause 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 a s Option 1 (MACT floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activate d 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 NO x and SO 2 , 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

a ctivated 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 numberof 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 AddressEnvironmental 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, NO x , PM and

PM 2.5 and SO 2 . Sulfur dioxide and NO x are precursors for

the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions

will reduce ozone and PM 2.5 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 requirementsare 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 calibrationrequirements 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:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen.

## *** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 248 of 479

C meas = 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. %O 2 = 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 acontinuous 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, astatement 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 continuousmonitoring 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 9.6 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).

## *** 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 limit a 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Carbon monoxide 27 parts per

million by dry volume 24-hour block

average (using 1- hour averages of data ). 

### For determining compliance with the carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon

m onoxide 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 60 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Hydrogen chloride 1.2 parts per

million by dry volume 3-run average

(For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 200 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).

## *** 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Units a

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

a As specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block a verage specified in this table for demonstrating complianc e. 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 Units a Report Due date Contents Reference

Notification of construction Prior to commencing construction 1. Statement of intent to construct 2. Anticipated date of commencement of construction 3. Documentation for siting requirements 4. Anticipated date of initial startup §60.4915(a)

Notification of initial startup Prior to initial startup 1. Maximum design dry sewage sludge burning capacity 2. Anticipated and permitted maximum feed rate 3. If applicable, the petitionfor 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 CMS b performance evaluation 6. The values forthe 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 tocomply 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 O 2 

## ) 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 calibrationrequirements 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:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = 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. %O 2 = 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 acontinuous 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, astatement 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 continuousmonitoring 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) ofthe 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 dates a Increment 1—Submit final control plan (Dates to be specified in state plan) Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in state plan) b

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discreti on of the state. b The date can be no later than 3 years after the eff ective date of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REG ISTER ] for SSI units that commenced construction on or before Octo ber 14, 2010. 

## Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

## *** 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 18 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters sample per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part60, 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, 10 A, or 10B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, appendix A8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 80 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Mercury 0.28 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average (For

Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) c , collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part60, appendix A8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Units a

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording

b Data averaging period for compliance All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion chamber operating temperature (not required if afterburner temperature is monitored) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature

or afterburner temperature Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block.

Fugitive emissions from ash handling Site- specific operating requirements Not

applicable No

applicable Not

applicable

Scrubber Pressure drop across each wet scrubber Minimum pressure drop Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block

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

block

## *** 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

recording

b 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 providedin §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

recording

b 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

recording

b 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

a As 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. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block a verage specified in this table for demonstrating complian ce. 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 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 Units a

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of progress report No later than 10 business days after the compliance date for the increment 

## 1. Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be burned, and the maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity 

## 2. Notification of any failure to meet an §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 o f 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 CMS b performance evaluation 

## 6. The values forthe 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 NO x 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 SO 2 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 AddressEnvironmental 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 SSI 1 

## . While EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA's final review, which became effective January 22, 2007, concluded

1 

## Sierra 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

2 

## NRDC 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,

2011 4



## . In a notice on April 10, 1998, EPA provided a list of source categories for regulation under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) (63 FR 17838). Sewage sludge incineration units are one of the identified source categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent requirement for Hg. Further information can be found in the Memorandum titled, “Emission Standards for Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the

3 

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

## Sierra 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, NO x , PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO 2 ; 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, NO x , SO 2 , 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% 0 2 0.095 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,800 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 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 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 220 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.0024 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 52 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.15 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 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% 0 2 0.0035 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.045 0.013

PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 60 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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, NO x , PM,

Pb or SO 2 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,

NO x , PM, Pb or SO 2 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 coursespecified 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 healthor 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 requirements 9

. The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source applying for a Title V operating permit depends on when the source first becomes subject to the relevant Title V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a new unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application must be submitted on or before the relevant date below.

• 

## For a SSI unit that commenced operation as a new source on or before the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, the source must submit a

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

source 10

.

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a complete Title V permit application by the earlier of the following dates:

• 

## Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable EPA-approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an EPA approved state or tribal plan that implements the SSI EG); or

• 

## Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable federal plan; or

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 V 11



## . For additional background information on the interface between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’s interpretation of section 129(e), information on updating existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3, 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Commentsand 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 thedata 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 kurtosistests. 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% 0 2 0.0019 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 56 64 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.49 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0033 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 63 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0098 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.056 0.10

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.61 1.2

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 12 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.095 0.095 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,900 3,800 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.0 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.02 0.28 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 220 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.30 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.32

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 5.0

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 80 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 27 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.013

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0024 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 52 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.15 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 210 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.0035 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0022

PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.045

PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 60 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 Section112(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 commentersrequested 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 NO x 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 NO x emissions are inversely proportional. The commenters explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NO x 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 NO x emissions.

The commenters added that the conditions used to minimize CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume more fuel and produce more CO 2 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 NO x 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 (5 th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basingCWA 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, 101 st 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 NO x 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 NO x controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR systems, FGR, or low NO x 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 NO x 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 contendedthat 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 finalSSI 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 SO 2 ; 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 accuraterepresentation 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 SewageSludge 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a

Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0016 0.095

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 64 3,800

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.51 b 1.2

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.037 0.28 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 150 220

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0074 0.30 PCDD/PCDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.1 0.32 PCDD/PCDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 1.2 5.0

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 18 80

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 15 26

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. b Limits represent three times the detection level. Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a Cd mg/dscm 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 Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a @7% O 2

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 27 52

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.24 1.2 c

Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0010 0.15 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 30 210

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.00062 0.0035 CDD/CDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0044 0.0022 CDD/CDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.013 0.045

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 9.6 60

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 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-performingsingle 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, w ij , as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:       ×        

= N M w i ij 

### 1 1 

## (Eq. 1)

Where:

i 

## M = 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). “NIS T Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, Nat ional 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 x w x

1 1

1 1



## Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

# ( ) ( )

K w K x x w

N

i M

j ij N

i M

j weighted

U ij ij weighted

i i 

# ∑∑ ∑∑

= = = =



## − −

=

1 1 1 1 2



## 1 

## ν

Equation 3 Where: 

# ∑

= 

## = N

i i 

## M K 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 

## m n n t x UPL 1 1 1 , 99.0 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 SO 2 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 rulesinclude 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 Emissionsfrom 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 NO x 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 PCDD/PCDF TEQ a 0.00012-

0.00016 0.00076-0.0010 0.0009-0.0012 PCDD/PCDF TMB a 0.0014-0.0020 0.011-0.015 0.013-0.017

PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 SO 2 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 NO x 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 SO 2 430-700 430-700 430-700 

## 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 NO x

## *** 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 SO 2 reduction, a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR for additional NO x reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater reduction of HCl, SO 2 , PM, Cd, Pb, and NO x 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 NO x 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 SO 2 . 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 NO x 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

SO 2 . 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 (TPY) FB MH Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 CO 0 0 0 HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 NO x 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 SO 2 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 SludgeIncineration 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 NO x , CO, PM and SO 2 and an increase in

CO 2 emissions. Since NO x and SO 2 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 NO x 14 Pb 0.00053 PM 0 PM 2.5 0 SO 2 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 SludgeIncineration 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.



## • B 

## ecause 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 a s Option 1 (MACT floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH units), and Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activate d 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 NO x and SO 2 , 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

a ctivated 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 numberof 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 AddressEnvironmental 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, NO x , PM and

PM 2.5 and SO 2 . Sulfur dioxide and NO x are precursors for

the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions

will reduce ozone and PM 2.5 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 requirementsare 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 calibrationrequirements 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:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen.

## *** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review*** Page 248 of 479

C meas = 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. %O 2 = 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 acontinuous 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, astatement 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 continuousmonitoring 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 9.6 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).

## *** 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 limit a 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Carbon monoxide 27 parts per

million by dry volume 24-hour block

average (using 1- hour averages of data ). 

### For determining compliance with the carbon monoxide concentration limit using carbon

m onoxide 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 60 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3; Method 26A or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Hydrogen chloride 1.2 parts per

million by dry volume 3-run average

(For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 200 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).

## *** 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Units a

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

recording b Data a veraging

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

a As specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block a verage specified in this table for demonstrating complianc e. 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 Units a Report Due date Contents Reference

Notification of construction Prior to commencing construction 1. Statement of intent to construct 2. Anticipated date of commencement of construction 3. Documentation for siting requirements 4. Anticipated date of initial startup §60.4915(a)

Notification of initial startup Prior to initial startup 1. Maximum design dry sewage sludge burning capacity 2. Anticipated and permitted maximum feed rate 3. If applicable, the petitionfor 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 CMS b performance evaluation 6. The values forthe 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 tocomply 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 O 2 

## ) 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 calibrationrequirements 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:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = 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. %O 2 = 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 acontinuous 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, astatement 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 continuousmonitoring 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) ofthe 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 dates a Increment 1—Submit final control plan (Dates to be specified in state plan) Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in state plan) b

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discreti on of the state. b The date can be no later than 3 years after the eff ective date of state plan approval or [INSERT THE DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REG ISTER ] for SSI units that commenced construction on or before Octo ber 14, 2010. 

## Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emission Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

## *** 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 18 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters sample per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, appendix A8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method

Particulate matter 80 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(coll ect a minimum volume of 0.75 dry standard cubic meters per run) Performance test (Method 5 at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, appendix A4). Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)

Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis) b 5.0 nanograms

per d ry 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 part60, 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Mercury 0.28 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average (For

Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) c , collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part60, appendix A8; Method 30B at 40 CFR part60, 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 limit a 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 part60, 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 part60, 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 limit a 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Units a

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording

b Data averaging period for compliance All sewage sludge incineration units

Combustion chamber operating temperature (not required if afterburner temperature is monitored) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperature

or afterburner temperature Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block.

Fugitive emissions from ash handling Site- specific operating requirements Not

applicable No

applicable Not

applicable

Scrubber Pressure drop across each wet scrubber Minimum pressure drop Continuous Every 15 minutes 12-hour

block

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

block

## *** 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

recording

b 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 providedin §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

recording

b 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

recording

b 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

a As 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. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 12-hour or 3-hour block a verage specified in this table for demonstrating complian ce. 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 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 Units a

Report Due date Contents Reference

Increments of progress report No later than 10 business days after the compliance date for the increment 

## 1. Final control plan including air pollution control device descriptions, process changes, type of waste to be burned, and the maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity 

## 2. Notification of any failure to meet an §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 o f 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 CMS b performance evaluation 

## 6. The values forthe 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

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 Governme nts: 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 th e per capita revenue times the population for each entity. All cost to revenue per centages 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 Stati onary Sources and

Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge In cineration Units

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federa l executive policy on environmental justice (EJ). Its m ain 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, dispropo rtionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, pol icies, 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 propose d 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 news letters, EJ listservs, and the internet, including the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovati on’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 addit ion, 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 a ssociated 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 mino rity 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 enviro nmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income populations. Additiona lly, the Agency has reviewed this

## 2

proposed rule to determine if there was existing disproporti onately 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 mo st likely to be effected by the sources, were similar in demographic composition to national ave rages.

Table 2.1 Summary of Demographic Data Analysis

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communit ies near affected sources, EPA used census data at the block group level to ide ntify 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 appro ach, 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 with in a circular distance of a half, 3, and 5 miles of affected sources and determined the demographic an d 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 are as 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, White s, and “Other and Multi-racial” populations, and similar proportions of families with inc omes 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-eco nomic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography . 2006; 43(2): 383–399. 3. Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to C reate and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justic e 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 draf t 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 Station ary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage S ludge Incineration Units

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY : This action promulgates EPA’s new source performance standards and emission guidelines for s ewage sludge incineration units located at wastewater tre atment facilities designed to treat domestic sewage sludge . This final rule sets limits for nine pollutants: cadmium , carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitroge n oxides, particulate matter, polychlorinated dibenzo -pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and sulf ur dioxide.

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

60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERA L

REGISTER ]. Comment [A1]: Change made to track with what is in ROCIS/Unified Agenda.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 doc ket includes previous actions including the standards p roposed 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 inform ation is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclo sure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, suc h 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 e ither electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Ro om, 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, excl uding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Publi c Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone n umber for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource and Commerce Group, Sector Policie s andThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 3 of 431 Programs Division (E143-03), Environmental Protecti on Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1; 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 MercuryThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Sy stem 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 Syst em Ng/dscm Nanograms per Dry Standard Cubic Meter Ni Nickel NO x 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 AdministrationThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 5 of 431 SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction SO 2 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 wh at are the emissions? C. What is the relationship of the final standards to other SSI standards for the use or disposal of sewa ge 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 exis ting SSI units? F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 standard s? J. What are the requirements for submission of emis sions test results to EPA? IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Propos al A. Applicability B. Subcategories C. MACT Floor UPL Calculation and EG and NSPS Emiss ion Limits D. Baseline Emissions, Costs, and Impacts Estimatio n E. Compliance Requirements F. Definitions V. Significant Public Comments and Rationale for Ch anges 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 Sectio ns 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 Coordin ation with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children f rom Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significant ly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Addre ss Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome PopulationsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 wastew ater treatment facilities designed to treat domestic sew age 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 ent ities likely to be affected by the final action. To dete rmine whether your facility would be affected by the fina l action, you should examine the applicability criter ia 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 e ntity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 av ailable on the Worldwide Web (www) through the Technology T ransfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guida nce page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the foll owing

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various area s of air pollution control. C. Judicial Review Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of thi s final rule is available only by filing a petition f or 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 specific ity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mec hanism 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 su chThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 demonstra tion to

EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protecti on Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsy lvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to bot h 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 Cou nsel (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 thes e 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 stan dards for solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. Section 129(a)(1)(A) of the CAA requi res EPAThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 10 of 431 to establish performance standards, including emiss ion limitations, for “solid waste incineration units.” Section 129 of the CAA defines “solid waste incineration un it” as “a distinct operating unit of any facility which co mbusts any solid waste material from commercial or industr ial establishments or the general public” (section 129( g)(1)). Section 129 of the CAA also provides that “solid wa ste” shall have the meaning established by EPA pursuant to its authority under the RCRA (section 129(g)(6)). Sect ions 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 u nder CAA section 129(f)(1), become effective 6 months after promulgation. Unlike the NSPS, the EG are not them selves directly enforceable. Rather, the EG are implement ed and enforced through either an EPA-approved state plan or a promulgated federal plan. States are required to s ubmit a plan to implement and enforce the EG to EPA for app roval not later than one year after EPA promulgates the E G (CAA section 129(b)(2)). The state plan must be “at lea st as protective as” the EG and must ensure compliance wi th all applicable requirements not later than three years afterThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 af ter promulgation of the relevant EG, whichever is soone r. 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 beco me federally enforceable, but the state has primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the p lan. However, EPA is required to develop, implement, and enforce a federal plan for solid waste incineration units l ocated in any state which has not submitted an approvable state plan within two years after the date of promulgatio n of the relevant EG (CAA section 129(b)(3)). The federal p lan must assure that each solid waste incineration unit subj ect to the federal plan is in compliance with all provisio ns 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 onl y until such time as a state without an approved plan submi ts and receives EPA approval of its state plan. Once an applicable state plan has been approved, the requir ements of the federal plan no longer apply to solid waste incineration units covered by that state plan.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 12 of 431 The CAA sets forth a two-stage approach to regulati ng emissions from solid waste incinerator units. The statute also provides EPA with substantial discretion to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of inci neration units within a category while setting standards. I n 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 determ ines are achievable for new and existing units, after consid ering costs, nonair quality health and environmental impa cts and energy requirements associated with the implementat ion of the standards. Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA then d irects

EPA to review those standards and revise them as ne cessary 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 t o 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 standard s for the standards, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that standards “applicable to solid waste incineration u nits promulgated under section 111 and this section shal l reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emission s ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 13 of 431 [certain listed air pollutants] that the Administra tor, taking into consideration the cost of achieving suc h emission reduction and any nonair quality health an d environmental impacts and energy requirements, dete rmines is achievable for new and existing units in each ca tegory.” This level of control is referred to as a MACT stan dard. In promulgating a MACT standard, EPA must first calculate the minimum stringency levels for new and existing solid waste incineration units in a catego ry, generally based on levels of emissions control achi eved 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 mi nimum stringency that EPA’s standards must achieve, based on whether they regulate new and reconstructed sources , or existing sources. For new and reconstructed source s, CAA section 129(a)(2) provides that the “degree of redu ction in emissions that is deemed achievable... shall not be less stringent than the emissions control that is achiev ed in practice by the best controlled similar unit, as de termined by the Administrator.” Emissions standards for exi sting units may be less stringent than standards for new units, but “shall not be less stringent than the average e missionsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 14 of 431 limitation achieved by the best performing 12 perce nt of units in the category.” MACT analyses involve an assessment of the emission s from the best performing unit or units in a source category. The assessment can be based on actual em issions data, knowledge of the air pollution control in pla ce in combination with actual emissions data, or on state regulatory requirements that may enable EPA to esti mate the actual performance of the regulated units. For eac h source category, the assessment involves a review of actua l emissions data with an appropriate accounting for e missions variability. Other methods of estimating emissions can be used, if the methods can be shown to provide reason able 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 r esult in a series of potential regulations (called regulator y options), one of which is selected as MACT. Each regulatory option EPA considers must be at lea st as stringent as the CAA’s minimum stringency “floor ” requirements. EPA must examine, but is not require d to adopt, the more stringent “beyond-the-floor” regula tory options to determine MACT. Unlike the floor minimu mThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 determi ning whether MACT standards are to reflect “beyond-the-f loor” requirements. If EPA concludes that the more strin gent regulatory options have unreasonable impacts, EPA s elects the “floor-based” regulatory option as MACT. Howev er, if EPA concludes that impacts associated with “beyond- thefloor” levels of control are reasonable in light of additional emissions reductions achieved, EPA selec ts those

levels as MACT. The CAA requires that MACT for new sources be no le ss stringent than the emissions control achieved in pr actice by the best-controlled similar unit. Under CAA sec tion 129(a)(2), EPA determines the best control currentl y 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 emission s variability. More stringent potential beyond-the-f loor regulatory options might reflect controls used on o ther sources that could be applied to the source categor y in question. For existing sources, the CAA requires that MACT be no less stringent than the average emissions limitatio nThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 o f the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units to form the floor re gulatory option. More stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory options reflect other or additional controls capable of ach ieving 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 eq ual to or less than 250 tpd.

• Units that combust hospital, medical, and infectiou s

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 unit s. A SSI unit is an incinerator located at a wastewate r treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e sludge that combusts sewage sludge for the purpose of redu cing theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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) thr ough (D), have been interpreted to be part of the broade r 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 furthe r 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, t T he 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 exclu sion of certain categories, including SSI 1 . While EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on June 28, 2006, EPA' s final review, which became effective January 22, 2007, co ncluded that no additional changes were necessary to the 20 05 OSWI rule (71 FR 36726). That litigation is currently b eing held in abeyance. EPA currently intends to revise the emission standards for OSWI units in the future, an d that rulemaking will address all OSWI units except SSI u nits.

1 Sierra Club v. EPA ; D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1066, 07-1063.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 unit s under CAA section 129 (70 FR 74870), but rather to regula te SSI units under CAA section 112 because we interpreted CAA section 129(h)(2) as giving EPA the discretion to c hoose the section of the CAA (i.e., section 112 or sectio n 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 CA A section 129(g)(1) were not exclusive, and that sect ion 129(a)(1)(E) does not require EPA to establish emis sion 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 separa te decision related to EPA’s December 1, 2000, emissio n standards for CISWI units, the Court 2, held that any unit combusting any solid waste must be regulated under section

2 NRDC 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 appl y 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 draf t 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 intende d to encompass all solid waste incineration units that a re 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 u nits 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 fulf illment 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 sourc e emissions of each of the 30 identified HAP are subj ect 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 draf t 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. EP A is ordered by the Court to satisfy its obligation unde r CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)(ii) by January 16, 2011 4

. Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to identi fy categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources counting for not less than 90 p ercent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant a re subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Sewage Sludge Incineration units are on e of the recently identified source categories for regulation to meet the 90 percent requirement for Hg. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the SSI standards prio r 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 wh at are the emissions? Sewage sludge incineration units may be operated by municipalities or other entities. Incineration con tinues to be used to dispose of sewage sludge. Combustion of solid waste, and specifically sewage sludge, causes the

4 Sierra 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 draf t 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 u nchanged during combustion, and some of which are generated as a result of the combustion process itself. The pollu tants for which numerical limits must be established, as specified in section 129 of the CAA, include Cd, CO , HCl, Hg, NO x , PCDD/PCDF, PM, Pb, and SO 2 ; and, where appropriate, numerical limits for opacity must also be established. These emissions come from the SSI uni t’s stack and fugitive PM emissions, as indicated by th e associated visible emissions, also occur from ash h andling. C. What is the relationship of the final standards to

other S SI standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge and associated air emissions ? Under authority of section 405(d) and (e) of the CW A, as amended 33 U.S.C.A. 1251, (et seq.), EPA promulg ated regulations on February 19, 1993, at 40 CFR part 50 3 designed to protect public health and the environme nt from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certa in pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. T he part 503 regulations establish requirements for the fina l use and disposal of sewage sludge when: 1) the sludge i s applied to the land for a beneficial use (e.g., for use inThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 slu dge is incinerated. The standards apply to POTW that gene rate or treat domestic sewage sludge, as well as to any per son who uses or disposes of sewage sludge from such treatme nt

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 requiremen ts. These part 503 regulations require that SSI meet th e 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 concent ration of five other inorganic pollutants be calculated us ing equations in the regulation. The inorganic polluta nts included are Pb, As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. The terms in the equations must be determined on a case-by-case basi s, except for the risk-specific concentration for the inhalation exposure pathway to protect individuals when these pollutants are inhaled. The site-specific va riables for the equations (incinerator type, dispersion fac tor, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 23 of 431 control efficiency, feed rate, and stack height) mu st be used to calculate allowable daily concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Pb and Ni in the sewage sludge fed to the incin erator. 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 f requency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting require ments are also included in this subpart. Under today’s final standards, EPA is establishing limits for three of the inorganic pollutants covere d by the current part 503 regulations (Cd, Pb and Hg) and th e following six additional pollutants: HCl, CO, NO x , SO 2 , PM, and total PCDD/PCDF. Besides the pollutants covere d here, there are other differences between the part 503 regulations and these final standards. The emissio n limits for inorganic pollutants under part 503 are risk-ba sed numbers rather than technology-based. Also, part 5 03 does not distinguish between new and existing units or b etween 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 24 of 431 Because both part 503 and these final standards cov er 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 o f sewage sludge under CAA section 129 would result in strict er emission standards than under the current CWA rule. Additional pollution controls will increase costs f or facilities that continue to use the incineration di sposal method. If the additional costs are high enough, m any entities may choose to adopt alternative disposal m ethods (e.g., surface disposal in landfills or other benef icial land applications). Consequently, a potential impa ct of this rule is that some of the estimated 110 facilit ies that operate SSI as the primary means of disposal could discontinue this practice and would instead landfil l or land apply their sewage sludge. Second, one must c onsider the available capacity of surface disposal sites to receive additional sewage sludge and the potential for adde d costs if the use of SSI is discontinued. Third, SSI woul d be subject to two different sets of requirements (nume ric standards, operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) under the two differe nt statutes, creating an additional burden to these fa cilitiesThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 25 of 431 unless alternative regulatory approaches are implem ented. EPA plans to evaluate the requirements under both s tatutes to determine what changes, if any, should be made t o 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 requi rements of the SSI regulations. For a full description of the final requirements and compliance times, see the SS I 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 60.478 0 and 40 CFR 60.5065) located at wastewater treatment facili ties designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. A SSI un it 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 removin g 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 b urn sewage sludge as defined in the subparts. The fina lThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 26 of 431 standards define two subcategories for new and exis ting 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 se ction 129 standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI stan dards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC s tandards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBB B of this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (4 0 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 t he MH incinerator subcategory and FB incinerator subca tegory are presented in Table 1 of this preamble. Existin g 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% 0 2 0.095 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,900 58 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.51The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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% 0 2 0.28 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 220 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.10 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 1.2 PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 subcateg ory are presented in Table 2 of this preamble. Existing so urces may comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TEQ or TMB emi ssion 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% 0 2 0.0024 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 52 18 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.2 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.15 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0035 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.045 0.013 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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% 0 2 60 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 me thods. The final standards also provide an option for less frequent testing if sources demonstrate that their emissions of regulated pollutants are below thresho lds of the emission limits. For existing SSI units, the EG requires initial and annual emissions performance tests (or continuous e missions monitoring or continuous sampling as an alternative ), bag leak detection systems for FF controlled units, con tinuous parameter monitoring, and annual inspections of air pollution control devices , if they that may be are used to meet the emission limits. Additionally, existing u nits are required to conduct Method 22 (see 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) visible emissions test of the ash handling ope rations during each compliance test. For new SSI units, the NSPS requires initial and annual emissions performance tests (or continuous e missions 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 draf t 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 inspecti ons of air pollution control devices that may be used to m eet the emission limits. The final rule requires all new S SI units to install a CO CEMS. Operators of new units are a lso required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions tes ting of the ash handling operations during each compliance test. For existing SSI units, use of Cd, CO, HCl, NO x , PM,

Pb or SO 2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling with periodic sample analysis) are approved alterna tives to parametric monitoring and annual compliance testing . For new SSI units, CO CEMS are required, and use of Cd, HCl,

NO x , PM, Pb or SO 2 CEMS; ISTMMS; and ISTDMS (continuous sampling, with periodic sample analysis) are approv ed alternatives to parametric monitoring and annual co mpliance testing. E. What are the other requirements for new and exis ting SSI units? Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units ar e required to meet operator training and qualificatio n requirements, which include: ensuring that at leas t one operator or supervisor per facility complete the op eratorThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 refreshe r course specified in the regulation, and that they maintain plantspecific information, updated annually, regarding t raining. Owners or operators of new SSI units are required t o conduct a siting analysis, which includes submittin g a report that evaluates site-specific air pollution c ontrol alternatives that minimize potential risks to publi c health or the environment, considering costs, energy impac ts, nonair environmental impacts and any other factors rel ated to the practicability of the alternatives. Owners or operators of new or existing SSI units ar e required to submit a monitoring plan for any contin uous monitoring system or bag leak detection system used to comply with the rule. They must also submit a moni toring plan for their ash handling system that specifies t he operating procedures they will follow to ensure tha t they meet the fugitive emission limit. F. What are the recordkeeping and reporting require ments? Records of the initial and all subsequent stack or PS tests, deviation reports, operating parameter data, continuous monitoring data, maintenance and inspect ions of the air pollution control devices, the siting analy sis (forThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 31 of 431 new units only), monitoring plan and operator train ing and qualification must be maintained for five years. T he

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 exe mption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1 ), (the “General Provisions Rule,”) that EPA promulgated un der 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 11 2(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, theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t hese standards, EPA has taken into account startup and s hutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has n ot established different standards for those periods. We are not promulgating a separate emission standar d for the source category that applies during periods of startup and shutdown. Based on the information ava ilable at this time, we believe that SSI units will be abl e to meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units we have information on use natural gas, landfill ga s, or distillate oil to start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion temperatures. Emission s from burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fue l oil are expected to generally be lower than from burnin g solid wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are a lso generally lower than emissions during normal operat ions because the materials in the incinerator would be a lmost fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermor e, the approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units rankedThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 33 of 431 individual SSI units based on actual performance fo r each pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate acco unting of emissions variability. Because we accounted for emissions variability, we believe we have adequatel y addressed any minor variability that may potentiall y 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 d efined as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preven table failure of air pollution control and monitoring equ ipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a norm al or usual manner * * * ”(40 CFR 60.2). EPA has determi ned that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct ope rating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at su ch times do not need to be factored into development of CAA section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at al l 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 st andards. 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 po int, the transgression of regulatory limits caused byThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 performin g” 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 t o 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 ta kes 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 str ikes, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 35 of 431 malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and dur ation, 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 appropria te response based on, among other things, the good fai th efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and cor rective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertai n 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 rea sonably 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 re levant

6 40 CFR section 60.2 (definition of malfunction).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 establis h this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all o f 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 excee dance 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 maint enance and or careless operation). For example, to succes sfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must pro ve by a preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions “[w]ere

7 See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Rega rding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, a nd Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissio ns During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunct ions (Feb. 15, 1983). 8 See proposed definition 40 CFR §60.4930 and 40 CFR §60.5250 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, i n the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the def endant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which ar e independently and objectively evaluated in a judici al 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 37 of 431 caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoida ble failure of air pollution control and monitoring equ ipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a nor mal 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 6 0, subpart LLLL and 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM and t o prevent future malfunctions. For example, the sour ce must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]e pairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the app licable 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 enviro nment and human health....” In any judicial or administrat ive proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the ass ertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent h as not met its burden of proving all of the requirements i n the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be a ssessed 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 fin al SSI rule are required to apply for and obtain a Tit le VThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 38 of 431 permit. These Title V operating permits assure com pliance with all applicable requirements for regulated SSI units, including all applicable CAA section 129 requiremen ts 9

. The permit application deadline for a CAA section 1 29 source applying for a Title V operating permit depe nds on when the source first becomes subject to the releva nt Title V permits program. If a regulated SSI unit is a ne w unit and is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete Title V permit application mus t 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 1 2 months after the promulgation date of 40 CFR part 6 0, 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 Tit le 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 39 of 431 date the SSI unit commences operation as a new

source 10

.

If the SSI unit is an existing unit and is not subj ect to an earlier permit application deadline, then the source must submit a complete Title V permit application b y 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 deadli ne of 36 months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, su bpart MMMM, applies regardless of whether or when any app licable federal plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable state or tribal CAA section 111(d)/129 p lan 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 40 of 431 approved by EPA and becomes effective. (See CAA se ctions 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 o f some triggering requirement(s) other than those men tioned above, for example, a SSI unit may be a major sourc e (or part of a major source), then you may be required t o apply for a Title V permit prior to the deadlines specifi ed above. If more than one requirement triggers a sou rce’s obligation to apply for a Title V permit, the 12-mo nth time frame for filing a Title V permit application is tr iggered by the requirement which first causes the source to be subject to Title V 11

. For additional background information on the interf ace between CAA section 129 and Title V, including EPA’ s interpretation of section 129(e), information on up dating existing Title V permit applications and reopening existing Title V permits, see the final “Federal Plan for Co mmercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration,” October 3 , 2003 (68 FR 57518), as well as the “Summary of Public Co mments 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 41 of 431 I. What are the applicability dates of the standard s? New SSI units that commence construction after Octo ber 14, 2010, or that are modified six months or more a fter the date of promulgation, must meet the NSPS emission l imits of 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL within six months afte r 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 req uired to submit state plans containing the existing source e mission limits of subpart MMMM of this part, and other requ irements to implement and enforce the EG within one year aft er promulgation of the EG. States must submit state p lans to EPA by [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGIS TER ]. State plans apply to existing SSI in the state (inc luding SSI that are modified prior to and including the da te 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 sta te planThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 42 of 431 or five years after promulgation of the EG, whichev er is earlier. Consistent with CAA section 129, EPA expe cts states to require compliance as expeditiously as practicable. However, because we believe that many SSI units will find it necessary to retrofit existing e missions control equipment and/or install additional emissio ns 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 pl an, then the compliance date is five years from the date of the final rule. EPA intends to develop a federal plan that will app ly to existing SSI units in any state that has not sub mitted an approved state plan within two years after promu lgation of the EG. The final EG allows existing SSI units subject to the federal plan up to five years after promulga tion 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 emis sions

test results to EPA? Electronic data collection is commonly employed to collect and analyze data for a variety of applicati ons, Comment [A8]: Does EPA have a sense of how many states this will apply to?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 43 of 431 such as the CAA Acid Rain Program. Both industry a nd the public benefit from electronic data collection in t hat it increases the ease of submitting the data, as well as increasing the accessibility and transparency of th ese data. EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 stand ards, as well as for many other purposes including complianc e determinations, emission factor development, and an nual emission rate determinations. In conducting these required reviews, EPA has found it ineffective and time cons uming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies a nd 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 impro vement that has occurred in recent years is the availabili ty of stack test reports in electronic format as a replac ement for cumbersome paper copies. In this final rule, EPA is taking a step to improve data accessibility and increase the ease and effici ency of reporting for sources. Owners and operators of SSI facilities are required to submit to EPA’s ERT data base the electronic copies of reports of certain performance testsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 44 of 431 required under the SSI EG and NSPS. Facilities mus t enter data through an electronic emissions test report st ructure called the ERT whenever conducting performance test s. EPA developed the ERT with input from industry, stack t esting companies who generally collect and compile perform ance test data electronically and offices within state a nd local agencies that perform field test assessments. The ERT is currently available and access to direct data submi ttal 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 additio nal performance testing and would apply to those perfor mance tests conducted using test methods that are support ed by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic da ta entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference me thods. 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 f or emissions test data compilation. Moreover, we beli eve industry will benefit from development of improved emission factors, fewer follow-up information requests, and betterThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 45 of 431 regulation development as discussed below. The inf ormation to be reported is already required for the existing test methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformanc e 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 repo rted by this rule that also clearly states what testing inf ormation would be required. Another important benefit of su bmitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is co nducted is that it should substantially reduce the effort i nvolved in data collection activities in the future. When EPA has source category performance test data in hand, ther e will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with prospective required r esidual risk assessments or technology reviews. This shoul d result in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection r equests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing dat a collection requests and assessing the results). State/local/tribal agencies may also benefit from t he reduced burden associated with receipt of electroni c information opposed to having to process paper form s.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 46 of 431 Finally, another benefit of submitting these data t o WebFIRE electronically is that these data will grea tly improve the overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by supplementing the pool of emiss ions test data upon which the emission factor is based a nd by ensuring that data are more representative of curre nt industry operational procedures. A common complain t heard from industry and regulators is that emissions fact ors are outdated or not representative of a particular sour ce category. Receiving and incorporating data for mos t performance tests will ensure that emissions factor s, when updated, represent accurately the most current oper ational practices. In summary, receiving test data already collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions factors development program will save ind ustry, 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 webs ite was constructed to store emissions test data for use in developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIREThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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.m ain. The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic rep ort through EPA’s CDX network for storage in the WebFIR E database. Although ERT is not the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source test da ta to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of th e ERT

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Propos al EPA received over 90 public comments on the propose d rulemaking. Furthermore, we conducted one public h earing to allow the public to comment on the proposed rule making. In response to these comments, EPA is making severa l 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 foun d 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. ApplicabilityThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 48 of 431 The final rule clarifies that, if any amount of se wage sludge is burned in an incinerator at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e sludge, the incinerator is subject to the SSI stand ards in subparts LLLL and MMMM of this part while burning s ewage sludge. The final rule also clarifies that sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewate r treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewag e 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, sub parts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBBB of this part) or the Haz ardous Waste Combustor rule (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). B. Subcategories The proposed NSPS did not subcategorize new source s. 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 Emiss ion Limits At proposal, we used a 99 percent UPL calculation t o determine variability. For the final rule, for exi sting FB units, we are using a weighted 99 percent UPL calcu lationThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 49 of 431 to account for the biasing of emissions data from o ne facility. The weighted UPL was not used for MH uni ts. In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtosis, were examined to determine i f 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 skewnes s and kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were nor mally distributed, the reported dataset was selected as t he basis of the floor to be conservative. If the results of the skewness and kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed f or the reported values and the natural log-transformed rep orted values, the analysis done on the reported data valu es was chosen to be conservative. We have modified our assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtos is tests do not clearly show whether a normal or log-normal distribution better represents the data, or when th ere are not enough data to complete the skewness and kurtos is tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the l ognormal results for the final MACT floor calculation

. In the proposed rule, we proposed setting beyond th e floor emission standards for Hg emissions from exis ting MH units. In the final rule, we are establishing the MACTThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 50 of 431 floor emission limits but are not setting beyond th e floor standards. Also, we are not finalizing the propose d opacity limits. At proposal, we set emission limit s for both PCD/PCDF TMB and PCD/PCDF TEQ and required SSI units to meet both limits. In the final standards, we ar e allowing affected sources to comply with either the PCDD/PCDF TMB or TEQ emission limits. The final emission limits resulting from the revise d MACT floor calculations are presented in Tables 3 t hrough 6 of this preamble, and compared to the proposed emis sion limits. Table 3. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Exi sting FB SSI Units

Pollutant Units Proposed Emission Limit Final

Emission Limit Cd mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0019 0.0016 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 56 58 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.49 0.51 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0033 0.037 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 63 150 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0098 0.0074 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.056 0.10 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.61 1.2 PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 12 18 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 22 15 Table 4. Final and Proposed Emission Limits for Exi sting MH SSI UnitsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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% 0 2 0.095 0.095 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 3,900 3,900 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 1.0 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.02 0.28 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 210 220 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.30 0.30 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.32 0.32 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 5.0 5.0 PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 80 80 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0011 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 18 HCl ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 0.12 0.24 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.0010 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 30 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.00062 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.013 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0044 PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 9.6 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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% 0 2 0.00051 0.0024 CO ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 7.4 52The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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% 0 2 0.12 1.2 Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0010 0.15 NO x ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 26 210 Pb mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.00053 0.0035 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.024 0.045 PCDD/PCDF, TMB ng/dscm @ 7% 0 2 0.0022 0.0022 PM mg/dscm @ 7% 0 2 4.1 60 SO 2 ppmvd @ 7% 0 2 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 inform ation provided by commenters. A discussion of the change s is presented in section V of this preamble. The resul ts 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 thei r 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 53 of 431

• The alternative to test less frequently (every thir d 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 observationThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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, slud ge feed rate and sludge moisture content are still required to be monitored during performance test ru ns, 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 val ue recorded during pollutant performance tests. In th e 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 performanc e

tests.

• The proposed standards schedule for conducting annu al 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 ni ne calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test); and you m ustThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 wit h the CO CEMS operating parameters has been changed f rom 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 maximu m 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 revisi on 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 theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Ch anges 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 th e comment response document for SSI units in the dock et. 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, accor ding 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 wi thin each respective POTW and are wholly integrated into the solids handling and treatment processes at each POT W. Other commenters stated that SSI units cannot be regulated under CAA section 129 because they are co mbusting material that is generated by the POTW, which is ne ither a commercial or industrial establishment nor the gene ral public as required in CAA section 129(g)(1). TheThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 57 of 431 commenters added that, based on the proposed defini tion of solid waste, even if they had a new point of genera tion within the POTW where they were generating solid wa ste, the POTW sewage sludge is from a municipal source and d oes not pass the broad applicability for solid waste incine ration under CAA section 129. Another commenter added tha t CAA section 129(a)(1)(B)-(C) also directs EPA to set st andards for solid waste incineration units combusting munic ipal waste, but to qualify as a unit combusting municipa l waste, the unit must first be a solid waste incineration u nit. The commenters concluded that this would not includ e SSI units.

Several commenters stated that EPAs determination to regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 contradict s previous decisions where EPA has stated that regula tions 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 S SI units was because there were no major sources in the sour ce category. One commenter added that EPA’s decision to regulate SSI units under CAA section 129 is based o n an overly broad reading of the NRDC case.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 se ction 112(d), and those emissions standards did not inclu de standards for SSI units. In the proposed POTW emis sions standards, EPA stated that “[s]ewage sludge inciner ation will be regulated under section 129 of the CAA[.]” See 63

FR 66084, 66087 (December 1, 1999 1998 ). Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that regul ation of SSI units under section 129 is inconsistent with pa st EPA statements. EPA also explained in the NPRM that th e EPA’s statements regarding SSI units during its promulgat ion 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 a rgue that EPA cannot regulate SSI units under section 12 9 because it previously stated that it would regulate them under section 112. However, the NRDC decision prec ludes EPA from doing so. Moreover, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to issue emissions standards for SSI units under secti on 112(d). Rather, it governs the schedule for the is suance section 112(d) emissions standards for POTW. Secti onThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 stand ards for initially listed source categories as expeditiously as practicable, with certain specific deadlines in sec tion 112(e)(1). Section 112(e) further describes how EP A shall prioritize source categories for regulation, and re quires EPA to establish a schedule for issuance of emissio ns standards for section 112 listed source categories. Finally, Congress specified a different schedule fo r POTW in section 112(e)(5), stating that emissions standa rds shall be issued no later than November 15, 1995. T hus, section 112(e)(5) does not require EPA to regulate SSI units under section 112(d), but rather simply ident ifies the date by which EPA must issue emissions standard s 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 1 29(g) as explained in NRDC v. EPA . Section 129(g) defines “solid waste incineration unit” to include any unit combus ting any solid waste, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA rejected EPA’s position that it could choose to regulate certain u nits, combusting solid waste, under section 112 instead o f underThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 60 of 431

section 129. Since SSI units do combust solid wast e, EPA does not have the discretion under section 129 to c reate an exemption for SSI units from the statutory definiti on of solid waste. The court noted that section 129(g) i tself specifies certain units that combust solid waste bu t are exempt from the definition, and noted that where Co ngress 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 a ction will achieve reductions of the section 129 pollutan ts from SSI units. EPA further notes that section 405 of t he CWA expressly provides that nothing in that section is intended to waive more stringent requirements of any other l aw. Therefore, Congress clearly did not intend for regu lation 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 beThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 61 of 431 considered SSI units and subject to the SSI standar ds if they combust any amount of sewage sludge. Some com menters 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 burnin g nonsludge industrial waste would be subject to both SS I and CISWI. Some commenters suggested that SSI units be consistent with the MWC standards and provide an ex emption for co-fired combustors firing 30 percent or less b y weight of sewage sludge. Commenters suggested that the SSI standards provide exclusions for all solid waste incineration units t hat 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 combu stor regulations and/or hazardous waste management permi ts 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: ItalicThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 ex emption for hazardous waste combustion units that are affec ted 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 sewag e sludge is subject to the final SSI standards. We have cla rified that the final standards and guidelines do not appl y to sewage sludge that is not burned in an SSI located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat dom estic 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 se ction 129 standards, such as the CISWI standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD of this part), the OSWI stan dards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EEEE and FFFF), the MWC s tandards (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea, Eb, Cb, AAAA, and BBB B of this part) or the Hazardous Waste Combustor rule (4 0 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). Formatted: Font: ItalicThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 W aste Disposal Act are exempt from CAA section 129 standa rds 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 determin ations regarding the definition of non-hazardous solid was te. Response: The EPA is not making determination in this rule about the definition of non-hazardous solid wa ste but are using the defintions promulagted in a RCRA rule

. Th e

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 sol id waste by referencing the definition of solid waste under RCRA. The commenters added that RCRA excludes sewage slud ge in what is commonly referred to as the domestic sewage exclusion (DSE). The exclusion explicitly states t hat solid waste does not include solid or dissolved mat erial in domestic sewage.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Identifica tion of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Wa ste 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 subcatego ries for the NSPS. The commenters added that it was inappro priate 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 impro ve combustion efficiency or boost steam output for ele ctricity 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 S SI units without considering any criteria that the statute r equires. Other commenters agreed with the decision to use th e best-The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 65 of 431 performing FB unit as the best similar source for t he MH SSI source category. Other commenters requested further subcategorizati on based on size of the SSI unit, type of sewage sludg e incinerated, limited use units, and distance over w hich 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 un its 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. Th e differences between the two combustor designs resul t in significant differences in emissions, size of the f lue gas stream, ability to handle variability in the feeds, control of temperature and other process variables, auxilia ry fuel use and other characteristics. To reflect the diff erences 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 th e lastThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 constructe d 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 n ot limit potential options POTW can use to dispose of waste. We still believe that new SSI units constructed will b e FB units because of the many advantageous of FB units over MH units. However, many MH units have a long equipmen t life and may undergo modification, including energy effi ciency improvements that may subject them to new source st andards. These units would not be able to meet the new sourc e standards based on FB units. We are not subcategorizing SSI units on any other basis because we do not have data that would differ entiate

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 AnalysisThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 beca use none of the facilities in EPA’s database can simultaneou sly meet all the proposed standards. One commenter stated t hat EPA's MACT Floor methodology is supposed to involve "review of actual emissions data with an appropriate accoun ting for emissions variability". However, the commenter con tended that EPA fails to follow this guidance in a practic al manner in establishing MACT Floors for SSI units an d that this results is unrealistically stringent limits th at are not achievable for any SSI. Several commenters not ed that this was especially true for the new source standar ds. Several commenters added that EPA's pollutant-by-po llutant basis violates the statute and its own views of the statute. One commenter stated that if EPA cannot demonstrate that the top performers can simultaneou sly meet all standards, EPA has improperly circumvented the section 129 for establishing "beyond-the-floor" standards b ecause the "floor standards would force industry-wide technological upgrades without consideration of the factors (cost and energy in particular) which Congress mand ated forThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 NO x standards is flawed because EPA did not take into account the inherent conflict in comp lying with two standards. The commenters noted that CO a nd NO x emissions are inversely proportional. The commente rs explained that decreases in CO tend to elevate NO x and vice versa. The commenters added that high temperature combustion with long residence times and high oxyge n concentration results in very low CO emissions, and that those same operating conditions favor high NO x emissions.

The commenters added that the conditions used to mi nimize CO (i.e., high temperature afterburners) consume mo re fuel and produce more CO 2 emissions.

One commenter noted that the SSI unit with the most advanced control technologies, and those EPA indica ted 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 wou ld not comply with the Cd standard, 28 of 30 data points w ould notThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 com ply 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 com ply with

the NO x standard. The commenter concluded that data variability has not been appropriately accounted fo r and that EPA's method of establishing the MACT floor ba sed 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 sect ion 129 does not unambiguously declare that MACT floors mus t be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, appl ying the requirement to set MACT floors based on what has be en achieved by the best-performing sources for each of the pollutants covered by CAA section 129 is a reasonab le interpretation of EPA’s obligation under that provi sion (62 FR 48363-64). EPA interprets the provision in CAA section 129(a) (2) to support establishing emissions standards based o n the actual emissions of “the best controlled similar un it” or “best-performing 12 percent of units in the categor y” forThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 70 of 431 each covered pollutant. Even if we were to conclud e that the commenters’ interpretation is equally reasonabl e under the statute, which we do not, the commenters’ interpretation is certainly not compelled by the st atute. We maintain that our interpretation is reasonable u nder the statute and appropriate given the problems associat ed with implementing the commenters’ approach. The rest of CAA section 129 requires EPA to “estab lish performance standards and other requirements pursua nt to section [111] of this title and this section [129] for each category of solid waste incineration units.” Pursu ant to CAA section 129(a)(2), those standards “shall refle ct the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4)....” (emphasis added). Subsection (a)(4) then states: “The performance sta ndards promulgated under section [111] of this title and t his section [129] and applicable to solid waste inciner ation units shall specify numerical emissions limitations for the following substances or mixtures: PM (total and fin e), 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 performanceThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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, t hat MACT floors be derived for each pollutant based on the e mission levels achieved for each pollutant. Moreover, alth ough the provisions do not state whether there is to be a se parate floor for each pollutant, the fact that Congress si ngled out these pollutants suggests that the floor level of control need not be limited by the performance of d evices 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 inst ance 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 ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 thatEPA 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 firs t sets emission floors for each pollutant and source category....”). Accordingly, EPA’s pollutant-by-po llutant approach has, as outlined above, been in place sinc e 1997 for medical waste incinerators, and even earlier fo r 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 bee n upheld in other contexts. See, e.g. , Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA , 870 F.2d 177, 239 (5 th Cir. 1989) (concluding that basing CWA best available technology standards on a pollut ant-bypollutant basis was a rational interpretation of EP A’s obligations under that similar statute). We note t hat the CAA MACT provisions were fashioned on that CWA prog ram. S. Rep. No. 228, 101 st Cong. 2d sess. 133-34.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 73 of 431 Further, utilizing the single-unit theory would li kely 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 per forming 12 percent of facilities for metals did not control CDD/CDF as well as a different 12 percent of facilities, th e floor for PCDD/PCDF and metals would end up not reflectin g best performance. Moreover, a single-unit approach woul d require EPA to make value judgments as to which pol lutant reductions are most critical in working to identify the single unit that reduces emissions of the nine poll utants on an overall best-performing basis. Such value ju dgments are antithetical to the command of the statute at t he MACT floor stage. It would essentially require EPA to prioritize the nine pollutants based on the relativ e 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 74 of 431 The fact that the statute does not contain the phra se “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-pollutan t are based on the performance of a hypothetical facility , so that the limitations are not based on those achieve d 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 thi s rule reflect actual performance and are achieved in prac tice. An interpretation that the floor level of control m ust be limited by the performance of devices that only control some of these pollutants effectively “guts the stan dards” by including worse performers in the averaging proc ess, whereas EPA’s interpretation promotes the evident Congressional objective of having the floor reflect the average performance of best performing sources. Si nce Congress has not spoken to the precise question at issue, and EPA’s interpretation effectuates statutory goal s 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 draf t 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 pol lutant limits proposed. For the final standards, based on the data we have, our estimate of baseline emissions, a nd 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. Howev er, we are not aware of any technical reason that new unit s could not install the most advanced pollution control tec hniques or reduce the pollutant concentrations in the sludg e to

meet the new source standards. We recognize that the pollutant-by-pollutant approa ch for determining the MACT floor can, as it does in t his case, increase the overall cost of the regulation c ompared 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 Cong ress did, in fact, intend that sources subject to regula tions developed under CAA section 129 meet emissions limi ts that are achieved by the best controlled unit for each pollutant, as long as the control systems are compa tible with each other. To our knowledge, there is no tec hnicalThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 76 of 431 reason why these air pollution control systems cann ot be combined. Regarding the inverse relationship between CO and N O x with regard to combustion control, it is incumbent upon the SSI facility to determine whether combustion condit ions can be adjusted to meet both standards and, if not, ins tall NO x controls as necessary (e.g., SNCR systems, SCR syst ems, FGR, or low NO x 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 S CR, we also do not know of technical reason why they could not be used. Given the limited data available on SSI unit s with FGR, we could not definitely determine how effectiv e the technology was on SSI units. However, we also do n ot know of a technical reason why they could not be used, i f necessary, to meet NO x 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 pr ovisionThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 77 of 431 in section 129 requires them to set the existing fl oor 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 co ntendedthat EPA did not have emissions data from the bestperforming 12 percent of sources or even from 12 pe rcent of sources. Additionally, the commenters stated that there is

no evidence that the sources for which EPA collecte d data are among the top 12%. One commenter added that EP A is using actual data from as little as 4.3 percent of a subcategory (7 of 163 MH units for HCl) to determin e how the top 12 percent perform. Some commenters contended that EPA chose to limit i ts ICR to just nine entities because collecting inform ation from ten or more entities would have triggered the PRA obligations and a more rigorous OMB review. The co mmenters 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: t o determine which of the SSI units are the best perfo rming

sources.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 78 of 431 Some commenters also contended that EPA targeted it s ICR to the nine POTW expected to have the lowest em issions based on the type of unit and the installed air pol lution controls. The commenters contended that EPA’s targ eted approach to collecting data from expected top perfo rmers undermines its ability to presume the data is a ran dom sample representative of the entire source category or subcategory. The commenters stated that if the dat a gathered are not representative at the outset, then the data cannot reliably be used in a statistical equat ion to predict the emissions data across the source catego ry or subcategory. Some commenters noted that in the past, EPA has use d permit or other regulatory limits, emission levels, feed rate control, and other information to establish MA CT standards. Despite this flexibility, the commenter s stated that EPA is proposing to use an "actual emissions" method in the SSI rule, even though it does not have actua l emissions for each of the regulated pollutants from at least 12% of the units. Another commenter stated that EPA used emission dat a from state databases for an additional nine MHs. Th e commenter stated that EPA was instructed by the Cou rt toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 79 of 431 collect data from the best-performing 12% of existi ng sources, and EPA needs to justify that the emission s data from the state databases for the additional nine MH s 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, Comm ercial,

and Institutional Boilers MACT standards and the CI SWI 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 characteri ze affected sources. EPA then evaluated the informati on received in response to the survey and identified d ata gaps in the emissions information. The second component of the ICR consisted of emissions testing at sufficient so urces to collect enough data, in combination with the test r eports submitted with the ICR, to determine the best perfo rming 12 percent of sources. This data collection effort la sted over 24 months. Additionally, because the ICR for those rulemakings was sent to more than nine entities, th eThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 80 of 431 requirements of the PRA applied, and required EPA t o seek public input on a draft ICR as well as obtain appro val from OMB to collect the information.EPA needed to collect information on the bestperforming sources to establish MACT floor standard s for SSI. Therefore, EPA sent ICRs to nine entities tha t own and operate SSI units. EPA identified SSI units th at were expected to be the best-controlled sources and the best performers for further emissions testing. The Agen cy acknowledges that this selection methodology target s identifying the best-performing sources rather than selecting a representative sample of sources. Howe ver, given the court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue t he final SSI rule, it was not possible to undertake the time

consuming process of sending an ICR to all the affe cted 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 bein g 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 g enerally achieve the most reductions possible for the CAA se ction 129 pollutants, and thereby allow EPA to identify f or eachThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 tha n one of the following technologies: activated carbon inject ion to reduce Hg and dioxins/furans; RTOs or afterburners to reduce CO and organics; wet ESP to reduce fine part iculate; high efficiency scrubbers such as packed bed scrubb ers and impingement tray scrubbers to reduce PM, Cd, Pb, particulate Hg, and acid gases such as HCl and SO 2 ; and units with multiple control devices that could redu ce 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 o r operators selected were from different states in di fferent regions of the country, providing a wide spectrum o f sources for wastewater being treated. Six of the nine ICR recipients operate MH units, resulting in 13 MH units surveyed. Three of the ni ne operate FB units, resulting in 7 FB units surveyed. Some owners of multiple units at a facility provided inf ormation for less than the total number they operated, e.g. 1 unit instead of 2, because not all units were in operati on during the test period. Of those 20 units from the nine surveyed municipalities, EPA collected data from 17 unitsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 collecte d emission test information for 9 MH SSI units collec ted from state environmental agencies public databases. For some pollutants, the emissions from these supplemental t est reports were lower than those from the nine ICR sou rces. The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to use al l the emissions information from these test reports in th e MACT floor analysis. The EPA also collected many test r eports that were older than 15 years. The older reports w ere determined to not be appropriate for this rulemakin g due to their age and because they were prior to sources co ming into compliance with the CWA part 503 standard. In total, emissions information were collected from 6 FB unit s and 20 MH units from facilities responding to the ICR and additional test reports provided by state environme ntal agencies. As discussed in the NPRM and background documentati on, the EPA conducted a statistical analysis to verify the minimum number of observations needed to accurately characterize the distribution of the best-performin g 12 percent of units in each subcategory. The results showed that the data utilized by EPA meets or exceeds the numberThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 be stperforming 12 percent of the source population. Th e EPA maintains that the emissions information that we ha ve collected is adequate to determine the MACT floor f or the best-performing sources. The EPA disagrees with th e commenters’ recommendation to use other types of da ta, such as permits, other regulatory limits, or feed rate c ontrols with the emissions information to calculate the MAC T floor. The other types of data mentioned do not represent the actual emissions or operation of the unit but are p otential 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 th e UPL calculation is based on emission test runs of actua l 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 le tters. The inventory now contains 204 SSI units, 60 FB uni ts andThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 invento ry results in more than 12 percent of MH units with da ta for PM and Hg. For these pollutants, we determined the MACT floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of em issions data, as documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source C ategory” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). The EPA solicited additional emission test reports in the N PRM. Although many commenters summarized the results of their most recent emission tests when comparing their sit especific emissions to EPA’s baseline emissions, non e of the commenters actually provided the emissions test rep orts. 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 verif y the tests represent a valid test result that can be use d in the MACT floor analysis. Additionally, the test report s provide information necessary to correct the emissi ons measured into the units used for the MACT floor ana lysis. Therefore, these additional test result summaries, withoutThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 fro m the required number of units in each subcategory, EPA a pplied statistical analysis to single test run results. S everal commenters contended that, in order to enhance the data available for MACT development, EPA counted each te st run as a separate data point. Some commenters stated that basing a MACT Analysis on test runs, instead of tests, is improper. The comm enters noted that CAA section 129 states that MACT standar ds for existing sources must be as stringent as the "emiss ions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 perce nt of units in, the category." The commenters added that , assuming that EPA equates the term "emissions limit ation" with the concept of emission level (as often stated by EPA), this clause means that EPA must use the emiss ion

levels that have been achieved to set the MACT floo rs. The commenters contended that, under the MACT program, it takes a "minimum" of three test runs to make up a valid e missions level test. The commenter stated that a test run i s not an accurate measure of the performance of the unit and shouldThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 E PA should use the results of the test for each unit (c omprised of at least three test runs) to represent what is b eing 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 adde d that it is important that individual sources, not units, be utilized because the composition of the sludge vari es greatly from source to source and utilizing multipl e units at one source skews the data development process an d ultimately provides the basis for a flawed MACT sta ndard at

best. Response: We disagree with the commenters. The 99 percent UPL values were calculated for each polluta nt and for each subcategory using the test run data for th ose units in the best-performing 12 percent. Consisten t with EPA’s procedures on other MACT standards, such as H MIWI, 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 repres ents the value which one can expect the mean of future 3-run performance tests form the best-performing 12 perce nt ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 observat ions from the same best-performing sources. Variability Calculation For the final rule, as in the NPRM, we are incorporating variability in the MACT floor calcula tion for this source category using the 99 percent UPL. We are also following the same procedures for establishing limi ts and incorporating non-detect values as discussed in the NPRM. We have made two revisions to the variability calcu lation for the final rule. First, we revised the MACT flo or 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 distrib uted. These revisions are discussed in the following comm ents and documented in the memorandum “Revised MACT Floor An alysis 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 floo r analysis for existing sources, and Table 8 of this preamble

shows the results for new sources. Table 7. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for Existin g SSI UnitsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 88 of 431

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0016 0.095

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 58 3,900

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.51 b 1.2 Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.037 0.28 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 150 220

Pb mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0074 0.30 PCDD/PCDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.1 0.32 PCDD /PCDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 1.2 5.0

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 18 80

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 15 26

a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures. b Limits represent three times the detection level. Table 8. Summary of MACT Floor Analysis for New SSI Units

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a Cd mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0011 0.0024

CO ppmvd

@7% O 2 18 52

HCl ppmvd

@7% O 2 0.24 1.2 c Hg mg/dscm

@7% O 2 0.001 0.15 b

NO x ppmvd

@7% O 2 30 210 Pb mg/dscm 0.00062 0.0035The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 89 of 431

Pollutant Units MACT Floor Emission Limit for FB Incinerators a MACT Floor Emission Limit for MH Incinerators a @7% O 2 CDD/CDF TEQ ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.0044 0.0022 CDD/CDF TMB ng/dscm

@7% O 2 0.013 0.045

PM mg/dscm

@7% O 2 9.6 60

SO 2 ppmvd

@7% O 2 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 wer e less stringent than EG.

Comment: One commenter contended that because the CAA section 129 unambiguously requires EPA to set floor s 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 th at by claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the top twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consi der variability under the CAA and relevant case law. T he commenter explained that, although EPA may consider variability in estimating an individual source’s ac tual performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the ca se law even suggests that EPA may account for differences in performance between sources except as section 129 p rovides,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 90 of 431 by averaging the emission levels achieved by the so urces 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, ba sed on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions control that ha s been achieved by the best performing sources considering these sources’ operating variability). The Brick MACT decision indicated that floors for existing sources must ref lect the average emission limitation achieved by the best-pe rforming 12 percent of existing sources. The Brick MACT decision also reiterated that EPA may account for variabilit y in setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA e rred in assessing variability because it relied on data fro m the worst performers to estimate best performers’ varia bility. The Court held that “EPA may not use emission level s of the worst performers to estimate variability of the bes tThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 91 of 431 performers without a demonstrated relationship betw een the two.” 479 F. 3d at 882. In determining the MACT floor limits, we first determine the floor, which, for existing sources, i s the emissions limitation achieved in practice by the av erage of the top 12 percent of existing sources, or the leve l 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 perform ance. We then assess variability of the best performers b y using a statistical formula designed to estimate a MACT f loor level that can be met by the average of the best pe rforming sources based on the expected distribution of futur e 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 distri bution 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 obse rvation is an interval that will, with a specified degree o f confidence, contain the next (or some other pre-spe cified) randomly selected observation from a population. I n otherThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 92 of 431 words, the prediction interval estimates what futur e values will be, based on present or past background sample s taken. Given this definition, the UPL represents the value the mean of three future test run observations (three-r un average) can be expected to fall below, based on th e results of the independent sample of size (n) from the same population. Therefore, should a future test condit ion 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 emissio n 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 n ot have test data from all of the SSI units in the best per forming 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 u pon the results of the independent sample size from the sam e population, the UPL adequately gets at the notion o fThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 93 of 431 average emissions. The UPL is consistent with othe r recent rulemakings, such as the boiler and CISWI standards

. Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting MACT standards for existing units, EPA pooled and u tilized data from all available test runs for the best perf orming units without regard to the number of data points a vailable for each unit. The commenters added that, for all pollutants, the number of test runs varies from uni t to unit. One commenter stated that using data this wa y biases the statistical results, and ultimately, the standa rds by over-weighting the performance of the units that ha ve more data. The commenter suggested that EPA should empl oy an alternate methodology which determines the emission s limitation achieved for each best performing unit f irst, and then averages these limitations to determine th e least stringent standard, or MACT floor. Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed units contains data from six units at four faciliti es. 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. O ne facility, with three units, provided results of emi ssions test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10 -yearThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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, a nd 75 percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the existing source MACT floors calculated using the UP L methodology, and all the test run data from the one facility, effectively results in calculating more s tringent 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 weight ed mean and weighted variance as described below. There are many different types of weighting procedures. We have chosen the most straightforwar d methodology, to base it on the number of data point s (i.e., test runs) from each SSI unit. 12 This weighting scheme ensures that no facility in the MACT best performer s pool is over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor.

12 Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). “NIS T Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands”, Nat ional 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 draf t 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 ea ch observation for source i and run j with a weight term, w ij , as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:       ×        

= N M w i ij 1 1 (Eq. 1)

Where:

i 

### M = Number of observations (i.e., runs) for source i and N = Number of best performing sources in the MACT po ol.

The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance for the weighted data from the weight terms using E quations 2 and 3 of this preamble:

Weighted Mean: 

## ∑∑

∑∑

= = = = = N

i M

j ij N

i M

j ij ij weighted

i i

w x w x

1 1

1 1

Equation 2

Weighted Variance: 

# ( ) ( )

K w K x x w

N

i M

j ij N

i M

j weighted

U ij ij weighted

i i 

# ∑∑ ∑∑

= = = =

− −

=

1 1 1 1 2

1 ν

Equation 3 Where:The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 96 of 431 

## ∑

= = N

i i M K 1 is the total number of observations in the MACT bes t

performers pool. When the weights are equal to one, the above equati ons 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 calculat ion (discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e. , unweighted) mean and variance.



## ( ) 

# ( )         + × ×

− + = i i weighted i weighted m n n t x UPL 1 1 1 , 99.0 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 faciliti es with 14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18 units. The MACT floor calculations are not skewed by one or two uni ts or facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for exist ing multiple hearth units does not need to be calculate d using a weighted UPL. The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are discussed in detail in the memorandum “Revised MACT FloorThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 97 of 431 Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source C ategory” in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should determine the MACT floor emission limits to be cons istent with EPA’s Guidance for Data Quality Assessment Man ual, which holds that it is more likely that environment al data are distributed log-normally. The commenter consid ered it

reasonable to believe that environmental emission distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots typically show many readings approaching zero and f ewer large readings forming an elongated tail to the rig ht. The commenter concluded that normal distributions may e xist 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 docume nt shows that environmental data are more likely to be log-n ormally distributed than normally distributed. In the prop osed rule, two statistical measures, skewness and kurtos is, were examined to determine if the data used to calculate the MACT floor were normally or log-normally distribute d. IfThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 98 of 431 both the reported values and the natural-log transf ormed reported values had skewness and kurtosis statistic s that indicated neither were normally distributed, the re ported dataset was selected as the basis of the floor to b e conservative. If the results of the skewness and ku rtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the natural log-transformed reported values, the analys is done on the reported data values was chosen to be conser vative. Based on “Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis” EPA/600/R-96/0 84, July 2000, we have modified our assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests do not clearly show whe ther 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 ha ve 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 accoun t for the full variability of an SSI’s performance. Seve ral 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 isThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 99 of 431 burning. Many commenters urged EPA to determine th e MACT floor limits by incorporating the variability of th e sludge contents. The commenters added that the methodolog y in developing the proposed standards does not take int o account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO 2 emissions are a function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlor ine and sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits were based on test results obtained with sludge con taining very low concentration of metals, chlorides, and su lfur. The commenter explained that if the sludge burned d uring an emissions test was not at or near the maximum const ituent concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variabil ity), a new source emission limit based on these data could not be achieved over the full range of expected normal ope rating conditions confronted by the best performing source

. The commenters contended that EPA must consider all available data (including Part 503 data) for the be st performing source and use that to establish a varia bility factor applied to the stack test data. The comment ers 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 theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 100 of 431 compounds not regulated by Part 503 must also be ac counted 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 t he sewage that enters into the sanitary sewer system, resulting in highly variable and often unpredictabl e spikes in concentrations. The commenters continued that PO TW inlet concentrations also vary based on the nature and ty pe of dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW tr eat wastewater from residential, commercial and industr ial dischargers in varying degrees, and pretreatment opportunities also vary because POTW authority to c ontrol 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 c hanges over time as the character of a community changes, the age of the population changes, and commercial and indus trial dischargers come and go. The commenters added that without the use of long-term data to support the level of e mission standards, this variability makes numeric technolog y-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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 101 of 431 The commenters stated that initial high flow period s in the spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier material that has settled in the sewer system during low-flo w periods, which often results in a spike in metals concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd, Pb) in the sewage slu dge. The commenters noted that the ICR stack tests in Januar y and February that were used for the EPA database would not have captured these events. The commenter also noted th at northern cities that use salt for de-icing roadways experience significant increases in chlorides durin g the winter months, and high chloride concentrations are known to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at exist ing 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, an d western states. Each facility has its own unique s ludge characteristics from different residential and comm ercial populations. We agree that the emissions data repr esents a “point in time”. However, combined together, they represent sufficient variation in regions, climates andThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 102 of 431 populations that adequately incorporates variabilit y in wastewater treatment systems across the U.S. We ha ve also incorporated variability using the UPL. We maintai n that the variability analysis based on the emissions dat a collected adequately characterizes the potential differences in sludge contents and regional differe nces. 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 w arm weather climates.

Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA’s identification of the relevant best performing unit s for both existing and new unit standards is both unlawf ul and arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources’ control tec hnology as a proxy for their actual performance unless “pol lution control technology is the only factor determining e mission levels.” Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855. 863 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The commenters stated t hat, in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA , 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir 2001) ("CKRC"), the Court considered Sierra Clu b's challenge that EPA could not set the floors based s olely on the performance of one method: add-on technology. The

commenters added that the Court remanded the rule b ecauseThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 103 of 431 EPA did not consider all of the ways facilities con trol emissions. The commenters stated that this require ment is consistent with doing a more complete study as requ ired by section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology ba sed solely on emission levels since setting the floor i n this fashion does not require EPA to examine all methods of control. The commenters concluded that EPA's perfo rmance data approach in this rule may violate CKRC because EPA did

not check for all methods that sources use to reduc e pollution. Response: Part 503 establishes daily average concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals i n sewage sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 5 03 also requires that SSI meet the National Emission Standa rds 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 man agement practices and measures to reduce waste and limit th e concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to S SI units, such as segregating contaminated and unconta minated wastes and establishing discharge limits or pre-tre atment standards for non-domestic users discharging wastew ater toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 104 of 431 POTW. Thus, non-technology measures to reduce emis sions are already being taken.

Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs the statistical limit to set MACT floor emission li mits, it should use the 99.9 percent limit. The commenter st ated 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 ann ual performance test program. The commenter concluded that this value better encompasses unit emissions variab ility 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 mea surement and no unit can meet opacity limits of zero at all times. Another commenter suggested that control and monito ring of PM is sufficient. Response: The final rule does not set opacity limits. We believe that, with continuous parametric monitor ing andThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 105 of 431 stack testing, facilities will be able to demonstra te continuous compliance with the PM emission limits.

Format of the Standards

Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA develop emission limits for some pollutants in diff erent units or to provide a control efficiency alternativ e. The commenters expressed concern that the use of concen tration limits would not reflect the variability of the uni que sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may un fairly penalize units with very low or very high feed concentrations of certain pollutants, such as Hg, C d, 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 standar ds in other units at proposal. We requested additional information in the proposal. However, sufficient d ata were not provided in response to our request for alterna tive formats to be developed. D. Baseline EmissionsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 f low rate parameters, pollution control device efficiencies, sludge feed rates, and operating hours. Many commenters p rovided stack test data, emission estimates, and correction s to the EPA’s SSI inventory database. Other commenters not ed that EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow r ate factors in combination with pollutant concentration s corrected to seven percent oxygen. Response: We have incorporated corrections to the inventory and calculation inputs provided by the co mmenters where applicable. In some cases, commenters did no t 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 da ta 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 esti mate baseline emissions for the final standards is prese nted inThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 107 of 431

the memorandum “Revised Estimation of Baseline Emis sions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units”(EPA -HQ-OAR2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and oth er corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emi ssions 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 t heir units were running. The upper bound represents an estimation of potential emissions if the sludge fee d rate was at the dry sludge capacity of each unit. We es timated the potential emissions because the amount of waste water treated (and sludge produced) may vary significantl y based on changes in population or sources of wastewater. Facilities have the potential to burn up to their u nits permitted capacity although they may not be doing s o 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 0.9-1.2The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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

NO x 320-480 2,100-2,800 2,400-3,300 Pb 0.0056-0.0077 2.4-3.1 2.4-3.1 PCDD/PCDF TEQ a 0.00012-

0.00016 0.00076-0.0010 0.0009-0.0012 PCDD/PCDF TMB a 0.0014-0.0020 0.011-0.015 0.013-0.017 PM 25-37 310-410 330-450 SO 2 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 uni ts because baseline Hg emissions were overstated and c osts for Hg control were understated. Many of the commenter s contended that carbon injection is an unproven tech nology for SSI units, and is currently used at only one fa cility with FB units. The commenters added that the facil ity is undergoing significant issues with the technology. Commenters also contended that Hg removal using car bon injection cannot be accomplished with existing PM c ontrols, such as venturi scrubbers, and that FFs would be ne cessary. The commenters added that the high moisture content in the form of liquid droplets from the incinerator will p lug FFs,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 109 of 431 and additional equipment may be necessary to keep t he temperature above the dew point, such as an afterbu rner. Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor analysis to incorporate changes made to the baselin e emissions, new facility specific data and inputs pr ovided by commenters, and revised control options. We hav e 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 contr ol technologies and agree that applying carbon injecti on to existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be effective at removing Hg. We note that EPA is rese arching 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 effec tive in removing Hg. However, we also agree that for high moisture flue gas streams, such as emitted from SSI units, t he use of FFs is problematic due to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with a FF with high moisture s treams,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 110 of 431 a waste heat boiler, RTO, or afterburner is necessa ry to maintain a high enough temperature to keep the stre am above the dew point prior to sending the stream to the FF

. Option 3 is an RTO, carbon injection, and FF for ad ditional control of Hg at MH units. Additional equipment ma y also be necessary to reduce the temperature of the flue gas to prevent damage to the fabric filter bags. Sufficie nt information was not collected to estimate this cost . Table 10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existin g 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 o ptions. Table 11. Summary of Emission Reductions for Existi ng 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 NO x 6.8-16 6.8-16 6.8-16The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 SO 2 430-700 430-700 430-700 The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this preamble were calculated using data gathered for ea ch source, as well as default emissions, sludge capaci ty, and vent gas flow rate information for sources where da ta were unavailable. We estimate, that to apply MACT contr ol option 2, which would require either the use of an afterburner or thermal oxidizer, could require as m uch as 1,700 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to b e burned, resulting in NO x 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 al l MH units to control Hg and PCDD/PCDF would result in t otal annualized costs of $138 million dollars (using a d iscount rate of seven percent) and would achieve Hg reducti ons 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 e quipment necessary to cool the flue gas is also necessary.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 112 of 431 Therefore, given these factors, we are not going be yondthe-floor with options 2 or 3. We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require packed bed scrubbers for additional HCl and SO 2 reduction, a wet ESP for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, a nd SNCR for additional NO x reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to go beyond-the-floor to achieve g reater reduction of HCl, SO 2 , PM, Cd, Pb, and NO x considering the cost and secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-th e-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 th e beyond the floor option of Hg control as well as for the M ACT floor for other pollutants because it only has info rmation for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The com menters 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 theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 num ber of sources that could meet the proposed standards resu lting in a significant underestimation of controls.

Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices o f controls to cost for compliance with the proposed s tandards 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 appr opriate 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 c osts are estimated based on technologies we believe may be appropriate for the sources to meet the emissions l imits. At proposal, and for the final standards, we estima ted costs and emissions reductions based on the best av ailable information to us. We acknowledge that the invento ry database did not have complete information for all 204 SSI units. Consequently, we developed defaults for flu e gas flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and otherThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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, fo r a number of inputs, we are still assigning default va lues where data were not available for each SSI. For th e final rule, we have correlated some of the defaults to populations served by the facilities in order to be tter estimate costs and emission reductions more specifi cally to each facility. Sources will have the best idea of the costs of controls for their site specific condition s. For some sources, the costs and emission reductions est imated 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 t o us. We also note that the MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination of the number of sour ces estimated to require control, estimated for the fin al rule are also based on the revised MACT floor limits. For the final standards we have also revised the t ypes 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 we t ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture str eams. 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 115 of 431

will need further control of NO x 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 SO 2 . 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 cos ts and emissions reductions estimates for the final standa rds is provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emissi on Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in th e 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 slud ge instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons is the appropriate basis of the sludge because even af ter the dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 pe rcent moisture. Many of the commenters provided estimate s for landfilling sludge from their specific unit. The commenters added that because of the error, EPA has significantly underestimated the impacts from trans porting sludge by truck. Other commenters added that EPA h ad not evaluated the negative social impact of hauling slu dge to a landfill. Some commenters added that EPA did not c onsiderThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 b ecause calculations were not done on a wet basis. Comment ers 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 lan dfill 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. Tab le 14 of this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impa cts of this alternative if small entities choose to landfi ll rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the memorandum “Revised Cost and Emissi on Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control” in th e SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 117 of 431 Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that m any sources will find landfilling an appropriate altern ative. The selection of a management option for sewage slu dge is often a local decision that is based on environmental protection concerns, community needs, geographic constraints, and economic conditions. G iven a full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, landfilling or land treatment may be a better manag ement 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 di fficult to comply with certain proposed emission limits dur ing startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters wer e specifically concerned about not being able to meet the proposed CO concentration limit upon startup of a S SI because when a heat up burner system is fired into a cold vessel, the flame tip is quenched before the combus tion is completed creating a small flow of CO. One comment er contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO sta ndard 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 118 of 431 an example of CO data from one hazardous waste comb ustor 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 comme nters stated that absolute pollutant levels tend to incre ase during startup and shutdown due to incomplete combu stion that is unavoidable at lower temperatures, and note d that the influence of unstable combustion may be more pr onounced during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the re maining sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commente rs recommended that EPA account for situations where h igher emissions occur during the time it takes to bring c ontrol 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 sta ndard during periods of startup and shutdown. We request ed information in the NPRM. However, no data were pro vided. Based on the information available at this time, we believe that SSI units will be able to meet the emission li mits during periods of startup. Units we have informati on on use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to startThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 co mbustion temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill gas or distillate fuel oil are expected to generall y be lower than from burning solid wastes. Emissions du ring periods of shutdown are also generally lower than e missions during normal operations because the materials in t he incinerator would be almost fully combusted before shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors for SSI units ranked individual SSI units ba sed on actual performance for each pollutant and subcatego ry, 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 shutdow n are all predictable and routine aspects of a source ’s operations. However, by contrast, EPA has determin ed that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct ope rating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at su ch times were not needed to be factored into development of CAA section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, app ly at all times. We note that continuous compliance is demonstrated using continuous parametric monitoring , exceptThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 stand ards for SSM periods is constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). These commenters stated tha t EPA has failed to account adequately for emissions that occur during SSM periods. One commenter contended that t he Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, n ot CAA section 129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 111), and pointed out that this interpretation is n ot merely a technical distinction. The commenter poin ted 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 s ection 302(k) knowing that EPA‘s emissions standards under section 111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed out that ther e is nothing in the legislative history of the 1977 amen dments to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overt urn 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 draf t 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 d ifferent emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdow n, and malfunction. H. Compliance Requirements

Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed operating parameter ranges for minimum pre ssure drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, minimum scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combu stion temperature (or minimum afterburner temperature) wo uld not be achievable. They explained that these ranges ar e 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 a greed with the proposed operating parameter ranges. Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by the commenters and determined that proposed procedu re 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 te sts) may be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of energy or other operating needs. We determined tha t the operating limits should be more appropriately based onThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 establ ished on a site-specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, a s appropriate) operating parameter value measured dur ing the performance test. This approach has been incorpora ted into the final rule for all operating parameters and wil l result in achievable operating ranges that will ensure tha t the control devices used for compliance will be operate d to achieve continuous compliance with the emissions li mits.

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 max imum rated capacity. They explained that the proposed a pproach fails to take into account the normal feed conditio n and rate variation that occur on a daily and seasonal b asis. A few commenters suggested that charging a SSI at 75 percent to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a st eadier state of control and more efficient combustion of t he sludge. Many commenters indicated that the proposed operati ng range for sludge moisture content would not be achi evableThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 moistu re is very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used, seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received b y an SSI, temperature changes, the biological systems th at treat the sewage, and to operational changes, and that th ese changes cannot always be anticipated and are not al ways immediately correctable. Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to require that SSI units maintain the sludge feed rat e and sludge moisture content of the incinerated sludge w ithin specified ranges. We determined that the operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber (or after burner temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustio n practice, and that moisture content is not needed t o establish that SSI units are in compliance with the ir emission limits. If a SSI has a higher moisture co ntent, the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply with t heir operating limit for temperature of the combustion c hamber. We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge moisture content within specified ranges. We are a lso no longer requiring SSI units to maintain sludge feed ratesThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 124 of 431 within specified ranges due to the seasonal variabi lity at wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate info rmation is necessary during performance test runs to establ ish that SSI units are in compliance with the new requiremen t that they conduct performance tests at 85 percent capaci ty. We are retaining the requirement to keep daily records of sludge feed rates and moisture contents, as SSI uni ts should already be keeping records of these paramete rs, 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 ca pacity. This level has been selected based on the performan ce test operating information provided by the commenters an d previous EPA standards.

Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour rolling averaging period selected in the proposed r ule for determining compliance with the operating parameter s and CO limit was more burdensome and difficult to achieve. They explained that the recordkeeping and compliance bur den is less if the averaging period for CEMS and CPMS are both based on a 24-hour block average. They also explai ned that the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average b asisThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 125 of 431

would be unachievable with MH incinerators and diff icult 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 sufficie nt indication of compliance and will allow more flexib ility for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emis sion 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 prea mble. 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 th e alternative THC compliance requirement. Section 12 9 requires that limits be set for each of the 9 regul ated pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be use d 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 neede d to demonstrate compliance, too costly, and inconsisten t with current Title V permits. They also argued that Met hod 22The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 126 of 431 compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is no t feasible or difficult to conduct due to space const raints, and that many FB incinerators utilize wet ash remov al systems that do not require annual testing. They e xplained that the cost for emissions testing may be signific antly higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They further explained that Title V permits require faci lities to test each of its SSI units once per five years. They pointed out that current management practices and s trict health-based sludge content limits under the CWA se ction 405 and the CAA 40 CFR 503 regulations will help en sure that SSI units are in compliance with their emissio n limits. One commenter pointed out that the propose d compliance schedule of every 10 to 12 months will essentially shorten the testing year by one month e ach

year. Response: The proposed standards included provisions for less frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has revised these provisions, making it easier for faci lities to qualify for less frequent testing, allowing less frequent testing for more pollutants, and ensuring that facilities that do less frequent testing are well b elow their emission limits. In the final standards, own ers orThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 q ualify 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 threshol ds to qualify for less frequent testing. We have also ex tended the option to do less frequent testing to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. The threshold is 5 0 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 variabilit y in sludge that may occur at wastewater treatment facil ities. 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 continuou sly met using the continuous parametric monitoring requirem ents in the rule. Additionally, in the final standards we are also providing assurance that the SSI unit is being oper ated properly and emission limits are being met continuo usly by requiring stringent parametric monitoring requireme nts.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 consid ered deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash handli ng, owners or operators must demonstrate that visible e missions occur no more than two percent of the time during e ach Method 22 1-hour observation period. This allowanc e for fugitive ash emissions has been included in the fin al standards with a new requirement that all facilitie s must submit a monitoring plan at least 60 days before th eir 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 faciliti es are not forced to test at intervals less than 12 months , and to ensure that facilities are testing once per year, w e have revised the testing schedule provisions. In the fi nal standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducte d on a calendar year basis (no less than nine calendar mon ths and no more than 15 calendar months following the previ ous performance test); and facilities must complete fiv eThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 129 of 431 performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year cale ndar period.

Comment: Many commenters requested that the definition of “process change” be revised to exclud e the provision that a process change include an increase in the allowable wastewater received from an industrial so urce. They pointed out that any such increase would trigg er a performance test, as required by the proposed stand ards, and that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They explained that industrial discharges often constitu te only a small percentage of total influent flow (e.g., 3. 5 percent, four to eight percent), that such discharg es are sometimes from sources that do not discharge the po llutants regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g. , food processing facilities), that some merchant SSI faci lities regularly receive variable amounts of sludge from o ther regional wastewater treatment plants and POTW, and that it is difficult for impossible to anticipate some indu strial load changes ahead of time. Several commenters arg ued that this proposed requirement would be redundant to the National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403, wh ich are incorporated into their SSI’s National Pollutant Di scharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which require th em toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 dispos al. The commenters anticipate that they would establish sim ilar limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emis sion limits. A few commenters suggested that the propos ed provision for industrial discharges is vague and op en to interpretation. Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of “process change” and agrees with the commenters that there a re some situations where an increase in the allowable waste water received from an industrial source should not trigg er a performance test. We have revised the definition o f “process change” to more specifically and clearly i dentify the type of process change that will trigger a perf ormance test. The revised definition identifies a “process change” as pollutant-specific and as including only situati ons where the SSI has undergone a significant permit re vision. This revision will ensure that facilities retest wh enever 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 draf t 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 baselin e emissions and emission reductions to present a rang e to show the variability in the emission calculations b etween estimated actual and estimated potential sludge fee d rates. Table 12 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT compliance for each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised A nalysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units” in the SSI d ocket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). Table 12. Projected Emission Reductions for Existin g SSI Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits

Pollutant Range of Reductions Achieved

Through Meeting MACT By Subcategory (TPY) Range of Total Reductions (TPY) FB MH Cd 0 0.5-0.6 0.5-0.6 CO 0 0 0 HCl 0.73-0.94 18-29 19-30 Hg 0.0005-0.0006 0.0017-0.0019 0.0022-0.0025 NO x 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 SO 2 17-21 420-680 430-700The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 l imits. These controls may utilize water, such as wet scrub bers, which would need to be treated. We estimate an ann ual requirement of 234 million gallons per year of addi tional wastewater will be generated as a result of operati ng additional controls or increased sorbents. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revis ed Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineratio n 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 addit ional electricity needs to run added or improved air poll ution control devices. For example, increased scrubber p ump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricit y consumption; sorbent injection controls would likew ise 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 co ntrol devices. The analysis is documented in the memoran dum “Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage SludgeThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 133 of 431 Incineration Source Category” in the SSI docket (EP A-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 NO x , CO, PM and SO 2 and an increase in

CO 2 emissions. Since NO x and SO 2 are covered by capped emissions trading programs, and methodological limi tations prevent us from quantifying the change in CO and PM , we do not estimate an increase in secondary air impacts f or 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 equ ipment, inspections, recordkeeping, and reporting requireme nts to comply with Option 1 (i.e., the selected SSI standa rds). Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall to tal capital investment of $55 million with an associate d total annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (an d using a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Tabl e 13 of this preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators willThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 134 of 431 need to install one or more air pollution control d evices for 43 of the 204 affected units to meet the final emission limits. The analysis is documented in the memorand um “Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI U nits” 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 2 008$) Subcategory Capital Cost ($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 percen t. Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal . At proposal, we evaluated landfilling as an alternativ e disposal method. We have revised our costs and imp acts 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 o f this alternative if small entities choose to landfill ra ther than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussi on 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-O AR-2009- 0559).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 135 of 431 Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that m any sources will find landfilling an appropriate altern ative. However, the selection of a management option for s ewage sludge is often a local decision that is based on environmental protection concerns, community needs, geographic constraints, and economic conditions. G iven a full evaluation of these factors, for some sources, landfilling or land treatment may be a better manag ement option than incineration. Table 14. Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entiti es 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 percen t. B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SS I units constructed and replaced, technical advantage s of FB incinerators, and information provided by the indus try on likely units constructed, we believe that new SSI u nits 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 finalThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 136 of 431 emission limits on two new FB incinerators potentia lly being constructed in the next five years. Table 15 of this preamble summarizes these emission reductions for M ACT compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incin erators. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revis ed Estimation of Impacts for New Units Constructed Wit hin 5 Years After Promulgation of the SSI NSPS” in the SS I 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 NO x 14 Pb 0.00053 PM 0 PM 2.5 0 SO 2 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 planne d to include in the absence of this rule to meet the fin al 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 ye ar ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 memorandu m “Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Source Category” in the SSI doc ket (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 w ill require disposal are anticipated to be approximatel y 34 TPY from activated carbon injection for the two units. 3. What are the energy impacts? The energy impacts associated with meeting the fina l emission limits would consist primarily of addition al electricity needs to run added or improved air poll ution control devices. For example, increased scrubber p ump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricit y consumption. Sorbent injection controls would like wise require electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 300 mega watt-The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 mode led to come on-line in the next five years. The analysis is documented in the memorandum “Revised Analysis of S econdary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source C ategory Analysis of New Units for the Sewage Sludge Inciner ation 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 memoran dum “Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Source Category.” 5. What are the cost impacts? We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI unit s coming on-line in the next five years. This analys is is based on a model plant, the assumption that two new units will come on-line and will add the necessary contro ls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping, a nd reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI standards. Based on this analysis, we anticipate a n overall total capital investment of $8 million (200 8$) with an associated total annualized cost of $2 million ( 2008$The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 139 of 431 and using a seven percent discount rate). This ana lysis 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. H owever, the cost of the final standards are no longer likel y to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 millio n or more. Despite the change in costs, EPA submitted t his action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO s 12866 and 13563 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documente d in the docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RI A of the potential costs and benefits associated with the pr oposed standards we are simply updating the RIA rather tha n revising it. A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationar y Field Code ChangedThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 140 of 431 Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Source s: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based o n the lower costs associated with the selected alternativ e in this final action we are providing an update of the RIA rather than completely revising the RIA. Within th is update, we are providing updated costs and benefits of the options and have provided a comparison of the selec ted option with the alternatives. While the characteri stics of the options have changed, we have also provided a comparison of the costs and benefits of the propose d 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.

• B ecause the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a government provided service that does not involve a market, no price, quantity, or employment impacts w ere estimated for the proposal RIA. The economic impac t analysis focused on the comparison of control cost to total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% lower for the selected option for promulgation comp ared to the proposed option, the control costs are expec ted to be a smaller portion of government revenues for the selected option than they were for the proposed opt ion.

• Because of insufficient information, employment cha nges due to the requirements for operating and maintaini ng control equipment were not estimated. Also, we did not have the information needed to estimate any laborThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 thr ee percent and $1 million to $29 million at seven perc ent. The benefits from reducing exposure to HAP, direct exposure to NO x and SO 2 , ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment have not been monetized, incl uding reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 poun ds of Pb, and 1,000 pounds of Cd.

Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators N SPS 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 Incinera tors 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 draf t 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 rul e have been submitted for approval to the OMB under t he Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The information collection requirements are not enforce able until OMB approves them. The ICR documents prepare d by EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number 2369.02 for subpa rt LLLL, and 2403.02 for subpart MMMM. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in thi s rule are based on the information collection requir ements in CAA section 129 and EPA’s NSPS General Provision s (40The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 143 of 431 CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping and rep orting requirements in the General Provisions are mandator y 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 safegua rded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implement ing 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 annua l compliance with the emission limits using EPA appro ved emissions test methods. The burden also includes continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspecti ons of air pollution control devices that may be used to m eet the emission limits. Operators are required to obtain qualification and complete annual training. New un its are also required to submit a report prior to construct ion, including a siting analysis. The annual average burden associated with the emiss ion guidelines over the first 3 years following promulg ation is estimated to be $9.6 million. This includes 39,350 hours at a total annual labor cost of $2.2 million and to talThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 144 of 431 annualized capital/startup and operation and mainte nance costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the monitoring requirements, storage of data and report s 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 es timated to involve 701 hours at a total annual labor cost o f $40,000. The total annualized capital/startup cost s are estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a cumul ative annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. B urden 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 informat ion unless it currently displays a valid OMB control nu mber. 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 c ontrol number for the approved information collection requ irements contained in this final. C. Regulatory Flexibility ActThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th e 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 busin esses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdi ctions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this actio n on small entities, a small entity is defined as fol lows: 1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulatio ns at 13 CFR 121.201; 2) a small governmental jurisdiction t hat 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 numb er 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 significa ntThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 estima ted capital costs stayed at the same level as those est imated at proposal. Therefore, given the decrease in cost s from the proposed rule, we consider the final rule to ha ve no significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities. After considering the economic impacts of this fina l 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 h as costrevenue-ratios greater than one percent. Thus, thi s 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 en tities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of t his rule on small entities by allowing optional CEMS instead of requiring them, allowing information from tests con ducted in recent years to show compliance rather than requ ire all new testing and allowing reduced testing with conti nued compliance.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform ActThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 147 of 431

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that m ay 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 r ule 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 sect ion VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260, Octob er 14, 2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement can be found in the docket. At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than t he estimated costs of the final rule. At proposal, EP A prepared an RIA, including EPA’s assessment of cost s and benefits, which is detailed in the “Regulatory Impa ct Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationa ry Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Source s: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units” in the docket. B ased on estimated compliance costs associated with the fina l rule and the predicted change in prices and production i n the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the final rule are $55 million ($).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 148 of 431 At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entiti es expected to be affected by the proposed rule, consi stent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations are d iscussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 6 3260). This final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulato ry requirements that might significantly or uniquely a ffect 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 p rivate entities, there would be no requirements that uniqu ely apply to such government or impose any disproportio nate impacts on them. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the sta tes, on the relationship between the national government an d the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of govern ment, as specified in Executive Order 13132

. Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism implications, that impos esThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 149 of 431 substantial direct compliance costs, and that is no t required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance co sts incurred by state and local governments, or EPA con sults 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 govern ments and therefore as specified by the Executive Order, EPA consulted with elected state and local government officials, or their representative national organiz ations, when developing regulations and policies that impos e substantial compliance costs on state and local governments. Pursuant to Agency policy, EPA conduc ted a briefing for the “Big 10” intergovernmental organiz ations representing elected state and local government off icials, as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal prea mble (75 FR 63260) to formally request their comments and in put 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 hav e federalism implications, as defined by Agency guida nce for implementing the Executive Order, due to the final rule’sThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 150 of 431 direct compliance costs on state or local governmen ts resulting in expenditures of less than $100 million

. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consiste nt with EPA policy to promote communications between E PA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solic ited comment on the proposed rule from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordin ation 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 implic ations. However as specified in Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to outr each and discuss possible SSI implications with tribal conta cts. EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and specifically solicited additional comment on the pr oposed 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. Comme nters expressed that SSI units located in proximity to In dianThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 151 of 431 country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigg er tribal consultation with regard to potential impact from the SSI unit. Commenters are dismayed, as they bel ieve EPA failed to consult with Indian tribes regarding the standards and have failed to fully assess the poten tial impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly , commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overl ay that accounts for both SSI units and tribal lands so tri bes can acquire a better understanding on how they might be affected by such sites and these standards in gener al. EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to discuss the rule development process, first to prov ide general information on the development of the SSI s tandards and second providing more specific background infor mation on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and locati ons of units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarif ying questions and requested information if any NTAA mem bers were aware of any type of incinerator burning sewag e 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 152 of 431

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children f rom Environmental Health and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory act ions 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 wil l improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for children’s health. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significant ly 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 Order s 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 regulato ry activities unless to do so would be inconsistent wi thThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 develo ped or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to pr ovide 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 Inci neration Units” through the Enhanced National Standards Serv ice Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also cont acted VCS organizations, accessed, and searched their dat a 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 alterna tives 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 f or Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercu ry Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io HydroThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 a nd analytical procedures that are similar to EPA's ref erence method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard and revi ewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential st andards 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 M ethod 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific , engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in EPA reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinatio ns of impracticality when additional information is avail able for particular VCS. The search identified other VCS that were potential ly applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference m ethods. After reviewing the available standards, EPA determ ined that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 90 96:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC¬38-1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ ASME PTCThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 D1608-9 8 (2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-MI983, CAN/ CSA Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (199 6), EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CA N/CSA Z223.26-MI987) identified for measuring emissions o f pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and ot her important technical and policy considerations. Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provision s, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alt ernative 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 Addre ss Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L owIncome Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 199 4) establishes federal executive policy on environment al justice. Its main provision directs federal agenci es, toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 156 of 431 the greatest extent practicable and permitted by la w, 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 a nd activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not ha ve disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income pop ulations because it increases the level of environmental pro tection 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 hu man health or environmental effects on minority or low- income populations that could be mitigated by this rulemak ing. An analysis of demographic data showed that the averag e of populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be effected by the sources, were sim ilar in demographic composition to national averages. The resultsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 157 of 431 of the demographic analysis are presented in “Revie w of Environmental Justice Impacts,” June 2010, a copy o f 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 t he populations considered to be living near affected s ources , such that they have notable exposures to current em issions 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 identi fied 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 Soc io

economic Disparities in Environmental Justice Resea rch.” Demography . 2006;43(2): 383

– 399.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 158 of 431 has shown that these areas in aggregate have simila r proportions of American Indians, A frican

- Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and “Other and Multi

- racial” populations, and similar proportions of families wi th incomes below the poverty level as the national ave rage. 17

This final action establishes national emission standards for new and existing SSI units. The EPA estimates that there are approximately 204 such uni ts covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce e missions 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, irrit ation 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 substantia l reductions of criteria pollutants such as CO, NO x , PM and

PM 2.5 and SO 2 . Sulfur dioxide and NO x are precursors for

15 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populati ons 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 present ed in “Review of Environmental Jus tice 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 159 of 431

the formation of PM 2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions

will reduce ozone and PM 2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory and

cardiovascular diseases. For additional informatio n, 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 t he development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a communi cation and outreach strategy to ensure that interested com munities have access to this final rule, are aware of its co ntent and have an opportunity to comment during the comme nt period. During the comment period, EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental newsletters, tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and t he Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway web site ( http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/ ). EPA will also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community) for environmental justice community groups and conduct conference calls with Comment [A13]: Where is this definition? Please provide a citation.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 1 60 of 431 interested communities. In addition, state and fed eral permitting requirements will provide state and loca l governments and members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit condi tions 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 submi t 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 r ule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller Gener al of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 DAY S AFTER

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGIS TER ]. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 Environmental protection, Administrative practice a nd procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

.

_______________________ Dated:

______________________ Lisa Jackson, Administrator.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Regulatio ns, 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 Stati onary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), IBR approved for §§60.2165(j), 60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 to s ubpart 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 draf t 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), §60.105 a(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), a nd (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 subpa rt 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 (i i), 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)(vi ii), 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, a nd 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 draf t 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 Sewa ge 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 sludg e incineration unit? 60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration u nit? 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 stand ards 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 qualifi cation requirements? 60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 qualificatio n? 60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualific ation? 60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not accessible? 60.4840 What site-specific documentation is requir ed and how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage s ludge incineration unit operators and other plant personn el 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 mus t I meet and by when? 60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I d o 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, s hutdown, 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 comp liance 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 ai r pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? 60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitorin g plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous 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 draf t 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 pol lution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs? Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements 60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitori ng, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission limits and standards? 60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s? 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 ti tle V operating permit for my unit? 60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit applic ation 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 Incin eration 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 Parame ters for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalenc y Factors Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Summary of Repor ting Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Uni ts

Introduction §60.4760 What does this subpart do? This subpart establishes new source performance standards for sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit s. ToThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 167 of 431 the extent any requirement of this subpart is incon sistent with the requirements of subpart A of this part, th e requirements of this subpart will apply. §60.4765 When does this subpart become effective? This subpart takes effect on [INSERT THE DATE 6 MON THS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ]. Some of the requirements in this subpart apply to p lanning an SSI unit and must be completed even before const ruction is initiated on an SSI unit (i.e., the preconstruct ion requirements in §§60.4800 and 60.4805). Other requ irements such as the emission limits, emission standards, an d operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins op eration. Applicability and Delegation of Authority §60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage slud ge incineration unit? Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meet s all the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) throug h (c) of this section. (a) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit for which construction commenced after October 14, 2010 or fo r which modification commenced after [INSERT THE DATE 6 MON THS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ]. (b) Your SSI unit is an SSI unit as defined in §60.4930.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 eithe r of the two criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) o r (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 S SI unit to comply with the emission guidelines in subp art MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Ti mes for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units) do not q ualify as a modification under this subpart. §60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from this subpart? This subpart exempts combustion units that incinera te sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater t reatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These units may be subject to another subpart of this par t (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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 169 of 431 (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced b y the Administrator, as defined in §60.2, or a delega ted authority such as your state, local, or tribal agen cy. If the Administrator has delegated authority to your s tate, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement and e nforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your st ate, local, or tribal agency. (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a state, local, or tri bal agency, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are n ot 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 limit s 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 recordkeepin g and reporting.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 un der §60.8(b). (8) Preconstruction siting analysis in §60.4800 an d §60.4805. §60.4790 How are these new source performance stan dards

structured? These new source performance standards contain the nine major components listed in paragraphs (a) thro ugh (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 calibrati on requirements. (g) Recordkeeping and reporting. (h) Definitions. (i) Tables. §60.4795 Do all nine components of these new sourc e performance standards apply at the same time?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 171 of 431 No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analy sis requirements before you commence construction of th e SSI unit. The operator training and qualification, emi ssion limits, emission standards, operating limits, perfo rmance testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most recor dkeeping and reporting requirements are met after the SSI un it 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 pollutio n control alternatives that minimize, on a site-speci fic basis, to the maximum extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the environment, including impa cts of the affected SSI unit on ambient air quality, visib ility, soils, and vegetation. In considering such alterna tives,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 172 of 431 the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, no nair 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 fede ral 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 qualif ication requirements? (a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessib le, either at the facility or can be at the facility wi thin 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supe rvisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate th e unit. If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.4 835.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 com pleting 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 paragrap hs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section. (i) Environmental concerns, including types of

emissions. (ii) Basic combustion principles, including produc ts of combustion. (iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerato r to be used by the operator, including proper startu p, sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. (iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. (v) Operation of air pollution control equipment a nd factors affecting performance (if applicable). (vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air pollution control devices. (vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to preven t conditions that may lead to malfunctions.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Heal th Administration workplace standards. (x) Pollution prevention. (2) An examination designed and administered by th e state-approved program. (3) Written material covering the training course topics that may serve as reference material followi ng completion of the course. §60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed? The operator training course must be completed by t he 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 assume s 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 draf t 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 cri teria under §60.4810(b). (b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training course is completed and the operator succe ssfully passes the examination required under §60.4810(c)(2 ). §60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualificati on? To maintain qualification, you must complete an ann ual review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of t his

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 b y attendees. §60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualifi cation? You must renew a lapsed operator qualification befo re you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the tw oThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 describ ed in §60.4825. (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repea t 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 m eet the criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) o f this section, depending on the length of time that a qua lified operator is not accessible. (a) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are famil iar with the operation of the SSI unit and who have complete d a review of the information specified in §60.4840 wit hin the past 12 months. However, you must record the perio d when a qualified operator was not accessible and include t his deviation in the annual report as specified under §60.4915(d).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 177 of 431 (b) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r 2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions that a re described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this s ection. (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 anti cipate that a qualified operator will be accessible. (2) Submit a status report to the Administrator ev ery 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 access ible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to c ontinue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the fir st status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administ rator of the deviation under paragraph (b)(1) of this sectio n. (i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation fo r 30 days, and then must cease operation. (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualifi ed operator is accessible as required under §60.4810(a ). You must notify the Administrator within 5 days of havi ngThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 178 of 431 resumed operations and of having a qualified operat or accessible. §60.4840 What site-specific documentation is requi red and how often must it be reviewed by qualified sewage s ludge incineration unit operators and other plant personn el 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 s pecified under §60.4910(c)(1) and make the documentation rea dily accessible to all SSI unit operators. (b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information listed in §60.4910(c)(1) with each qual ified 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 i n §60.4910(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months af ter the effective date of this subpart or prior to an emplo yee’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 draf t 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 startu p, whichever comes first. The emission limits and sta ndards apply at all times the unit is operating, and durin g periods of malfunction. The emission limits and st andards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or vent whil e sewage sludge is in the combustion chamber (i.e., until th e sewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge incineratio n residence time). §60.4850 What operating limits and requirements mu st 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 spec ified in paragraph (e) of this section. The operating param eters for which you will establish operating limits for a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator , orThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 requir ements in paragraph (f) of this section and the requiremen ts in paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new o perating limits, reestablished in §60.4890. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 cha mber (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 comp ly 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 pollut ion control device. (c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits, you must install the bag leak dete ction system specified in §60.4905(b)(3)(i) and operate t he bag leak detection system such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-monthThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 181 of 431 period. You must calculate the alarm time as speci fied in §60.4870. (d) You must meet the operating requirements in yo ur site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, su bmitted 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 th e feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days a fter its initial startup, whichever comes first. (f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage slud ge incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. (1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed ra te and calculate a daily average for all hours of oper ation during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the d aily average feed rate, as specified in §60.4910(f)(3)(i i). (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 theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 oth er than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comp ly 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 th an a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precip itator, or activated carbon injection, or limit emissions i n some other manner (e.g., materials balance) to comply wi th the emission limits in §60.4845, you must meet the requ irements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 operat ing 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. You must not conduct the initial performance test u ntil after the petition has been approved by the Adminis trator, and you must comply with the operating limits as wr itten, pending approval by the Administrator. Neither sub mittal 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 list ed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this s ection. (i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to monitor. (ii) A discussion of the relationship between thes e parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 184 of 431 identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants c hange with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulat ed 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 ass ociated 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 standard s, and operating limits apply during periods of startup, s hutdown, and malfunction? The emission limits and standards apply at all time s and during periods of malfunction. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage sludge feed to theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 a re caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Approp riate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in t he 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 mee t 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 t his section are met. (1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this sec tion. (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, an d unavoidable failure of air pollution control and mo nitoringThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 186 of 431 equipment, process equipment, or a process to opera te in a

normal or usual manner. (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and mai ntenance 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 indicati ve 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, t o the extent practicable to make these repairs. (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the exce ss 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 persona l injury, or severe property damage.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 quali ty, the environment and human health. (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems w ere kept in operation if at all possible. (7) Your actions in response to the excess emissio ns were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs. (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizin g emissions. (9) You have prepared a written root cause analysi s to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary ca uses of the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall als o specify, using best monitoring methods and engineer ing 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 no tify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) trans mission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business d ays after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if you wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to civilThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 188 of 431 penalties for that malfunction. If you seek to ass ert 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 document ation, that you have met the requirements set forth in par agraph (a) of this section. Initial Compliance Requirements §60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial com pliance with the emission limits and standards? To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 1 or 2 to this subpar t, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this s ection for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/ furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow th e procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this secti on for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedures s pecified in paragraph (a) of this section, you also have the option to demonstrate initial compliance using the procedu res specified in paragraph (b) of this section for part iculate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total ma ss basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxid es,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 189 of 431 sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead. You must meet t he requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this secti on, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) and (d) of this sect ion, according to the performance testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements in §60.4900(a) and (b). E xcept as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, within 6 0 days after your SSI unit reaches the feed rate at which it will operate, or within 180 days after its initial start up, whichever comes first, you must demonstrate that yo ur SSI unit meets the emission limits and standards specif ied in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. (a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test required in §60.8. You must demon strate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and st andards specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart for parti culate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans (total ma ss basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxid es, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissio ns from ash handling using the performance test. The initi al performance test must be conducted using the test m ethods, averaging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, and calibrati on requirements specified in §60.4900(a).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 190 of 431 (b) Demonstrate initial compliance using a continu ous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous em issions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/fu rans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to hydrogen ch loride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in th e 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 contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al Register . Collect data as specified in §60.4900(b)(6) and use the following procedures: (1) To demonstrate initial compliance with the car bon monoxide emission limit specified in Table 1 or 2 t o this subpart, you must use the carbon monoxide continuou s 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 s ubpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/ furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuous monitoring syste m inThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 191 of 431 lieu of conducting the initial performance test req uired in paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: (i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring system for any pollutant speci fied in paragraph (b)(2) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the initial performance test for that pollutant in para graph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the initial mercury or dioxin/fu ran 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 sec tion, you must use the continuous emissions monitoring sy stem 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 comp liance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arith metic average emission concentrations, calculated using E quation 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 192 of 431 (4) If you use a continuous automated sampling sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, as described in pa ragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must: (i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 subp art. (B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance w ith 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 Performanc e Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Proc edure 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 continuo usThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 193 of 431 automated sampling systems according to the provisi ons of §60.4880. Your performance evaluation must be cond ucted using the procedures and acceptance criteria specif ied 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/fu rans 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 par agraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply the isomer concent ration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor speci fied in Table 4 to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section to obtain the tota l 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 t hisThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the ini tial performance test as soon as practicable after the f orce majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine w hether or not to grant the extension to the initial perfor mance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of ap proval or disapproval of the request for an extension as s oon as practicable. Until an extension of the performance test deadline has been approved by the Administrator, yo u remain strictly subject to the requirements of this subpar t. §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 t his 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 confir m these operating limits or reestablish new operating limit s using the most recent performance tests required in §60.4 885. You must follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and data averaging times specified in T able 3 to this subpart or as established in §60.4855, and you mustThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 e stablish operating limits for the operating parameters liste d in Table 3 to this subpart for a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce 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 o f hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not r equired to establish an operating limit and monitor pressur e drop across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring sy stem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for hydrogen chl oride or sulfur dioxide. (2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions o f particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monitor pressur e drop across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring sy stem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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, a nd lead, you are not required to establish an operating limi t and monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage of the collection plates, and ef fluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring s ystem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead. (4) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of mercury, you are not requir ed to establish an operating limit and monitor mercury so rbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrie r gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for mercury. (5) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monito r 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 emiss ionThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 cadm ium emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, eq ual 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 lowes t hourly average liquid flow rate recorded during three perf ormance test run periods. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubb er used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chlorid e emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, equ al to the lowest hourly average scrubber liquid pH measur ed during the three performance test run periods at th e inlet to each applicable wet scrubber. (e) Minimum combustion chamber operating temperatu re (or minimum afterburner temperature), equal to the lowest hourly average combustion chamber operating tempera ture (or afterburner temperature) recorded during three perf ormance test run periods.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 performan ce 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 th ree 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 t he electrostatic precipitator recorded during three performance test run periods. (h) For activated carbon injection, establish the site-specific operating limits specified in paragra phs (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 sor bent injection rate recorded during three performance te st run periods. (3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carri er gas pressure drop, as follows:The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 recorde d during three performance test run periods. (ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to t he lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorde d during three performance test run periods. (i) You must confirm your operating limits or reestablish new operating limits according to §60.4 890(d). §60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial a ir pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? (a) You must conduct an air pollution control devi ce inspection according to §60.4900(c) within 60 days of installing an air pollution control device or withi n 180 days of startup of the SSI unit using the air pollu tion 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 complet ed unless you obtain written approval from the Adminis trator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs o f the SSI unit must be completed. §60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitori ng plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ctionThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 200 of 431 system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? You must develop and submit to the Administrator fo r approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system required under this su bpart, according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) thr ough (d) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative moni toring parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of thi s section. If you use a continuous automated samplin g system to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total m ass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limit, y ou must develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58 b(q), and you are not required to meet the requirements i n paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must a lso submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of t his section. You must submit and update your monitorin g 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 requi rements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of th is section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 201 of 431 (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring syst em sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that th e measurement is representative of control of the exh aust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last contr ol device). (2) Performance and equipment specifications for t he sample interface, the pollutant concentration or pa rametric signal analyzer and the data collection and reducti on systems. (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptan ce criteria. (i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, y our 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 duratio n of out-of-control periods will affect the suitabili ty ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 202 of 431 CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning giv en 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 perf ormance specifications and quality assurance procedures. (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures i n 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 ou t 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 t he applicable calibration drift specification in the applicable performance specification or in the rele vant

standard.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 203 of 431 (B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fai ls a performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit) , relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy test aud it, or linearity test audit. (ii) When the continuous emissions monitoring syst em is out of control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)( i) of this section, you must take the necessary correctiv e action and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate t hat the system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance require ments are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a perform ance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements establis hed under this part. The end of the out-of-control per iod is the hour following the completion of corrective act ion and successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits. (8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance evaluations of your continuous monitori ng systems in accordance with your site-specific monit oring plan.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 f ollowing items: (1) Installation of the bag leak detection system. (2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag lea k 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 schedul e 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 t he operating procedures for your ash handling system t hat you will follow to ensure that that your meet the fugit ive emissions limit specified in Table 1 or 2 to this s ubpart.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 sta ndards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of parag raphs (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 l onger averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed levels achieved over the duration of three performa nce test

runs. (2) If the application to use an alternate monitor ing requirement is approved, you must continue to use t he original monitoring requirement until approval is r eceived to use another monitoring requirement. (3) You must submit the application for approval o f 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, su ch as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the required approach.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 par ameter to be monitored, the monitoring approach and techni que, the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit i s to be

calculated. (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring requirement would provide eq uivalent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. (4) The Administrator will notify you of the appro val or denial of the application within 90 calendar day s after receipt of the original request, or within 60 calen dar days of the receipt of any supplementary information, wh ichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an al ternate monitoring application unless it would provide equi valent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. Before disapproving any alterna te monitoring application, the Administrator will prov ide the following: (i) Notice of the information and findings upon wh ich the intended disapproval is based. (ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting information before final acti on is taken on the application. This notice will specify howThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. Neither submittal of an application, nor the Administrator’s failure to approve or disapprove th e application relieves you of the responsibility to c omply with any provision of this subpart. (6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case basis that additional or alternative o perating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing o perating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance wit h 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 th is section, at least 60 days before your initial compl iance

test date. (h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring p lan if there are any changes or potential changes in yo urThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 208 of 431 monitoring procedures or if there is a process chan ge, 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 emiss ion limits and standards specified in Table 1 or 2 to t his subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen chlor ide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalen cy basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling, and follow the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this s ection for carbon monoxide. In lieu of using the procedur es specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you als o have the option to demonstrate continuous compliance usi ng the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this secti on for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxins/fura ns (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, 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) thr ough (e) of this section, according to the performance testi ng, monitoring, and calibration requirements in §60.490 0(a) andThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 p aragraph (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 th e initial performance test for each pollutant in Tabl e 1 or 2 to this subpart except carbon monoxide is completed , you must conduct a performance test for each such pollu tant on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 calendar mont hs and no more than 15 calendar months following the previ ous performance test); and you must complete 5 performa nce tests for each such pollutant in each 5-year calend ar period. The performance test must be conducted usi ng the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sampli ng volumes or durations specified in Table 1 or 2 to t his subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements specified in §60.4900(a). (1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. The Administrator m ay 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 210 of 431 (3) If the initial or any subsequent performance t est for any pollutant in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart e xcept carbon monoxide demonstrates that the emission leve l for the pollutant is no greater than the emission level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of t his 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 perform ance test for the pollutant for the next 2 years. You m ust 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 c admium and lead, both cadmium and lead must be emitted at emission levels no greater than their respective emission le vels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section fo r you to qualify for less frequent testing under this paragr aph. (i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalenc y basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, and lead, the emission level equal to 50 percent of the applicable emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this s ubpart.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 fo r a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emis sion level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii ) of this section, as applicable, you must conduct annua l performance tests for the pollutant according to th e schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollu tant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. (b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuou s automated sampling system. The option to use a con tinuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on th e date a final performance specification applicable to hydro gen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is publi shed 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 s uch aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 212 of 431 continuous automated sampling system is published i n 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 ca rbon monoxide continuous emissions monitoring system spe cified in §60.4900(b). (2) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits for particulate matter, hydrogen ch loride, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalen cy basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuou s 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 speci fied in paragraph (b)(2) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the annual performance test for that pollutant in parag raph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/fur an performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 moni toring system and follow the requirements specified in §60.4900(b). You must measure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, cor rected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial compliance using a 24-hour bloc k 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on 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 ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 subp art. (B) Use the procedures specified in §60.58b(p) to calculate 2-week averages to determine compliance w ith theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 214 of 431 dioxin/furan emission limit (total mass basis or to xic 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 samp ling 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 performanc e evaluations required under your monitoring plan for any continuous emissions monitoring system and continuo us automated sampling systems, according to the schedu le specified in your monitoring plan. If you were pre viously determining compliance by conducting an annual perf ormance test (or according to the less frequent testing for a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection), you must complete the initial performance evaluatio n required in your monitoring plan in §60.4880 for th e continuous monitoring system prior to using the con tinuous emissions monitoring system to demonstrate complian ce or continuous automated sampling system. Your perform ance evaluation must be conducted using the procedures a nd acceptance criteria specified in §60.4880(a)(3).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 215 of 431 (c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/fur ans toxic equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) o r (b) of this section, you must determine dioxins/furans tox ic equivalency as follows: (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra- through octa-chlorinated isomer emitted usin g EPA Method 23.(2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra- through octachlorinated) isomer measured in accordance with par agraph (c)(1) of this section, multiply the isomer concent ration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor speci fied in Table 4 to this subpart. (3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section to obtain the tota l 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 devi ation report specified in §60.4915(e) for each instance t hat 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 draf t 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.4915(g). You must conduct the per formance 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. U ntil 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 com pliance, 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 complianc e with my operating limits? You must continuously monitor your operating parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this se ction and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, according to the monitoring and calibratio n requirements in §60.4905. You must confirm and ree stablishThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 equipm ent and according to the procedures specified in §60.4905 o r 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 differ ent averaging period is established under §60.4855. (1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets t he 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 t he operating limit for bag leak detection systems as f ollows: (i) For a bag leak detection system, you must

calculate the alarm time as follows: (A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrate s that no corrective action is required, no alarm tim e is

counted. (B) If corrective action is required, each alarm t ime shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 ti me 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 spec ified in §60.4850(c). (b) Operation above the established maximum, below the established minimum, or outside the allowable r ange of the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits established under this subpart, except during perfo rmance tests conducted to determine compliance with the em ission 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 subpar t. (c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in §60.4915(d) to demonstrate continuous compliance. (d) You must confirm your operating limits accordi ng to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of t his section. Your operating limits must be established so asThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 219 of 431 to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limi ts. 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 operati ng data recorded during any performance test conducted to comply with this subpart or any performance evaluat ion required under §60.4885(b)(5). (2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. §60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air po llution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs? (a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution control device used to comply with the em ission limits, according to §60.4900(c), within 10 to 12 m onths 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 approva l from the Administrator establishing a date whereby all n ecessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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, monitor ing, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission limits and standards? You must meet, as applicable, the performance testi ng requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this sec tion, the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the air pollution control device insp ections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this sec tion, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragr aph (d) of this section. (a) Performance testing requirements

. (1) All performance tests must consist of a minimu m of three test runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations, as specified i n § 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limit s or standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered deviations from the appl icable emission limits or standards. (2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the performance test is representative of th e sludge burned under normal operating conditions by:The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 contin uously monitoring and recording the average hourly rate th at 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 incine rator 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, includin g measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneous ly with

each method. (6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 222 of 431 C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry

basis. (20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen−7 percent oxygen (de fined

oxygen correction basis). 20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. %O 2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,

percent. (7) Performance tests must be conducted and data reduced in accordance with the test methods and pro cedures 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 th e results of which he has determined to be adequate f or indicating whether a specific source is in complian ce. (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 variabl es or other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is constr ued toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 223 of 431 abrogate the Administrator’s authority to require t esting 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 a s specified under other subparts, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present. If af ter 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 perform ance 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 emiss ion rates can be accurately determined by applicable te st methods and procedures.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 224 of 431 (B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flo w during performance tests, as demonstrated by applic able 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, e ach performance test must consist of three separate run s using the applicable test method. Each run must be condu cted for the time and under the conditions specified in the applicable standard. Compliance with each emission limit must be determined by calculating the arithmetic me an of the three runs. In the event that a sample is acci dentally lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, fa ilure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extre me meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the Administrato r’s approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean o f the

results of the two other runs. (11) During each test run specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewag e sludge incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maxi mum permitted capacity.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 usi ng a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce with the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart . The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring sys tem for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specificatio n applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, ca dmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register . If you elect to use a continuous emissions monitoring system ins tead of conducting annual performance testing, you must mee t the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. If you elect to use a continuous automate d sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragrap h (b)(7) of this section. The option to use a continuous au tomated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al Register

. (1) You must notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the continuous monitoring sy stem. (2) You must notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the continuous monitoring sy stem, inThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 a nd recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accord ance 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 Specificat ion 11 of appendix B of this part. (B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specificati on 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 a ccuracyThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 227 of 431 determinations and daily calibration drift tests) o f appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this secti on. For each pollutant, the span value of the continuous em issions monitoring system is two times the applicable emiss ion limit, expressed as a concentration. (A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendi x 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 228 of 431 (iv) If your monitoring system has a malfunction o r out-of-control period, you must complete repairs of the monitoring system and resume operation of your moni toring 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 acc uracy testing must be at representative operating conditi ons while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge. (i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR par t 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 229 of 431 (v) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, Method 29 at 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, or as an alternative AST M D6784– 02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for Eleme ntal, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io Hydro Method)(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), sha ll 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 America n National Standards Institute/American Society of Me chanical Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analy ses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17) must be used. For sources t hat have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per mill ion dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet s ulfur dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system shou ld be no greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the me thod test data in terms of the units of the emission sta ndard, or 5 parts per million dry volume absolute value of the mean difference between the method and the continuo us emissions monitoring system, whichever is greater.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 230 of 431 (viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as establishe d in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 C FR part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American Nat ional Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Ana lyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used

. (5) You may request that compliance with the emiss ion limits be determined using carbon dioxide measureme nts 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 leve ls must be established during the initial performance test according to the procedures and methods specified i n paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this sec tion. This relationship may be re-established during subs equent performance compliance tests. (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CF R 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 Nationa l Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Ana lysesThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 loca tion 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 sys tem and collect data with the continuous monitoring sys tem as

follows: (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected SSI uni t is operating and at the intervals specified in paragra ph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions defined in §60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitori ng system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero an d span adjustments). Any such periods that you do not col lect data using the continuous monitoring system constit ute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 232 of 431 (ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities conducted during mo nitoring system malfunctions must not be included in calcula tions 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 mo nitoring system quality assurance or control activities cond ucted 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 monito ring system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constit ute 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 paragraph s (b)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iv) of this section in asses sing theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 233 of 431 operation of the control device and associated cont rol system. (7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must: (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system according to t he 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 inspectio ns 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 equi pment. (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 isThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 by pass stack during a performance test invalidates the per formance

test. §60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s? (a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the continuous parameter monitoring system s for measuring flow, pressure, pH, and operating tempera ture according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section: (1) Meet the following general requirements for fl ow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement

devices: (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected SSI uni t is operating and at the intervals specified in paragra ph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions defined in §60.4880(a)(7)(i), repairs associated with monitori ng system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero an d span adjustments). Any such periods that you do not col lectThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 235 of 431 data using the continuous monitoring system constit ute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report. (ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities conducted during mo nitoring system malfunctions must not be included in calcula tions used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods must be reported in your annual deviation r eport. (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 mo nitoring system quality assurance or control activities cond ucted 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 monito ring system malfunction, as defined in §60.4930, constit ute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a deviation report.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 paragraph s (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section in asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol 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 t he 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 representat ive

flow. (B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivi ty of 2 percent of the flow rate. (C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream distur bances. (D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at lea st semi-annually.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 237 of 431 (E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activa ted carbon injection), during the performance test cond ucted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, accordi ng to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this cha pter. (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 th at provides a representative measurement of the pressu re. (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 transduc er calibration monthly. (F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s specified maximum operat ing pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. (G) For carrier gas pressure drop monitors (for activated carbon injection), during the performance testThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 238 of 431 conducted pursuant to §60.4885, you must demonstrat e that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accura cy. (iii) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet t he following requirements: (A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provid es a representative measurement of scrubber effluent p H. (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 m eet the following requirements: (A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necess ary equipment in a position that provides a representat ive temperature. (B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolera nce of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1 .0 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a noncryogenic temperature range. (C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolera nce of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2 .5 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a cryogenic temperature range.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 system s for voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak det ection system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b )(3) of this section. (1) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and s econdary amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic preci pitator, you must use secondary voltage and secondary ampera ge monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage a nd secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitato r. (2) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorb ent injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hoppe r flow measurement device), you must meet the following requirements: (i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provid es a representative measurement of the total sorbent i njection

rate. (ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordanc e with manufacturer’s procedures and specifications.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 detect ion system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter. (B) Each bag leak detection system must be install ed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner co nsistent with the manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan dards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA– 454/R–98–015, September 1997 (incorporated by refer ence, see §60.17). (C) The bag leak detection system must be certifie d by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting part iculate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. (D) The bag leak detection system sensor must prov ide output of relative or absolute particulate matter l oadings.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 sig nal 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 o ver a preset level is detected. The alarm must be locate d where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems th at do not duct all compartments of cells to a common s tack, 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 share d 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, a nd you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hou rs of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) a re necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following:The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 242 of 431 (A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, to rn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condit ion that may cause an increase in particulate matter emissio ns. (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 o r 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 paragraph s (a) and (b) of this section in continuous operation acc ording to your monitoring plan required under §60.4880. (d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install, calibrate (to manufacturers’ specification s), maintain, and operate a device or method for measur ing the use of the bypass stack including date, time, and d uration. Recordkeeping and Reporting §60.4910 What records must I keep? You must maintain the items (as applicable) specifi ed in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section for a periodThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th at can be printed upon request, unless an alternative form at 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 paragr aphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must ma ke 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 traini ng procedures and information: (i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart. (ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feedi ng sewage sludge. (iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfuncti on preventative and corrective procedures. (iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply levels.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 n umber at which they can be reached during operating hours. (2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of §60.4835(a), as foll ows: (i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s 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 r eview and all subsequent annual reviews. (ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operator s who have completed the operator training requiremen ts under §60.4810, met the criteria for qualification underThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 245 of 431 §60.4820, and maintained or renewed their qualifica tion under §60.4825 or §60.4830. Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of t heir initial qualification and all subsequent renewals o f such qualifications. (3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, bu t 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 po llution control device inspections conducted as specified i n §§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 a nd/or to establish operating limits, as applicable.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 ra te 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 re cord of the moisture content measured as required in §60.4900(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of th e sewage sludge burned during the performance test. (f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as applicable: (1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, a ll 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter , hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxid e, 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 draf t 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 fl ow rate and pH as introduced to each wet scrubber used to c omply with an emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this subp art 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 e ffluent

water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrosta tic precipitator. (D) If activated carbon injection is used to compl y with the rule, mercury sorbent flow rate and carrie r gas flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable. (ii) All daily average values recorded for the fee d rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th e rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm an d 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 t he 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 parameter s used to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. (g) Other records for continuous monitoring system s . 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 stop ping 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 determi ned using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 249 of 431 (3) If activated carbon injection is used to compl y with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any cha nges 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 rece ived from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls , and monitoring equipment. (j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation chec ks of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, calibrations, and validations checks of any monitor ing devices as required under §§60.4900 and 60.4905. (k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations fo r continuous monitoring systems . Records of the monitoring plans required under §60.4880, and records of perfo rmance evaluations required under §60.4885(b)(5). (l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that your SSI unit qualifies for less freq uent testing under §60.4885(a)(3). (m) Use of bypass stack . Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durat ions as required under §60.4905(d).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th is 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) thro ugh (b)(5) of this section prior to initial startup: (1) The maximum design dry sludge burning capacity

. (2) The anticipated and permitted maximum dry slud ge 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 251 of 431 (5) The site-specific monitoring plan required und er §60.4880, at least 60 days before your initial perf ormance evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. (6) The site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system required under §60.4880, at least 6 0 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 followi ng 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 t he 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 res ults of that initial performance evaluation. (6) The values for the site-specific operating lim its established pursuant to §§60.4850 and 60.4855 and t heThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 252 of 431 calculations and methods, as applicable, used to es tablish each operating limit. (7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply wit h the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been installed and is being op erated, calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.4850( b). (8) The results of the initial air pollution contr ol 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 li sted in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(15) of this section f or the reporting period specified in paragraph (d)(3) of t his section. You must submit your first annual complia nce report no later than 12 months following the submis sion of the initial compliance report in paragraph (c) of t his section. You must submit subsequent annual complia nce reports no more than 12 months following the previo us 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 draf t 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 t he 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 t est. (i) If operating limits were established during th e performance test, include the value for each operat ing limit and, as applicable, the method used to establ ish each operating limit, including calculations. (ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test, include the type of activated car bon

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-h our average during the reporting period, as applicable. (6) If there are no deviations during the reportin g period from any emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to you, a statement th at there were no deviations from the emission limits, emissi on standard, or operating limits.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 tha t performance evaluation. If new operating limits we re established during the performance evaluation, incl ude your calculations for establishing those operating limit s. (9) If you met the requirements of §60.4885(a)(3) and did not conduct a performance test during the repor ting period, you must include the dates of the last thre e performance tests, a comparison of the emission lev el 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 th ere have been any process changes and whether the process ch ange resulted in an increase in emissions. (10) Documentation of periods when all qualified S SI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hou rs, but less than 2 weeks. (11) Results of annual air pollution control devic e inspections recorded under §60.4910(d) for the repo rting period, including a description of repairs. (12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your continuous monitoring systems had aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 malf unction. (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 dur ing 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 perio d, a statement that you did not make any revisions to yo ur sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting perio d. 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 subp art. (ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds fo r more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6 -month reporting period.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 emissio n limit. (iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percen t of the hourly observation period. (v) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any emission limit in Table 1 or 2 to this sub part. (vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of

control. (vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may h ave caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded

. (2) The deviation report must be submitted by Augu st 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by Fe bruary 1 of the following year for data you collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to Decembe r 31). (3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with an asso ciated emission limit or operating limit, report the items described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(vi ii) of this section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 tha t official’s name, title, and signature, certifying t he accuracy of the content of the report (iii) The calendar dates and times your unit devia ted from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating limits requirements. (iv) The averaged and recorded data for those date s. (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 o ut 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 258 of 431 (A) The date and time that each malfunction starte d and stopped. (B) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. (C) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was out of control, including sta rt 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 sys tem as out of control, or during another period. (E) A summary of the total duration of the deviati on during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during t hat reporting period. (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those t hat 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 per iod, and the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtimeThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 occ urred during that reporting period. (H) An identification of each parameter and pollut ant that was monitored at the SSI unit. (I) A brief description of the SSI unit. (J) A brief description of the continuous monitori ng 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 ass ociated emission limit or operating limit, report the follo wing items: (i) Company name, physical address, and mailing

address. (ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official’s name, title, and signature, certifying t he accuracy of the content of the report. (iii) The total operating time of each affected SS I during the reporting period.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 260 of 431 (iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviat ed from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating 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 operat ing 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 stan dard. (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 wit h 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 draf t 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 para graphs (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 Administrato r, under the provisions of §60.4835(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an accessible qualified operator, you mu st 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 kn ew, or through due diligence should have known that the ev ent mayThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 notificatio n must occur before the performance test deadline unless t he initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the notice, and in such cases, the notificat ion must occur as soon as practicable. (2) You must provide to the Administrator a writte n description of the force majeure event and a ration ale 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 minim ize 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 befo re 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 com ply with the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 notif y 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 complianc e with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data to EPA by succ essfully submitting the data electronically into EPA’s Centr al Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (se e 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 re porting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approv al to change your reporting date. Title V Operating Permits §60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a t itle V operating permit for my unit?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 operatin g permit unless you meet the relevant requirements for an ex emption specified in §60.4780. §60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit appli cation for my new SSI unit? (a) If your new SSI unit subject to this subpart i s not subject to an earlier permit application deadli ne, a complete title V permit application must be submitt ed 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 T HE

FEDERAL REGISTER ], then a complete title V permit application must be submitted not later than [INSER T THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FE DERAL

REGISTER ]. (2) For an SSI unit that does not commence operati on 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 th an 12 months after the date the unit commences operation as a new

source.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 i s 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 pa rt of a major source), then your unit may be required to ap ply for a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified i n 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 Cl ean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). Yo u must submit a complete permit application by the relevan t 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).) DefinitionsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 defi ned in the Clean Air Act and §60.2.

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put f orward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has t he burden of proof, and the merits of which are indepe ndently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administ rative 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 i n the exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) in orde r to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system i ncludes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittanc e, or other principle to monitor relative particulate mat ter 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 draf t 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 colle ction and sample recovery/analysis to determine a polluta nt concentration or emission rate by collecting a sing le 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 re cording the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facil ity. Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous automated s ampling system, continuous parameter monitoring system, or other manual or automatic monitoring that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulat ion on a continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The t erm refers to the total equipment used to sample and co ndition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a perma nent record of emissions or process parameters. Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system for continuously measuring and re cording operating conditions associated with air pollution controlThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 268 of 431 device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressu re, and power). Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or oper ator of

such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limi ted 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 t his subpart and that is included in the operating permi t for any affected source required to obtain such a permi t. 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, wat er to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage slu dge 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 draf t 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 filter ing gas streams through filter media, also known as a bagho use. 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 th e combustion chamber gas. Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution con trol or monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a proce ss to operate in a normal or usual manner (e.g., to provi de valid data for monitoring systems). Failures that are ca used, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunction the op erator shall operate within established emissions and oper ating limits and shall continue monitoring of all applica ble operating parameters until sewage sludge is no long er in the combustion chamber (i.e., until the sewage slud ge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of t ime 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 OFThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 li fe 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 dol lars). To determine what systems are within the boundary o f the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the def inition of SSI unit. (2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of operating it that increases the amoun t of any air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or sect ion 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 attache d to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth t o hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Octobe r 14, 2010 which would be applicable to such unit or a mo dified

solid waste incineration unit. Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight during which an y amount of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SS I unit. Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CF R part 60, appendix A-8. Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of the test-run average secondary volta ge 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 e mission units for which the proposed permit revision is app licable, including but not limited to: (1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment facility associated with the a ffected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for disposi ng ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 272 of 431 process solids and processing of the sludge prior t o incineration). (2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the emission limits for the aff ected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for acti vated 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 remove d in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatmen t processes; and a material derived from sewage sludg e. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinera tion unit or grit and screenings generated during prelim inary 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 remo ving combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration uni t designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 treatmen t plant, or air pollution control facility and other discard ed material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or co ntained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commerc ial, 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 permi ts under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclea r, 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., na tural gas or distillate oil), of the system and the first feed to the unit.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 estimat e of the compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorin ated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivale ncy 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 scrubbi ng liquid to collect particulate matter (including non vaporous 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 Incin eration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Particulate matter 9.6 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 275 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method 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 part60, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 276 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Mercury 0.0010

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average (For

Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 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 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 part60, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 277 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Lead 0.00062

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minim um 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 n o 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Meth od for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercu ry in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io 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 limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this methodThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 278 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Particulate matter 60 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 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 part60, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 279 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Mercury 0.15

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 3- run average (For

Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 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 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 part60, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 280 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method 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).

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Meth od for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle Bound and Total Mercu ry in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io Hydro Method) Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Operating Parame ters for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a

For these operating parameters You must

establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording b Averaging time

for compliance All sewage sludge incineration unitsThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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

recording b Averaging time

for compliance Combustion chamber operating temperature or afterburner temperature Minimum

combustion chamber operating temperature o r 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 draf t 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

recording b 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 e lectrostatic 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. cThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 283 of 431

a As specified in §60.4870, you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages t o demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour average s. c Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 4 operating hours. Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60—Toxic Equivalenc y Factors

Dioxin/furan isomer Toxic equivalency factor 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 11,2,3,7,8-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 0.01The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Repor ting Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Uni ts a 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 petitionfor 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 draf t 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 CMS b performance evaluation • The values forthe 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 draf t 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, aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 qualifiedThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 288 of 4 31 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 anyThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 draf t 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 correctiveThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 draf t 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 performa nce 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 subpartThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 293 of 431

a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS 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 negativ e 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 spec ified in subpart B? 60.5045 In lieu of a state plan submittal, are the re other acceptable option(s) for a state to meet its sectio n 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 pl an? Use of Model Rule 60.5070 What is the “model rule” in this subpart? 60.5075 How does the model rule relate to the requ ired elements of my state plan? 60.5080 What are the principal components of the m odel rule? Model Rule—Increments of ProgressThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 294 of 431 60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting incre ments of progress and achieving final compliance? 60.5090 When must I complete each increment of pro gress? 60.5095 What must I include in the notifications o f 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 prog ress? 60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of prog ress for submittal of a control plan? 60.5115 How do I comply with the increment of prog ress 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 cl ose my SSI unit and not restart it? Model Rule—Operator Training and Qualification 60.5130 What are the operator training and qualifi cation 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 qualificatio n? 60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualific ation? 60.5155 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not accessible? 60.5160 What site-specific documentation is requir ed and how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI oper ators 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 mus t I meet and by when? 60.5175 How do I establish operating limits if I d o not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, activated carbon injection, or afterb urner, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to co mply with the emission limits? 60.5180 Do the emission limits, emission standards , and operating limits apply during periods of startup, s hutdown, and malfunction?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 comp liance 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 ai r pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? 60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitorin g plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust I conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous 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 pol lution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs? Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Cal ibration Requirements 60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitori ng, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission limits and standards? 60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s? 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 ti tle V operating permit for my existing SSI unit? 60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit applic ation for my existing SSI unit? Model Rule—Definitions 60.5250 What definitions must I know?

TABLESThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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—Incre ments of Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Units Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sew age Sludge Incineration Units Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth S ewage Sludge Incineration Units Table 4 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Opera ting 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—Summa ry 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 f rom sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. The pollut ants addressed by these emission guidelines are listed i n Tables 2 and 3 to this subpart. These emission guidelines are developed in accordance with sections 111(d) and 12 9 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. To the e xtent any requirement of this subpart is inconsistent wit h the requirements of subpart A of this part, the require ments of this subpart will apply. §60.5005 Am I affected by this subpart?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 wi th 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 implemen ts the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. (b) You must submit the state plan to EPA by [INSE RT 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 comme nced on or before October 14, 2010 in your state, and you s ubmit a negative declaration letter in place of the state p lan. §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 tho se that have ceased operation but have not been disman tled. (2) Inventory of emissions from affected SSI units in your state. (3) Compliance schedules for each affected SSI uni t.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 operat ing limits for affected SSI units that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in this subpart. (5) Performance testing, recordkeeping, and report ing requirements. (6) Certification that the hearing on the state pl an was held, a list of witnesses and their organizatio nal affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written sub mission. (7) Provision for state progress reports to EPA. (8) Identification of enforceable state mechanisms that you selected for implementing the emission gui delines 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 an d content of the emission guidelines contained in thi s 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 cont ained in this subpart. Your state plan must address regulat ory applicability, increments of progress for retrofit,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 299 of 431 operator training and qualification, emission limit s 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 fo r 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 REGIST ER ], 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 cov ered 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 app roved. §60.5030 Is there an approval process for a negati ve declaration letter? No. The EPA has no formal review process for negat ive declaration letters. Once your negative declaratio n letter has been received, EPA will place a copy in the pub licThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 automati cally apply to that SSI unit until your state plan is app roved. §60.5035 What compliance schedule must I include i n my state plan? (a) For SSI units that commenced construction on o r before October 14, 2010, your state plan must inclu de compliance schedules that require SSI units to achi eve final compliance as expeditiously as practicable af ter approval of the state plan but not later than the e arlier 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 app roval, state plans must include dates for enforceable incr ements of progress as specified in §60.5090.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 spec ified in subpart B? Yes. Subpart B establishes general requirements fo r developing and processing section 111(d) state plan s. This subpart applies instead of the requirements in subp art B of this part, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) o f this section: (a) State plans developed to implement this subpar t must be as protective as the emission guidelines co ntained in this subpart. State plans must require all SSI units to comply by the dates specified in §60.5035. This ap plies instead of the option for case-by-case less stringe nt emission standards and longer compliance schedules in §60.24(f). (b) State plans developed to implement this subpar t are required to include two increments of progress for the affected SSI units. These two minimum increments a re the final control plan submittal date and final complia nce date in §60.21(h)(1) and (5). This applies instead of t he requirement of §60.24(e)(1) that would require a st ate plan to include all five increments of progress for all SSI units.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th ere 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 mee ts the requirements of this section. This is the only oth er 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 lega l authority to administer and enforce the federal pla n. (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 st ate plan submittal, was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at t he hearing, and a brief written summary of each presen tation

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 de legationThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 303 of 431 and that serves as the mechanism for the transfer o f 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 t ime of the delegation request, the state also requests wit hdrawal 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 paragrap hs (a) through (g) of this section. (a) Approval of alternatives to the emission limit s 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 draf t 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 recordkeepin g and reporting. (e) The requirements in §60.5175. (f) The requirements in §60.5155(b)(2). (g) Performance test and data reduction waivers un der §60.8(b). §60.5055 Does this subpart directly affect SSI uni t 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 pla n you develop to implement the emission guidelines contai ned 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 t his subpart by [INSERT THE DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DAT E 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 commen ced 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 draf t 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 me et all three criteria described in paragraphs (a)(1) t hrough (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 u nit 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 af ter [INSERT THE DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICA TION IN

THE FEDERAL REGISTER ], the SSI unit becomes subject to subpart LLLL of this part and the state plan no lon ger 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 DAT E 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. Suc h changes do not qualify as modifications under subpa rt LLLL of this part.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 p lan? This subpart exempts combustion units that incinera te sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater t reatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. These units may be subject to another subpart of this par t (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 emissio n guidelines (§§60.5085 through 60.5250) that address es the regulatory requirements applicable to SSI units. T he model rule provides these requirements in regulation form at. You must develop a state plan that is at least as prote ctive as the model rule. You may use the model rule languag e as part of your state plan. Alternative language may be used in your state plan if you demonstrate that the alte rnative language is at least as protective as the model rul e contained in this subpart. (b) In the model rule of §§60.5085 through 60.5250 , “you” and “Administrator” have the meaning specifie d in §60.5250.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 req uired 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 sectio n. (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 calibrati on requirements. (g) Recordkeeping and reporting. (h) Definitions. (i) Tables. Model Rule—Increments of Progress §60.5085 What are my requirements for meeting incr ements of progress and achieving final compliance? If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the effective date of state plan approval , youThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 pr ogress? 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 ha s 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 a fter the compliance date for the increment. §60.5105 What if I do not meet an increment of pro gress?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 m ust submit a notification to the Administrator postmark ed within 10 business days after the date for that inc rement of progress in Table 1 to this subpart. You must i nform the Administrator that you did not meet the increme nt, and you must continue to submit reports each subsequent calendar month until the increment of progress is m et. §60.5110 How do I comply with the increment of pro gress for submittal of a control plan? For your control plan increment of progress, you mu st satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraph s (a) and (b) of this section. (a) Submit the final control plan that includes th e 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 co mply with the emission limits and standards and other requirements of this subpart. (2) The type(s) of waste to be burned, if waste ot her than sewage sludge is burned in the unit. (3) The maximum design sewage sludge burning capacity.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 pro gress for achieving final compliance? For the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete all process changes and retrofit cons truction of control devices, as specified in the final contr ol 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 pl an, 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 li mits, emission standards, and operating limits on the dat e your unit restarts operation. §60.5125 What must I do if I plan to permanently c lose my SSI unit and not restart it?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 comp ly 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 qualif ication requirements? (a) An SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and qualified SSI unit operator is accessib le, either at the facility or can be at the facility wi thin 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct supe rvisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate th e unit. If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you must follow the procedures in §60.5 155. (b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a state-approved program or by com pleting 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 paragrap hs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(x) of this section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 produc ts of combustion. (iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerato r to be used by the operator, including proper startu p, sewage sludge feeding, and shutdown procedures. (iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. (v) Operation of air pollution control equipment a nd factors affecting performance (if applicable). (vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air pollution control devices. (vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to preven t 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 Heal th Administration workplace standards. (x) Pollution prevention. (2) An examination designed and administered by th e state-approved program.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 followi ng completion of the course. §60.5135 When must the operator training course be completed? The operator training course must be completed by t he 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 assume s 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 cri teria under §60.5130(b). (b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training course is completed and the operator succe ssfully passes the examination required under §60.5130(c)(2 ). §60.5145 How do I maintain my operator qualificati on? To maintain qualification, you must complete an ann ual review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, the fiveThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 314 of 431 topics described in paragraphs (a) through (e) of t his 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 b y attendees. §60.5150 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualifi cation? You must renew a lapsed operator qualification befo re you begin operation of an SSI unit by one of the tw o 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 describ ed in §60.5145. (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repea t 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 draf t 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 m eet the criteria specified in either paragraph (a) or (b) o f this section, depending on the length of time that a qua lified operator is not accessible. (a) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r more than 8 hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other plant personnel who are famil iar with the operation of the SSI unit and who have complete d a review of the information specified in §60.5160 wit hin the past 12 months. However, you must record the perio d when a qualified operator was not accessible and include t his deviation in the annual report as specified under §60.5235(d). (b) When a qualified operator is not accessible fo r 2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions that a re described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this s ection. (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 anti cipate that a qualified operator will be accessible. (2) Submit a status report to the Administrator ev ery 4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 access ible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to c ontinue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the fir st status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administ rator of the deviation under paragraph (b)(1) of this sectio n. (i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue operation fo r 30 days, and then must cease operation. (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualifi ed operator is accessible as required under §60.5130(a ). You must notify the Administrator within 5 days of havi ng resumed operations and of having a qualified operat or accessible. §60.5160 What site-specific documentation is requi red and how often must it be reviewed by qualified SSI oper ators 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 s pecified under §60.5230(c)(1) and make the documentation rea dily accessible to all SSI unit operators.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 qual ified 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 i n §60.5230(c)(1) must be conducted within 6 months af ter the effective date of this subpart or prior to an emplo yee'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 fi nal compliance date under the approved state plan, fede ral plan, or delegation, as applicable. The emission l imits and standards apply at all times the unit is operat ing and during periods of malfunction. The emission limits and standards apply to emissions from a bypass stack or ventThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 b een cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage s ludge incineration residence time. §60.5170 What operating limits and requirements mu st 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 spec ified in paragraph (e) of this section. The operating param eters 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 requir ements in paragraph (f) of this section and the requiremen ts in paragraph (g) of this section for meeting any new o perating limits, reestablished in §60.5210. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 cha mber (orThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 afterb urner to comply with an emission limit, you must meet the si tespecific operating limits that you establish in §60 .5190 for each operating parameter associated with each a ir pollution control device. (c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limits, you must install the bag leak dete ction system specified in §60.5225(b)(3)(i) and operate t he 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 speci fied in §60.5210(a)(2)(i). (d) You must meet the operating requirements in yo ur site-specific fugitive emission monitoring plan, su bmitted 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 theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 320 of 431 approved state plan, federal plan, or delegation, a s applicable. (f) You must monitor the feed rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to the sewage slud ge incinerator, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. (1) Continuously monitor the sewage sludge feed ra te and calculate a daily average for all hours of oper ation during each 24-hour period. Keep a record of the d aily average feed rate, as specified in §60.5230(f)(3)(i i). (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 oth er than a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated carbon injection to comp ly with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart , youThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 afterb urner, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to co mply with the emission limits? If you use an air pollution control device other th an a wet scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precip itator, activated carbon injection, or afterburner, or limi t emissions in some other manner (e.g., materials bal ance) to comply with the emission limits in §60.5165, you mu st 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 operat ing 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. You must not conduct the initial performance test u ntilThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 322 of 431 after the petition has been approved by the Adminis trator, and you must comply with the operating limits as wr itten, pending approval by the Administrator. Neither sub mittal 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 list ed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this s ection. (i) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to monitor. (ii) A discussion of the relationship between thes e parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants c hange with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulat ed 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 ass ociated with those parameters for determining compliance. (iv) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitorThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 standard s, and operating limits apply during periods of startup, s hutdown, and malfunction? The emission limits and standards apply at all time s and during periods of malfunction. The operating l imits apply at all times that sewage sludge is in the com bustion 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 a re caused by malfunction, as defined in §60.2. Approp riate penalties may be assessed however, if you fail to m eet your burden of proving all of the requirements in theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 mee t 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 t his section are met. (1) The excess emissions meet the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this sec tion. (i) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, an d unavoidable failure of air pollution control and mo nitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to opera te in a

normal or usual manner. (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and mai ntenance 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 indicati ve of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance. (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were beingThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 325 of 431 exceeded. Offshift and overtime labor were used, t o the extent practicable to make these repairs. (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the exce ss 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 persona l injury, or severe property damage. (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quali ty, the environment and human health. (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems w ere kept in operation if at all possible. (7) Your actions in response to the excess emissio ns were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs. (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizin g emissions. (9) You have prepared a written root cause analysi s to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary ca uses of the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 326 of 431 malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall als o specify, using best monitoring methods and engineer ing 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 no tify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile (fax) trans mission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 business d ays 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 ass ert 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 document ation, that you have met the requirements set forth in par agraph (a) of this section. Model Rule—Initial Compliance Requirements §60.5185 How and when do I demonstrate initial com pliance with the emission limits and standards? To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 to this subpar t, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this s ection. In lieu of using the procedures specified in paragr aph (a)The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 paragr aph (b) of this section for particulate matter, hydrogen ch loride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis o r toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfu r dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must meet the requirements of paragr aphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable, and paragra phs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the perfo rmance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements i n §60.5220(a) and (b). (a) Demonstrate initial compliance using the performance test required in §60.8. You must demon strate that your SSI unit meets the emission limits and st andards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart for parti culate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins /furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling using the perf ormance test. The initial performance test must be conduct ed using the test methods, averaging methods, and minimum sa mpling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to t his subpart and according to the testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements specified in §60.5220(a).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 me ets the emission limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart by your final compliance date (see Tab le 1 to this subpart). (2) You may use the results from a performance tes t conducted within the 2 previous years that was cond ucted under the same conditions and demonstrated complian ce with the emission limits and standards in Table 2 or 3 t o 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 d uring the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits and standards i n 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 continu ous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system. The option to use a continuous em issions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/fu rans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specification applicable to hydrogen ch loride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is published in th eThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al 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 s ubpart for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon m onoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalen cy basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, c admium, and lead, you may substitute the use of a continuou s 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 speci fied in paragraph (b)(1) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the initial performance test for that pollutant in para graph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/fur an performance test in paragraph (a) of this section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 foll ow the requirements specified in §60.5220(b). You must me asure emissions according to §60.13 to calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial comp liance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arith metic average emission concentrations, calculated using E quation 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, as described in pa ragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must: (i) Use the continuous automated sampling system specified in §60.58b(p) and (q), and measure and ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 draf t 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 w ith 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 Performanc e Specification 12B of appendix B of part 75 and Proc edure 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 continu ous automated sampling systems by your final compliance date (see Table 1 to this subpart). Your performance ev aluation must be conducted using the procedures and acceptan ce 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/fu rans 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 draf t 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 isom er concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalenc y 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 tota l 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 t his section, then the provisions of this paragraph (e) apply. If a force majeure is about to occur, occurs, or ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the ini tial performance test as soon as practicable after the f orce majeure occurs. The Administrator will determine w hether or not to grant the extension to the initial perfor mance test deadline, and will notify you in writing of ap proval or disapproval of the request for an extension as s oon as practicable. Until an extension of the performance testThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 333 of 431 deadline has been approved by the Administrator, yo u remain strictly subject to the requirements of this subpar t. §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 t his 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 confir m these operating limits or reestablish new operating limit s using the most recent performance tests required in §60.5 205. You must follow the data measurement and recording frequencies and data averaging times specified in T able 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 e stablish operating limits for the operating parameters liste d in Table 4 to this subpart for a control device if you use a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce 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 o f hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, you are not r equired to establish an operating limit and monitor pressur e dropThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 sy stem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for hydrogen chl oride or sulfur dioxide. (2) For a scrubber designed to control emissions o f particulate matter, cadmium, and lead, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monitor pressur e drop across the scrubber, scrubber liquid flow rate, and scrubber pH if you use the continuous monitoring sy stem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, cadmium, or lead. (3) For an electrostatic precipitator designed to control emissions of particulate matter, cadmium, a nd lead, you are not required to establish an operating limi t and monitor secondary voltage of the collection plates, secondary amperage of the collection plates, and ef fluent water flow rate at the outlet of the electrostatic precipitator if you use the continuous monitoring s ystem specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for particulate matter, lead, or cadmium.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 335 of 431 (4) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of mercury, you are not requir ed to establish an operating limit and monitor mercury so rbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate (or carrie r gas pressure drop) if you use the continuous monitoring system specified in §§60.4865(b) and 60.4885(b) to demonst rate compliance with the emission limit for mercury. (5) For an activated carbon injection system desig ned to control emissions of dioxins/furans, you are not required to establish an operating limit and monito r 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 emiss ion 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 cadm ium emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, eq ual 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 lowes t hourlyThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 336 of 431 average liquid flow rate recorded during three perf ormance test run periods. (d) Minimum scrubber liquid pH for each wet scrubb er used to meet the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chlorid e emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart, equ al to the lowest hourly average scrubber liquid pH measur ed during the three performance test run periods at th e inlet to each applicable wet scrubber. (e) If you do not use an afterburner to comply wit h the requirements of this rule, minimum combustion c hamber operating temperature, equal to the lowest hourly a verage combustion chamber operating temperature recorded d uring three performance test run periods. (f) If you use an afterburner to comply with the requirement of this rule, minimum afterburner combu stion 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 performan ce test run periods. Power input must be calculated as the product of the secondary voltage and secondary amperage to theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 337 of 431 electrostatic precipitator, both recorded during th ree 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 t he electrostatic precipitator recorded during three performance test run periods. (i) For activated carbon injection, establish the site-specific operating limits specified in paragra phs (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 sor bent injection rate recorded during three performance te st run periods. (3) Minimum carrier gas flow rate or minimum carri er gas pressure drop, as follows: (i) Minimum carrier gas flow rate, equal to the lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorde d during three performance test run periods.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 338 of 431 (ii) Minimum carrier gas pressure drop, equal to t he lowest hourly average carrier gas flow rate recorde d during three performance test run periods. (j) You must confirm your operating limits or reestablish new operating limits according to §60.5 210(d). §60.5195 By what date must I conduct the initial a ir pollution control device inspection and make any ne cessary repairs? (a) You must conduct an air pollution control devi ce inspection according to §60.5220(c) by the final co mpliance date under the approved state plan, federal plan, o r delegation, as applicable. For air pollution contr ol 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 complet ed unless you obtain written approval from the Adminis trator establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs o f the SSI unit must be completed. §60.5200 How do I develop a site-specific monitori ng plan for my continuous monitoring systems, bag leak dete ction system, and ash handling system, and by what date m ust IThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 339 of 431 conduct an initial performance evaluation of my con tinuous monitoring systems and bag leak detection system? You must develop and submit to the Administrator fo r approval a site-specific monitoring plan for each continuous monitoring system required under this su bpart, according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) thr ough (c) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the Administrator for alternative moni toring parameters under §60.13(i) and paragraph (e) of thi s section. If you use a continuous automated samplin g system to comply with the mercury or dioxin/furan (total m ass basis or toxic equivalency basis) emission limits, you must develop your monitoring plan as specified in §60.58 b(q), and you are not required to meet the requirements i n paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must a lso submit a site-specific monitoring plan for your ash handling system, as specified in paragraph (d) of t his section. You must submit and update your monitorin g 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 requi rements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of th is section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 340 of 431 (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring syst em sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that th e measurement is representative of control of the exh aust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last contr ol device). (2) Performance and equipment specifications for t he sample interface, the pollutant concentration or pa rametric signal analyzer and the data collection and reducti on systems. (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptan ce criteria. (i) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, y our 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 duratio n of out-of-control periods will affect the suitabili ty ofThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 341 of 431 CEMS data, where out-of-control has the meaning giv en 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 perf ormance specifications and quality assurance procedures. (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures i n 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 ou t 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 t he applicable calibration drift specification in the applicable performance specification or in the rele vant

standard.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 342 of 431 (B) The continuous emissions monitoring system fai ls a performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit) , relative accuracy audit, relative accuracy test aud it, or linearity test audit. (ii) When the continuous emissions monitoring syst em is out of control as specified in paragraph (a)(7)( i) of this section, you must take the necessary correctiv e action and must repeat all necessary tests that indicate t hat the system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct retesting until the performance require ments are below the applicable limits. The beginning of the outof-control period is the hour you conduct a perform ance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance requirements establis hed under this part. The end of the out-of-control per iod is the hour following the completion of corrective act ion and successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable limits. (8) Schedule for conducting initial and periodic performance evaluations of your continuous monitori ng systems in accordance with your site-specific monit oring plan.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 f ollowing items: (1) Installation of the bag leak detection system. (2) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag lea k 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 schedul e 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 t he operating procedures for your ash handling system t hat you will follow to ensure that that your meet the fugit ive emissions limit specified in Table 2 or 3 to this s ubpart.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 sta ndards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of parag raphs (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 l onger averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed levels achieved over the duration of three performa nce test

runs. (2) If the application to use an alternate monitor ing requirement is approved, you must continue to use t he original monitoring requirement until approval is r eceived to use another monitoring requirement. (3) You must submit the application for approval o f 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, su ch as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the required approach.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 par ameter to be monitored, the monitoring approach and techni que, the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit i s to be

calculated. (iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring requirement would provide eq uivalent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. (4) The Administrator will notify you of the appro val or denial of the application within 90 calendar day s after receipt of the original request, or within 60 calen dar days of the receipt of any supplementary information, wh ichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an al ternate monitoring application unless it would provide equi valent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. Before disapproving any alterna te monitoring application, the Administrator will prov ide the following: (i) Notice of the information and findings upon wh ich the intended disapproval is based. (ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting information before final acti on is taken on the application. This notice will specify howThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 support ing information in a timely manner to enable the Admini strator to consider the application prior to the performanc e test. Neither submittal of an application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove th e application relieves you of the responsibility to c omply with any provision of this subpart. (6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case basis that additional or alternative o perating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing o perating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance wit h 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 th is section, at least 60 days before your initial compl iance

test date. (h) You must update and resubmit your monitoring p lan if there are any changes or potential changes in yo urThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 347 of 431 monitoring procedures or if there is a process chan ge, 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 emiss ion limits and standards specified in Table 2 or 3 to t his subpart, use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In lieu of using the procedures spec ified 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 part iculate matter, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins /furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), merc ury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, cadmium, lead, and fugitive emissions from ash handling. You must mee t the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sect ion, as applicable, and paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section, according to the performance testing, monitoring, a nd calibration requirements in §60.5220(a) and (b). Y ou may also petition the Administrator for alternative mon itoring parameters as specified in paragraph (f) of this se ction. (a) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a performance test. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3)The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 348 of 431 and (e) of this section, following the date that th e initial performance test for each pollutant in Tabl e 2 or 3 to this subpart is completed, you must conduct a performance test for each such pollutant on a calen dar year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more t han 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 perf ormance test must be conducted using the test methods, aver aging methods, and minimum sampling volumes or durations specified in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart and accor ding to the testing, monitoring, and calibration requiremen ts specified in §60.5220(a). (1) You may conduct a repeat performance test at a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. The Administrator m ay 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 t est for any pollutant in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart demonstrates that the emission level for the pollut ant is no greater than the emission level specified in par agraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applica ble, andThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 Administr ator in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a process chang e 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 pol lutant. 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 testin g under this paragraph. (i) For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, car bon monoxide, dioxin/furans (total mass basis or toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfu r dioxide, cadmium, and lead, the emission level equa l 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 350 of 431 (4) If you are conducting less frequent testing fo r a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection and a subsequent performance test for the pollutant indicates that your SSI unit does not meet the emis sion level specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii ) of this section, as applicable, you must conduct annua l performance tests for the pollutant according to th e schedule specified in paragraph (a) of this section until you qualify for less frequent testing for the pollu tant as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. (b) Demonstrate continuous compliance using a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuou s automated sampling system. The option to use a con tinuous emissions monitoring system for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on th e date a final performance specification applicable to hydro gen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead is publi shed 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 s uch a continuous automated sampling system is published i n the Federal Register . Collect data as specified in §60.5220(b)(6) and use the following procedures:The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 ch loride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans (total mass basis o r toxic equivalency basis), mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfu r 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) o f this section, as follows: (i) You may substitute the use of a continuous emissions monitoring system for any pollutant speci fied in paragraph (b)(1) of this section in lieu of conduct ing the annual performance test for that pollutant in parag raph (a) of this section. (ii) You may substitute the use of a continuous automated sampling system for mercury or dioxins/fu rans in lieu of conducting the annual mercury or dioxin/fur an 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 (orThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 352 of 431 carbon dioxide). You must demonstrate initial comp liance using a 24-hour block average of these 1-hour arith metic average emission concentrations, calculated using E quation 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 sys tem to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissi on 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 ca lculate average emissions corrected to 7 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide) according to §60.58b(p) and your monitorin g 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 w ith 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 samp ling 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 draf t 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 performanc e evaluations required in your monitoring plan for an y continuous emissions monitoring systems and continu ous automated sampling systems, according to the schedu le specified in your monitoring plan. If you were pre viously determining compliance by conducting an annual perf ormance test (or according to the less frequent testing for a pollutant as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this s ection), you must complete the initial performance evaluatio n required under your monitoring plan in §60.5200 for the continuous monitoring system prior to using the con tinuous emissions monitoring system to demonstrate complian ce or continuous automated sampling system. Your perform ance evaluation must be conducted using the procedures a nd acceptance criteria specified in §60.5200(a)(3). (c) To demonstrate compliance with the dioxins/fur ans toxic equivalency emission limit in paragraph (a) o r (b) of this section, you must determine dioxins/furans tox ic 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 draf t 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 isom er concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalenc y 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 tota l 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 deviat ion report as specified in §60.5235(d) for each instanc e 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 ha s occurred for which you intend to assert a claim of force majeure, you must notify the Administrator in writi ng as specified in §60.5235(g). You must conduct the per formance 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 willThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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. U ntil 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 com pliance, 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 complianc e with my operating limits? You must continuously monitor your operating parameters as specified in paragraph (a) of this se ction and meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, according to the monitoring and calibratio n requirements in §60.5225. You must confirm and ree stablish 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 equipm ent and according to the procedures specified in §60.5225 o r established in §60.5175. Four-hour rolling average valuesThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 differ ent averaging period is established under §60.5175. (1) You must demonstrate that the SSI unit meets t he 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 t he operating limit for bag leak detection systems as f ollows: (i) For a bag leak detection system, you must

calculate the alarm time as follows: (A) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrate s that no corrective action is required, no alarm tim e is

counted. (B) If corrective action is required, each alarm t ime 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 ti me 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 spec ified in §60.5170(c).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 r ange of the operating limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from your operating limits established under this subpart, except during perfo rmance tests conducted to determine compliance with the em ission 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 subpar t. (c) You must submit the annual compliance report specified in §60.5235(c) to demonstrate continuous compliance. (d) You must confirm your operating limits accordi ng to paragraph (d)(1) of this section or reestablish operating limits according to paragraph (d)(2) of t his section. Your operating limits must be established so as to assure ongoing compliance with the emission limi ts. 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 operati ng data recorded during any performance test conducted toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 358 of 431 comply with this subpart or any performance evaluat ion required under §60.5205(b)(4). (2) You may conduct a repeat performance test at a ny time to establish new values for the operating limi ts to apply from that point forward. §60.5215 By what date must I conduct annual air po llution control device inspections and make any necessary r epairs? (a) You must conduct an annual inspection of each air pollution control device used to comply with the em ission limits, according to §60.5220(c), within 10 to 12 m onths 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 approva l from the Administrator establishing a date whereby all n ecessary repairs of the affected SSI unit must be completed. Model Rule—Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Cal ibration Requirements §60.5220 What are the performance testing, monitor ing, and calibration requirements for compliance with the em ission limits and standards? You must meet, as applicable, the performance testi ng requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this sec tion,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 insp ections requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this sec tion, and the bypass stack provisions specified in paragr aph (d) of this section. (a) Performance testing requirements

. (1) All performance tests must consist of a minimu m of three test runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations, as specified i n § 60.8(c). Emissions in excess of the emission limit s or standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are considered deviations from the appl icable emission limits or standards. (2) You must document that the dry sludge burned during the performance test is representative of th e sludge burned under normal operating conditions by: (i) Maintaining a log of the quantity of sewage sludge burned during the performance test by contin uously monitoring and recording the average hourly rate th at 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 incine rator for each 8 hour period that testing is conducted.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t his 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, includin g measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 must be used simultaneous ly with

each method. (6) All pollutant concentrations must be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section:

C adj = C meas (20.9–7)/(20.9-%O 2 ) (Eq. 1) Where:

C adj = Pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent

oxygen. C meas = Pollutant concentration measured on a dry

basis. (20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen -7 percent oxygen (d efined

oxygen correction basis). 20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. %O 2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis,

percent.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 pro cedures 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 th e results of which he has determined to be adequate f or indicating whether a specific source is in complian ce. (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 variabl es or other factors. Nothing in this paragraph is constr ued to abrogate the Administrator's authority to require t esting 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 a s specified under other subparts, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present. If af ter 30 days notice for an initially scheduled performance test,The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 perform ance 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 emiss ion rates can be accurately determined by applicable te st methods and procedures. (B) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flo w during performance tests, as demonstrated by applic able 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, e ach performance test must consist of three separate run s using the applicable test method. Each run must be condu cted forThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 me an of the three runs. In the event that a sample is acci dentally lost or conditions occur in which one of the three runs must be discontinued because of forced shutdown, fa ilure of an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extre me meteorological conditions, or other circumstances, beyond your control, compliance may, upon the Administrato r's approval, be determined using the arithmetic mean o f the

results of the two other runs. (11) During each test run specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must operate your sewag e sludge incinerator at a minimum of 85 percent of your maxi mum permitted capacity. (b) Continuous monitor requirements . You must meet the following requirements, as applicable, when usi ng a continuous monitoring system to demonstrate complia nce with the emission limits in Table 2 or 3 to this subpart . The option to use a continuous emissions monitoring sys tem for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, cadmium, or lead takes effect on the date a final performance specificatio n applicable to hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, ca dmium, or lead is published in the Federal Register . If you electThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 364 of 431 to use a continuous emissions monitoring system ins tead of conducting annual performance testing, you must mee t the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. If you elect to use a continuous automate d sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must meet the requirements of paragrap h (b)(7) of this section. The option to use a continuous au tomated sampling system for dioxins/furans takes effect on the date a final performance specification for such a contin uous automated sampling system is published in the Feder al Register

. (1) You must notify the Administrator 1 month befo re starting use of the continuous emissions monitoring system. (2) You must notify the Administrator 1 month befo re stopping use of the continuous emissions monitoring system, in which case you must also conduct a performance t est within prior to ceasing operation of the system. (3) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring a nd recording the emissions to the atmosphere in accord ance 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 365 of 431 (A) For particulate matter, Performance Specificat ion 11 of appendix B of this part. (B) For hydrogen chloride, Performance Specificati on 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 a ccuracy determinations and daily calibration drift tests) o f appendix F of this part specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (b)(3)(iii)(G) of this secti on. For each pollutant, the span value of the continuous em issions monitoring system is two times the applicable emiss ion limit, expressed as a concentration. (A) For particulate matter, Procedure 2 in appendi x F of this part.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 acc uracyThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 367 of 431 testing must be at representative operating conditi ons while the SSI unit is charging sewage sludge. (i) For particulate matter, Method 5 at 40 CFR par t 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 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, or as an alternative AST M D6784– 02 Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Pa rticle Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from CoalFired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)(incorporated by reference, see §60.17), sha ll 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 America n National Standards Institute/American Society of Me chanical Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 Flue and Exhaust Gas Analy sesThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t hat have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per mill ion dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for the inl et of the sulfur dioxide continuous emissions monitoring system should be no greater than 20 percent of the mean va lue of the method test data in terms of the units of the e mission standard, or 5 parts per million dry volume absolut e value of the mean difference between the method and the continuous emissions monitoring system, whichever i s greater. (viii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide as establishe d in (b)(5) of this section), Method 3A or 3B at 40 C FR part 60, appendix A-2, or as an alternative American Nat ional Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Ana lyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used

. (5) You may request that compliance with the emiss ion limits be determined using carbon dioxide measureme nts 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 leve ls must be established during the initial performance testThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 369 of 431 according to the procedures and methods specified i n paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iv) of this sec tion. This relationship may be re-established during subs equent performance compliance tests. (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B at 40 CF R 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 Nationa l Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC 19.10–1981 — Flue and Exhaust Gas Ana lyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (incorporated by reference, see §60.17), as applicable, must be used to determine the oxygen concentration at the same loca tion 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 uni t is operating and at the intervals specified in paragra phThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 monito ring system quality assurance or quality control activit ies (including, as applicable, calibration checks and r equired zero and span adjustments). (ii) You must collect continuous emissions monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be include d in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods must be reported in a deviation re port. (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 calculati ons used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfu nction as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a d eviation report. (v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except those periods specified in paragraph sThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol system. (7) If you elect to use a continuous automated sampling system instead of conducting annual perfor mance testing, you must: (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system according to t he 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 inspectio ns 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 equi pment. (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 draf t 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 by pass stack during a performance test invalidates the per formance

test. §60.5225 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for compliance with my operating limit s? (a) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain the continuous parameter monitoring system s for measuring flow, pressure, pH, and operating tempera ture according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section: (1) Meet the following general requirements for fl ow, pressure, pH, and operating temperature measurement devices: (i) You must collect data using the continuous monitoring system at all times the affected SSI uni t is operating and at the intervals specified in paragra ph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monito ring system quality assurance or quality control activit iesThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 373 of 431 (including, as applicable, calibration checks and r equired zero and span adjustments). (ii) You must collect continuous parameter monitor ing system data in accordance with §60.13(e)(2). (iii) Any data collected during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring sy stem malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities must not be include d in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods must be reported in your annual de viation 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 calculati ons used to report emissions or operating levels. Any such periods that do not coincide with a monitoring system malfu nction, as defined in §60.5250, constitute a deviation from the monitoring requirements and must be reported in a d eviation report. (v) You must use all the data collected during all periods except those periods specified in paragraph s (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of this section in asses sing the operation of the control device and associated cont rol system.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t he 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 representat ive

flow. (B) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivi ty of 2 percent of the flow rate. (C) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream distur bances. (D) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at lea st semi-annually. (E) For carrier gas flow rate monitors (for activa ted carbon injection), during the performance test cond ucted pursuant to §60.5205, you must demonstrate that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accuracy, accordi ng to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this cha pter.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th at provides a representative measurement of the pressu re. (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 peri odically to minimize pressure tap pluggage). (E) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transduc er calibration monthly. (F) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operat ing 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 demonstrat e that the system is maintained within +/-5 percent accura cy.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t he following requirements: (A) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provid es a representative measurement of scrubber effluent p H. (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 m eet the following requirements: (A) Locate the temperature sensor and other necess ary equipment in a position that provides a representat ive temperature. (B) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolera nce of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 1 .0 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, for a noncryogenic temperature range. (C) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolera nce of 2.3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), or 2 .5 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larg er, 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 draf t 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 system s for voltage, amperage, mass flow rate, and bag leak det ection system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b )(3) of this section. (1) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of equipment to monitor secondary voltage and s econdary amperage (or power input) of an electrostatic preci pitator, you must use secondary voltage and secondary ampera ge monitoring equipment to measure secondary voltage a nd secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitato r. (2) If you have an operating limit that requires t he use of equipment to monitor mass flow rate for sorb ent injection (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hoppe r flow measurement device), you must meet the following requirements: (i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provid es a representative measurement of the total sorbent i njection

rate. (ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordanc e 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 draf t 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 detect ion system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter. (B) Each bag leak detection system must be install ed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner co nsistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance provided in Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan dards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA– 454/R–98–015, September 1997 (incorporated by refer ence, see §60.17). (C) The bag leak detection system must be certifie d by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting part iculate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. (D) The bag leak detection system sensor must prov ide output of relative or absolute particulate matter l oadings. (E) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output sig nal from

the sensor.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 o ver a preset level is detected. The alarm must be locate d where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. (G) For positive pressure fabric filter systems th at do not duct all compartments of cells to a common s tack, 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 share d 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, a nd you must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hou rs of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) a re necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following: (A) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, to rn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condit ion that may cause an increase in particulate matter emissio ns.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 o r 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 paragraph s (a) and (b) of this section in continuous operation acc ording to your monitoring plan required under §60.5200. (d) If your SSI unit has a bypass stack, you must install, calibrate (to manufacturers' specification s), maintain, and operate a device or method for measur ing the use of the bypass stack including date, time, and d uration. Model Rule—Recordkeeping and Reporting §60.5230 What records must I keep? You must maintain the items (as applicable) specifi ed 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 th at canThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 381 of 431 be printed upon request, unless an alternative form at 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, repo rted under §60.5235. (c) Operator Training. Documentation of the operator training procedures and records specified in paragr aphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must ma ke 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 traini ng procedures and information: (i) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart. (ii) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feedi ng sewage sludge. (iii) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfuncti on preventative and corrective procedures. (iv) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply levels.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 n umber at which they can be reached during operating hours. (2) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s and other plant personnel who may operate the unit according to the provisions of §60.5155(a), as foll ows: (i) Records showing the names of SSI unit operator s 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 r eview and all subsequent annual reviews. (ii) Records showing the names of the SSI operator s who have completed the operator training requiremen ts under §60.5130, met the criteria for qualification underThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 383 of 431 §60.5140, and maintained or renewed their qualifica tion under §60.5145 or §60.5150. Records must include documentation of training, including the dates of t heir initial qualification and all subsequent renewals o f such qualifications. (3) Records showing the periods when no qualified operators were accessible for more than 8 hours, bu t 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 po llution control device inspections conducted as specified i n §§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 a nd/or to establish operating limits, as applicable.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 ra te 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 re cord of the moisture content measured as required in §60.5220(a)(2)(ii) for each grab sample taken of th e sewage sludge burned during the performance test. (f) Continuous monitoring data. Records of the following data, as applicable: (1) For continuous emissions monitoring systems, a ll 1-hour average concentrations of particulate matter , hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans total mass basis, mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxid e, 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 draf t 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 fl ow rate and pH as introduced to each wet scrubber used to c omply with an emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this subp art 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 e ffluent

water flow rate at the outlet of the wet electrosta tic precipitator. (D) If activated carbon injection is used to compl y with the rule, mercury sorbent flow rate and carrie r gas flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable. (ii) All daily average values recorded for the fee d rate and moisture content of the sewage sludge fed to theThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th e rule, the date, time, and duration of each alarm an d 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 t he 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 parameter s used to determine compliance with the operating limits, at the frequencies specified in your monitoring plan. (g) Other records for continuous monitoring system s . 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 stop ping 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 determi ned using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 387 of 431 (3) If activated carbon injection is used to compl y with the rule, the type of sorbent used and any cha nges 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 rece ived from vendors for the incinerator, emission controls , and monitoring equipment. (j) Inspections, calibrations, and validation chec ks of monitoring devices. Records of inspections, calibration, and validation checks of any monitorin g devices as required under §§60.5220 and 60.5225. (k) Monitoring plan and performance evaluations fo r continuous monitoring systems. Records of the monitoring plans required under §60.5200, and records of perfo rmance evaluations required under §60.5205(b)(5). (l) Less frequent testing. Any records required to document that your SSI unit qualifies for less freq uent testing under §60.5205(a)(3). (m) Use of bypass stack. Records indicating use of the bypass stack, including dates, times, and durat ions as required under §60.5225(d).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 th is subpart for a summary of these reports. (a) Increments of progress report . If you plan to achieve compliance more than 1 year following the e ffective date of state plan approval, you must submit the fo llowing reports, as applicable: (1) A final control plan as specified in §§60.5085 (a) and 60.5110. (2) You must submit your notification of achieveme nt of increments of progress no later than 10 business days after the compliance date for the increment as spec ified in §§60.5095 and 60.5100. (3) If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a notification to the Administrator pos tmarked within 10 business days after the date for that inc rement, as specified in §60.5105. (4) If you plan to close your SSI unit rather than comply with the state plan, submit a closure notifi cation as specified in §60.5125. (b) Initial compliance report. You must submit the following information no later than 60 days followi ng the initial performance test.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t he 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 res ults of that initial performance evaluation. (6) The values for the site-specific operating lim its established pursuant to §§60.5170 and 60.5175 and t he calculations and methods, as applicable, used to es tablish each operating limit. (7) If you are using a fabric filter to comply wit h the emission limits, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been installed and is being op erated, calibrated, and maintained as required by §60.5170( b). (8) The results of the initial air pollution contr ol device inspection required in §60.5195, including a description of repairs.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 390 of 431 (9) The site-specific monitoring plan required und er §60.5200, at least 60 days before your initial perf ormance evaluation of your continuous monitoring system. (10) The site-specific monitoring plan for your as h handling system required under §60.5200, at least 6 0 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 li sted in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of this section f or the reporting period specified in paragraph (c)(3) of t his section. You must submit your first annual complia nce report no later than 12 months following the submis sion of the initial compliance report in paragraph (b) of t his section. You must submit subsequent annual complia nce reports no more than 12 months following the previo us 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 draf t 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 t he 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 t est. (i) If operating limits were established during th e performance test, include the value for each operat ing limit and, as applicable, the method used to establ ish each operating limit, including calculations. (ii) If activated carbon is used during the performance test, include the type of activated car bon

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-h our average during the reporting period, as applicable. (6) If there are no deviations during the reportin g period from any emission limit, emission standard, or operating limit that applies to you, a statement th at there were no deviations from the emission limits, emissi on standard, or operating limits.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 tha t performance evaluation. If new operating limits we re established during the performance evaluation, incl ude your calculations for establishing those operating limit s. (9) If you met the requirements of §60.5205(a)(3) and did not conduct a performance test during the repor ting period, you must include the dates of the last thre e performance tests, a comparison of the emission lev el 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 th ere have been any process changes and whether the process ch ange resulted in an increase in emissions. (10) Documentation of periods when all qualified sewage sludge incineration unit operators were unav ailable for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. (11) Results of annual air pollution control devic e inspections recorded under §60.5230(d) for the repo rting period, including a description of repairs. (12) If there were no periods during the reporting period when your continuous monitoring systems had aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 malf unction. (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 du ring which your continuous monitoring systems were out o f

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 perio d, a statement that you did not make any revisions to yo ur sitespecific monitoring plan during the reporting perio d. 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 subp art. (ii) The bag leak detection system alarm sounds fo r more than 5 percent of the operating time for the 6 -month reporting period.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 emissio n limit. (iv) There are visible emissions of combustion ash from an ash conveying system for more than 5 percen t of the hourly observation period. (v) A performance test was conducted that deviated from any emission limit in Table 2 or 3 to this sub part. (vi) A continuous monitoring system was out of

control. (vii) You had a malfunction (e.g., continuous monitoring system malfunction) that caused or may h ave caused any applicable emission limit to be exceeded

. (2) The deviation report must be submitted by Augu st 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year (January 1 to June 30), and by Fe bruary 1 of the following year for data you collected during the second half of the calendar year (July 1 to Decembe r 31). (3) For each deviation where you are using a continuous monitoring system to comply with an asso ciated emission limit or operating limit, report the items described in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(vi ii) of this section.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 tha t official’s name, title, and signature, certifying t he accuracy of the content of the report. (iii) The calendar dates and times your unit devia ted from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating limits requirements. (iv) The averaged and recorded data for those date s. (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 o ut 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 396 of 431 (A) The date and time that each malfunction starte d and stopped. (B) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was inoperative, except for zero (lowlevel) and high-level checks. (C) The date, time, and duration that each continu ous monitoring system was out of control, including sta rt 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 sys tem as out of control, or during another period. (E) A summary of the total duration of the deviati on during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during t hat reporting period. (F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those t hat 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 per iod, and the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtimeThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 occ urred during that reporting period. (H) An identification of each parameter and pollut ant that was monitored at the SSI unit. (I) A brief description of the SSI unit. (J) A brief description of the continuous monitori ng 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 ass ociated emission limit or operating limit, report the follo wing items:. (i) Company name, physical address, and mailing

address. (ii) Statement by a responsible official, with tha t official's name, title, and signature, certifying t he 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 398 of 431 (iv) The calendar dates and times your unit deviat ed from the emission limits, emission standards, or op erating 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 stan dards. (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 wit h §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 draf t 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 para graphs (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 Administrato r, under the provisions of §60.5155(b)(2)(i), due to a failure to provide an accessible qualified operator, you mu st notify the Administrator within five days of meetin g §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 kn ew, or through due diligence, should have known that the e vent mayThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 notificatio n must occur before the performance test deadline unless t he initial force majeure or a subsequent force majeure event delays the notice, and in such cases, the notificat ion must occur as soon as practicable. (2) You must provide to the Administrator a writte n description of the force majeure event and a ration ale 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 minim ize 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 befo re 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 com ply with the provisions of this subpart, to afford the Admin istrator the opportunity to have an observer present.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 notif y 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 complianc e with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data to EPA by succ essfully submitting the data electronically into EPA’s Centr al Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (se e 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 rep orting dates. See §60.19(c) for procedures to seek approv al to change your reporting date. Model Rule—Title V Operating Permits §60.5240 Am I required to apply for and obtain a t itle V operating permit for my existing SSI unit?The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 402 of 431 Yes, if you are subject to an applicable EPA-approv ed and effective Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 stat e 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 specifie d in §60.5065. §60.5245 When must I submit a title V permit appli cation for my existing SSI unit? (a) If your existing SSI unit is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete tit le V permit application must be submitted on or before t he 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 403 of 431 (b) For any existing unit not subject to an earlie r permit application deadline, the application deadli ne of 36 months after the promulgation of this subpart appli es regardless of whether or when any applicable federa l plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable Cle an Air Act section 111(d)/129 state or tribal plan is appr oved 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 fo r a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraphs (a) and (b). If more than one requireme nt 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 f irst causes the source to be subject to title V. (See s ection 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 C FR 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 Cl ean AirThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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). Yo u must submit a complete permit application by the relevan t 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 defi ned 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, t he 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 f orward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has t he burden of proof, and the merits of which are indepe ndently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administ rative proceeding.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 i n the exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) in orde r to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system i ncludes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittanc e, or other principle to monitor relative particulate mat ter 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 colle ction and sample recovery/analysis to determine a polluta nt concentration or emission rate by collecting a sing le 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 draf t 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 re cording the emissions of a pollutant from an affected facil ity. Continuous monitoring system (CMS) means a continuous emissions monitoring system, continuous automated s ampling system, continuous parameter monitoring system or o ther manual or automatic monitoring that is used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulat ion on a continuous basis as defined by this subpart. The t erm refers to the total equipment used to sample and co ndition (if applicable), to analyze, and to provide a perma nent record of emissions or process parameters. Continuous parameter monitoring system means a monitoring system for continuously measuring and re cording operating conditions associated with air pollution control device systems (e.g., operating temperature, pressu re, and power). Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or oper ator of

such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limi ted to any emission limit, operating limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirements.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 t his subpart and that is included in the operating permi t for any affected source required to obtain such a permi t. 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, wat er to remove pollutants in the exit gas from a sewage slu dge 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 filter ing gas streams through filter media, also known as a bagho use. 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 th e combustion chamber gas. Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution con trol and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a proce ss toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 op eration are not malfunctions. During periods of malfunctio n, 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 s ewage sludge feed to the combustor has been cut off for a period of time not less than the sewage sludge incineratio n residence time) or until the malfunction ceases, wh ichever

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 li fe 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 dol lars). To determine what systems are within the boundary o f the SSI unit used to calculate these costs, see the def inition of SSI unit. (2) Any physical change in the SSI unit or change in the method of operating it that increases the amoun t of anyThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 409 of 431 air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or sect ion 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 attache d to the rotating shaft. Dewatered sludge enters at the top and proceeds downward through the furnace from hearth t o hearth, pushed along by the rabble arms. Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight during which an y amount of sewage sludge is combusted at any time in the SS I unit. Particulate matter means filterable particulate matter emitted from SSI units as measured by Method 5 at 4 0 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or Methods 26A or 29 at 40 CF R part 60, appendix A-8. Power input to the electrostatic precipitator means the product of the test-run average secondary volta ge and the test-run average secondary amperage to the electrostatic precipitator collection plates.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 e mission units for which the proposed permit revision is app licable, including but not limited to: (1) A change in the process employed at the wastewater treatment facility associated with the a ffected SSI unit (e.g., the addition of tertiary treatment at the facility, which changes the method used for disposi ng of process solids and processing of the sludge prior t o incineration). (2) A change in the air pollution control devices used to comply with the emission limits for the aff ected SSI unit (e.g., change in the sorbent used for acti vated 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 remove d in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatmen t processes; and a material derived from sewage sludg e. Sewage sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinera tion unit or grit and screenings generated during prelim inary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 remo ving combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration uni t 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 treatmen t plant, or air pollution control facility and other discard ed material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or co ntained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commerc ial, 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 permi ts under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclea r, 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 draf t 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., na tural 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 estimat e of the compound-specific toxicity relative to tetrachlorin ated dibenzo-p-dioxin, referred to as the toxic equivale ncy 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 scrubbi ng liquid to collect particulate matter (including non vaporous 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 draf t 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—Incre ments of Progress and Compliance Schedules for Existing Sewa ge Sludge Incineration Units Comply with these increments of

progress By these dates a Increment 1—Submit final control plan (Dates to be specified in state plan) Increment 2—Final compliance (Dates to be specified in state plan) b

a Site-specific schedules can be used at the discreti on of the state. b The date can be no later than 3 years after the eff ective 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, 201 0. Table 2 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Fluidized Bed Sew age Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Particulate matter 18 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a minimum volume of 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 part60, appendix A8).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 414 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Carbon monoxide 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 sta ndard 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 D6784-02 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 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 part60, appendix A4).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 415 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method 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

(coll ect 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 oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions.The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 dioxi n/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 Metho d for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercu ry in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io Hydro Method) Table 3 to Subpart MMMM of Part 60—Model Rule—Emiss ion Limits and Standards for Existing Multiple Hearth S ewage Sludge Incineration Units

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method Particulate matter 80 milligrams

per dry standard cubic meter 3-run average

(collect a mini mum 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, co llect 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 part60, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 417 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method 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 D6784-02 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, 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 part60, 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 draf t rule

under EO 12866. They are subject to further policy review. Page 418 of 431

For the air pollutant You must meet

this emission limit a Using these

averaging methods and minimum sampling volumes or durations And determining compliance using this method 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).

a All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxyge n, dry basis at standard conditions. b You have the option to comply with either the dioxi n/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 Metho d for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercu ry in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontar io Hydro Method).The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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—Opera ting Parameters for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a

For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum

frequencies

Data measurement Data

recording b 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 providedin §60.4850 and is not established on a sitespecific basis)The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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

recording b 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 injecti on 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

AfterburnerThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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

recording b 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

a As specified in §60.5190 , you may use a continuous emissions monitoring system or continuous automated sampling system in lieu of establishing certain operating limits. b This recording time refers to the minimum frequency that the continuous monitor or other measuring device initia lly records data. For all data recorded every 15 minutes, you must calculate hourly arithmetic averages. For all parameters, yo u use hourly averages to calculate the 4-hour rolling averages t o demonstrate compliance. You maintain records of 1-hour average s. c Calculated 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 11,2,3,7,8-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 0.3The comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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—Summa ry of Reporting Requirements for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units a Repo rt 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 draf t 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 CMS b performance evaluation • The values forthe 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 sitespecificThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 draf t 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 aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 thatThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 draf t 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, aThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 draf t 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 toThe comments reflect interagency review of the draf t 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 performa nce test conduct a rescheduled performance test to comply with this subpart a This table is only a summary, see the referenced se ctions of the rule for the complete requirements. b CMS means continuous monitoring system.